HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-12 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of July t2, 2000
July 17, 2000
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to order.
4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
· There were none.
5.1 Set public hearing to amend Chapter 16 of the County
Code to add Section 15-500, Conservation of Water During
Emergencies.
· Public hearing set for August 2, 2000 at 11:40 a.m.
5.2 Selection of the Virginia Municipal League to provide the
County's Property and Liability Insurance coverage and
adopt resolution authorizing membership in the Virginia
Municipal Liability Pool.
· ACCEPTED the Virginia Municipal League as the County's
insurance provider and ADOPTED the attached resolution
authorizing membership in the Virginia Municipal League.
6. SP-00-007. Church of the Cross (Sh:ln # 44).
· APPROVED subject to the eight conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission, as amended.
7. SP-00-11 CFW Intelos - CV201 (Rt. 676) (Sign ir26).
· DEFERRED until August 2, 2000 to allow staff time to
amend the recommended conditions.
8. SP-00-17. CVR-318 - Mt Jefferson (Sign #,34 & 35).
· DEFERRED until after the Planning Commission hears the
request, (No date set)
9. Addition to Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal District.
· ADOPTED the attached Ordinance,
10. Discussion: Albemade Countys SixYear Primary Road
Improvement Plan (Statement for Pre-Allocation Hearing in
Culpeper.)
· ACCEPTED with revisions made at Board meeting.
13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
· Ms. Thomas announced that she and Mr. Cilimberg will be
attending a meeting on the Route 29 South Development
Corridor Study.
· Ms. Thomas suggested a PTO person or parent serve on the
Compensation Committee.
· 9. Adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Meeting was called to Order at 7:01 p.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members present.
Clerk: Advertise hearing.
Cle.rk: Forward resolution to Melvin Breeden.
(Attachment A)
Clerk: Forward conditions to Planning Department.
(Attachment B)
Greg Kamptner: Forward recommended
conditions of approval.
Clerk: Include on the consent agenda.
None.
Clerk: Forward copy to Planning Department and
to County Attorneys office for inclusion in next
update of County Code.
Wayne Cilimberg: Revise as discussed at Board
meeting.
None.
Attachment A - VML Resolution
Attachment B - Conditions of Approval
Attachment C - Hardware River A/F District Ordinance
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING MEMBERSHIP IN THE
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LIABILITY POOL
ATTACHMENT A
WHEREAS, the County of Albemade wishes to join with other political subdivisions to establish
the Virginia Municipal Self-Insurance Association ("Association") to create pools to jointly and
cooperatively self-insure and to pool the separate risks and liabilities of the individual members pursuant
to the terms of Title 15.2, Sections 2700-2709 of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, through such Association, the County of Albemade wishes to join with other political
subdivisions to create the Virginia Municipal Liability Pool ("Pool") whereby members can jointly pool
funds to provide the necessary anticipated financing for commercial general liability, automobile liability,
and automobile physical damage; and
WHEREAS, such Pool is licensed by the Bureau of Insurance of the State Corporation
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemade has been provided with the following documents which
provide a prototype of the responsibilities of the members of the Pool and the amount and terms of the
coverage to be provided:
Membership Agreement (7/1/99) including the following exhibits:
a. Exhibit I - sample declaration pages and coverage forms (7/1/99).
b. Exhibit 2 - Virginia Municipal Self-Insurance Association Constitution and By-
Laws (7/1/95).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors, of the County of
Albema~e, at a meeting held on the 12th day of July, 2000, that the Board certifies the County of
Albemade's intention to become a member of the Pool baginning July t, 2000, for the current Pool year
and for two additional consecutive Pool years thereafter; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that such membership is contingent upon:
Final approval of the Member Agreement and of the membership of the County of
Albemade by the Association's Members' Supervisory Board, or its designea; and
Payment of $186,103, or the first year contribution as well as an additional $100.00
membership fee to the Pool pursuant to the quotation submitted to the County of
Albemade or such final amount as mutually agreed upon by the member and the
Association or their respective designees.
FURTHER RESOLVED that it is recognized that members of the Pool may be required to pay
additional assessments to the Pool and that in the event the Pool is in a deficit position which is not
corrected, a member will be liable for any and all unpaid claims against such member; and
RESOLVED that Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, is authorized to do all things necessary
to enable the County of Albemarle to become a member of the Association and the Pool including but not
limited to execution of the Member Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Albemade, has caused this
resolution to be executed on its behalf by its Chairman and attested by its Clerk.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-00-007. Church of the Cross (Sigin # 44). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow church in accord w/§ 13.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ord. TM46, P26F, contains 20.36 acs.
Located on Ashwood Blvd at NW comer of Ashwood & Kendalwood Dr near Forest Lakes South. Znd
1. The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead Development
Area. Rivanna Dist.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the concept plan dated
6/21/00 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play
equipment and walkways;
All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential
districts and away from adjacent streets;
A left turn lane from Ashwood Boulevard shall be provided. Additional intersection improvements
may be required during the site plan review and approval process;
A concrete sidewalk shall be placed on at least one side of the driveway from Ashwood
BoUlevard to the church. The dri~/eway shall. be curb and gutter;
Street trees shall be placed on at te~ist on~ si~lie Of the driveway from Ashwood Boulevard to the
church;
A pedestrian connection shall be made to Kehd~llWbod at the rear of ~e chUrCh building;
Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment; and
Impervious parking space shall not exceed one space for every two seats in the church.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Emergency Water Ordinance
AGENDA DATE:
July 12, 2000
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize Public Hearing to amend Chapter 16 of
County Code to add Section 15-500 Conservation of
Water During Emergencies
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Brent
BACKGROUND:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Ordinance, Ordinance adopted by City Council,
and enabling legislation
REVIEWED BY:
In September of 1999 the Board of Supervisors considered the adoption of emergency water conservation
restrictions to address a water shortage in the drinking water reservoirs caused by the 1999 drought. Although
such restrictions were not required to be implemented in 1999, the Board requested that a standing ordinance be
developed that would be available for implementation in the future if a water shortage again occurred.
DISCUSSION:
The attached ordinance is being recommended by the Albemarle County Service Authority. A similar ordinance
was adopted by the City of Charlottesville in June of this year. The ordinance requires the Board of Supervisors
to declare an emergency whenever there is a water supply emergency. Once declared, the ACSA can implement
the restrictions set forth in the ordinance. The ACSA is responsible for the administration of the restrictions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be set for public hearing on August 2, 2000.
00.148
DRAFT: June 30, 2000
ORDINANCE NO. 00-16( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 16, WASTEWATER AND WATER SYSTEMS
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY ADDING ARTICLE
V, CONSERVATION OF WATER.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 16 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Wastewater and Water Systems, is amended
by adding Article V, Conservation of Water, as follows:
By Adding:
Article V.
Sec. 15-500.
Conservation of Water.
Conservation of Water During Emergencies.
Chapter 16. Wastewater and Water Systems
Article V. Conservation of Water
See. 15-500. Conservation of Water During Emergencies.
A. Should the board of supervisors, at any time, declare there to be an emergency in
the county arising wholly or substantially out of a shortage of water supply, the Albemarle
County Service Authority (the "authority") and its Executive Director (the "executive director")
are hereby authorized during continuation of the water emergency to order the restriction or
prohibition of any or all of the following uses of the water supply:
1. Watering of outside shrubbery, trees, lawn, grass, plants, home vegetable
gardens, or any other vegetation, except from a watering can or other container not exceeding
three (3) gallons in capacity. This limitation shall not apply to commercial greenhouses or
nursery stocks, which may be watered in the minimum amount required to preserve plant life
before 7:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m.
2. Washing of automobiles, trucks, trailers, or any other type of mobile
equipment, except in licensed commercial vehicle wash facilities.
DRAFT: June 30, 2000
3. Washing of sidewalks, streets, driveways, parking lots, service station
aprons, exteriors of homes or apartments, commercial or industrial buildings or any other
outdoor surface, except where mandated by federal, state, or local law.
The operation of any ornamental fountain or other structure making a
similar use of water.
5.
The filling of swimming or wading pools requiring more than five gallons
of water, or the refilling of swimming or wading pools which were drained after the effective
date of the declaration of emergency, except that pools may be filled to a level of two feet below
normal, or water may be added to bring the level to two feet below normal, or as necessary to
protect the structure from hydrostatic damage, for pools constructed or contracted for on or
before the effective date of this ordinance.
6. The use of water from fire hydrants for any purpose other than fire
suppression, unless otherwise approved by the executive director.
7. The serving of drinking water in restaurants, except upon request.
8. The operation of any water-cooled comfort air conditioning that does not
have water conserving equipment in operation.
The above restrictions, or any of them, shall become effective upon their being printed in
any newspaper of general circulation in the county, or broadcast upon any radio or television
station serving the county.
B. Upon implementation of subsection A, above, the authority shall establish an
appeals procedure to review customer applications for exemptions from the provisions of
subsections A on a case by case basis and, if warranted, to make equitable adjustments to such
provisions. The authority shall also be empowered to establish regulations governing the
2
DRAFT: June 30, 2000
granting of temporary exemptions applicable to all or some of the uses of the water supply set
forth in subsection A. The authority shall, in deciding applications, balance economic and other
hardships to the applicant resulting from the imposition of water use restfictions or allocations
against the individual and cumulative impacts to the water supply resulting from the granting of
exemptions.
C. Should measures taken pursuant to subsection A of this section prove insufficient
to preserve sufficient supplies of water for the citizens of the county, the authority and its
executive director are hereby further authorized to impose temporary rate increases or surcharges
on the consumption of water, to restrict or discontinue the supply of water to any industrial or
commercial activity which uses water beyond the sanitary. and drinking needs of its employees
and invitees, to declare a moratorium on new water connections to buildings issued a building
permit after the date of declaration of emergency, and to restrict water use to basic human needs
only.
D. Any person violating any provision of this section, or any order of the executive
director of the authority issued pursuant to the authority granted hereunder shall be guilty of a
class 3 misdemeanor. In addition, the executive director of the authority is hereby authorized to
terminate the water senrice, for the duration of the emergency, to any person convicted of such
violation.
E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the authority and its
executive director from rescinding any orders issued thereunder when the conditions creating the
need for such orders have abated.
(Ord. 00-16(1), 7-12-00)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-924.
3
06/30/00
_.:..'
FRI 11.'08 FAX 804 970 3022 CITY ATTY
~002
AN ORDINANCE
ADDING A NEW SECTION 31-125 TO THE
CODE OF TgF, CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS AMENDED,
FOR CONSERVATION OF WATER DURING EMERGENCIES.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, ttxat there is
hereby added to the Code of the Ciiy of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, a new section to be
numbered 31-125, to read as follows:
Section 31-125, Conservation of Water during Emergencies.
(a) Should the City Courteft, a~ arty time, declare there to be an emergency ~ The City of
Charlottesville arising wholly or substantially out of a shortage of water supply, the City
Manage and the Public Works Director. are hereby authorized during the dmtion of the water
emergency to oMer the rest~ietio~L Or prohibition of any or all of the following uses of the water
suFply:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Watering of outside shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, plants, home vegetable
gardens, or any other vegetation, except from a watering can or other' container
not exceeding three (3) gallons in capacity. This limitation shall not apply to
connnereial greenhouSes or nursery stocks, which nmy b~ watered in the
minimum mount requirod to preserve plant life before 7:00 a. ra. or atlgr
8:00 p.m.
Washing of automobiles, trucks, trailers, or any other type of mobile equipment,
except in licensed con~ncrcial vehicle wash facilities.
Washing of sidewalk% streets, driveways, parking lots, service rotion aprons,
exteriors of homes or apaxtments, commercial or industrial buildings .or any other
outdoor surface, except where mandated by federal, sue or local law.
The operation of any ornamental fountah or other structure making a similar use
of water.
11re filling of swimming or wad/rig pools requiting more thau five (5) gallons of
water, or .the ro.~lIing of swimming or wading pools which were drained after the
effective date of the declaration of emerge~ney, except that pools may be flied to a
level of two (2) ~eet below nonnaI, or water may be added to bring the level to
two (2) feet below normal, or as necessary to protect the structure f~om
hydrostatic damage.
The use ofwaWr f~om fire hyc!nmts for any purpose other than fire supprt~ss$on,
unless otherwise appro~ed by the City Manager.
The serving of drinking water in restaunnts, except upon request
The opm'ation of any water-cooled cornfort air conditioning flint ~loes not have
water conserving equipment in operation.
06/30/00
~.:,..
FRI 11:09 FAX 804 970 3022 CITY ATrY
003
The above restrictions, or any of them, shall become effective upon their being printed in
any newspaper of general circulation in the City of CharlottesviIIe, or broadcast upon any radio
or television station serving the City orCharlottesville.
Or) Upon implementation of (a) above, the City Manager shall establish an appeals
procedare to review customer applications for exemptions from the provisions of subsection (a)
on a.case by ease basis and, if warranted, to make equitable adjustments to such provisions. 'll'~e
City Manager shall also be empowered to establish regulations governing the granting of
temporary exemptions applicable to all or some of the uses of the water supply set forth' in
subsection (a), The City Manager shalL. in deciding appIications, balance economic and other
' hardships to the applicant resulting from the imposition of water use restrictions or allocations
against the individual and cumulative impacts to the water Supply resulting from the granting of
exemptions.
(c) Should measures taken pursuant to subsection (a) of this section prove insufficient to
preserve sufficient supplies of mr for the ~;ifirn'z of the City. with prior Council approval, the
City Monagee and Director of Public Works are hereby further authorized to do any one or more
of tIE following:
(i)
impose temporary rate increages or surcharges on the consumption of water;
to restrict or discontinue the supply of water to any industrial or commercial
activity which uses water beyond the sanitary and drinking needs of its employees
~d invitees; and
to declare a moratorimn' on ncw water com~ections to buildings issued a building
permit after the date oi'd~clamtion of'emergency and to restrict water ~e to basic
human needs only.
(d) Any person violating any provision of this section, or any order of the Public Works
Director or City Manager issued pursuant to thc authority grm~ted hereunder shall be guilty of a
Class Irl misdemeanor. In addition, the Public Works Director is hereby attthofized to terminate
the water service, for the duration of the emergency, to any person convicted of such violation,
(e) Nodring in this section shall be construed to prohibit the City Manager and the Public
Works Director from rescinding any orders iss~d thereunder when the conditions ~eating the
need for such orders have abeted.
VA Code § 15.2-924, Water supply emergency ordinances
*8935 Vm Code § 15.2-924
VIRGINIA CODE
TITLE 15.2. COUNTIES, CITIES
AND TOWNS
SUBTITLE II. POWERS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 9. GENERAL POWERS
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARTICLE 1. PUBLIC HEALTH
AND SAFETY; NUISANCES
(Information regarding effective dates,
repeals, etc. is provided subsequently in
this document.)
Current through Laws passed at the 1998
Regular Session and 1st Special Session
§ 15.2-924. Water supply emergency
ordinances
A. Whenever the governing body of any
locality finds that a water supply emergency
exists, it may adopt an ordinance restricting the
use of water by the citizens of such locality for
the duration of such emergency. However, such
ordinance shall apply only to water supplied by
a locality, authority,. or company distributing
water for a fee or charge. Such ordinance may
include appropriate penalties designed to
prevent excessive use of water, including, but
not limited to, a surcharge on excessive amounts
used.
B. After such an emergency has been declared
in any locality, any owner of a water supply
system serving that locality may apply to the
State Water Control Board for assistance. If the
State Water Control Board confirms the
existence of an emergency, and finds that such
owner and such locality have exhausted
available means to relieve the emergency and
that the owner and locality are applying all
feasible water conservation measures, and in
addition finds that there is water available in
neighboring localities in excess of the
Page 1
reasonable needs of such localities, and that
there exists between such neighboring localities
interconnectionS for the transmission of water,
the Board shall so inform the Governor. The
Governor, if requested jointly by the locality
and the owner of the systems supplying the
locality, may then appoint a committee
consisting of one representative of the locality
declaring the emergency, one representative of
the system supplying the locality under
emergency, and those two representatives shall
choose a third representative and failing to
choose such third representative within seven
days he .shall be selected by the Governor. The
committee shall have the duty and authority to
allocate the water available in such localities for.
the period of the emergency, provided that the
period of the emergency shall not exceed that
determined by the locality declaring the
emergency or the State Water Control Board
whichever period termination is earlier, so that
the best water supply possible will be provided
to all water users during the emergency as
previously described. Nothing in this section
shall be construed as requiring the construction
of pipeline interconnections between any
locality or any water supply system.
*8936 C. Any water taken from one water
supplier for the benefit of another shall be paid
for by using the established rate schedule of the
supplier for treated water. Raw water shall be
furnished at rates which shall reflect all costs to
the supplying locality, including, but not limited
to, capital investment costs. Should there be
imposed upon the supplier any additional
obligatii~n, water production costs or other
capital or operating expenditures beyond those
normal to the suppliers' system, then the cost of
same shall be chargeable to the receiving
locality by single payment or by incorporation
in a special rate structure, all of the same as
shall be reasonable.
D. Nothing contained in this section shall
authorize any locality to regulate the use of
water taken from a river or any flowing stream
when such water is used for industrial purposes
and the approximate same quantity of water is
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
VA Code § 15.2-924, Water supply emergency ordinances
returned to such river or stream after such
industrial usage.
Added by Acts 1997, c. 587, efj~ctive December I, 1997.
TITLE 15.2. COUNTIES, CITIES AND
Page 2
TOWNS
< [Eff. Dec. 1, 1997] >
Search this disc for cases citing this section.
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
1977-78 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 36
Page 1
*6840 1977-78 Va. Rep. Atty. Gen. 36
Office of the Attorney General
Commonwealth of Virginia
July 7, 1977
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS
Authority-Mandatory water conservation measures
in event of emergency-Emergency may be declared
only by Governor upon petition of local governing
body.
DILLON'S RULE
Limits Authority Of Local Governments To
Powers And Functions Statutorily Established.
VIRGINIA EMERGENCY SERVICES AND
DISASTER LAW
Emergency Management Of Resources-Authority
of Governor to regulate sale, use or distribution of
resources-Water conservation.
The Honorable Frederick Lee Ruck
County Attorney for Fairfax County
This is in reply to your recent letter requesting my
opinion whether a board of supervisors possesses the
authority to impose mandatory water conservation
measures in the event of an emergency posing a
threat to the health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the county.
Fairfax County, 207 Va. 827, 15 S.E.2d 270 (1967).
Thus the authority of a board of supervisors to enact
legislation of the type contemplated is dependent
upon whether such power is expressly provided, or
can be necessarily implied from, those powers
granted by the State. Any doubt as to the existence
of a power must be resolved against the county. 13
M.J. Municipal Corporations § 26 (1974).
The general law authorizes certain activities by
local governments in managing the use of water
resources. A board of supervisors is authorized to
provide sources of water supply [see § 15.1-37 of.
the Code of Virginia (1950), as mended], and to
take such actions, not inconsistent with the general
law, to protect the quality of such sources of supply,
and, in turn, the public health. See § 15.1-510 of
the Code. The general law contains no express
grant of authority to a board, however, nor can such
authority necessarily be implied, to enact mandatory
water conservation measures in the event of an
emergency.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the
General Assembly has enacted legislation to deal
.with natural resource-emergencies. The Virginia
Emergency Services and Disaster Law, which iS
codified as Chapter 3.2 of Title 44 of the Code,
establishes an Office of Emergency Services to
prepare and coordinate plans to deal with emergency
situations, and authorizes the Governor to take
action to protect the safety and welfare of the State
in time of natural or man-made disasters. The Act
defines a resource shortage as the
The powers of local government in Virginia have
been interpreted on the basis of the principle known
as Dillon's Rule or its corollary. See I. J. Dillon,
Law of Municipal Corporations, 448-50 (1911);
Bd. of Supervisors v. Home, 216 Va. 113, 117, 215
S.E.2d 453, 455 (1975). This position was recently
reemphasized by the Virginia Supreme Court when
it stated: "There can be no question that Virginia
long has followed, and still adheres to, the Dillon
Rule of strict construction concerning the powers of
local governing bodies." Commonwealth v.
Arlington County Bd., 217 Va. 558, 573, 232
S.E.2d 30 (1977).
As creatures of the State which are entirely
subordinate to it, the powers of counties, like those
of cities, can be no greater than those which the
State has wished to coffer upon them. Gordon v.
"... absence, unavailability or reduced supply of
any raw or processed natural resource, or any
commodities, goods or services of any kind which
bear a-substantial relationship to the health, safety,
welfare and economic well-being of the citizens of
the Commonwealth." Section 44-146.16(10).
An emergency which would warrant the imposition
of mandatory water conservation measures would, in
my view, constitute a resource shortage. If that
emergency could result in significant harm to the
health, safety, welfare or property of the people of
the Commonwealth, the Virginia Emergency
Services and Disaster Law may be employed to
avert that harm. See Opinion to the Honorable T.
P. Credle, State Coordinator, Office of Emergency
Services, found in Report of the Attorney General
(1973-1974) at 448; Boyd v. Commonwealth, 216
Copyright(c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
1977-78 Va. Op. Atty. Gem 36
Va. 16, 215 S.E.2d 915 (1975).
A local emergency may be declared when:
"... the threat or actual occurrence of a disaster
is or threatens to be of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant coordinated local
government action to prevent or alleviate the
damage, loss, hardship or suffering threatened or
caused thereby; provided, however, that a local
emergency arising wholly or substantially out of a
resource shortage may be declared only by the
Governor, upon petition of the local governing
body, when he deems the threat or actual
occurrence of a disaster to be of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant coordinated local'
government action to prevent or alleviate the
damage, loss, hardship or suffering threatened or
caused thereby .... " (Emphasis added.) See §
44-146.16 (6).
Upon the declaration of a local emergency arising
out of a resource shortage, a local government may
take those steps necessary, within constitutional
limitations, to end the local emergency. Section
44-146.21 of the Emergency Services and Disaster
Law Act provides in part that:
"... whenever the Governor has declared a state
of emergency, each political subdivision within the
disaster area may, under the supervision and
control of the Governor or his. designated
representative, enter into contracts and incur
obligations necessary to combat such threatened or
Page 2
actual disaster beyond the capabilities of local
government, protect the health and safety of
persons and property and provide emergency
assistance to the victims of such disaster. In
exercising the powers vested under this section,
under the supervision and control of the Governor,
the political subdivision may proceed without
regard to time-consuming procedures and
formalities prescribed by law pertaining to public
work, entering into contracts, incurring of
obligations, employment of temporary workers,
rental of equipment, purchase of supplies and
materials, levying of taxes, and appropriation and
expenditure of public funds." (Emphasis added. )
'6841 In view of the foregoing, I am of the
opinion that the board of supervisors is neither
authorized by general law, nor does it have such
authority by necessary implication from general law,
to impose mandatory water conservation measures in
the event of an emergency. The board may,
however, petition the Governor pursuant to §
44-146.16(6) to declare a local emergency due to a
water shortage, and to delegate to the board
authority to deal with the shortage. If the Governor
expressly delegates to the board his authority to
impose mandatory water conservation measures, the
board may enact an ordinance mandating such
measures.
Anthony F. Troy
Attorney General
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING MEMBERSHIP IN THE
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LIABILITY POOL
WHEREAS, the County of Albemade wishes to join with other political subdivisions to establish the
Virginia Municipal Self-Insurance Association ("Associalion") to create pools to jointly and cooperatively self-
insure and to pool the separate dsks and liabilities of the individual members pursuant to the terms of Title
15.2, Sections 2700-2709 of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, through such Association, the County of Albemade wishes to join with other political
subdivisions to create the Virginia Municipal Liability Pool ("Pool") whereby members can jointly pool funds
to provide the necessary anticipated financing for commercial general liability, automobile liability, and
automobile physical damage; and
WHEREAS, such Pool is licensed by the Bureau of Insurance of the State Corporation
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has been provided with the following documents which
provide a prototype of the responsibilities of the members of the Pool and the amount and terms of the
coverage to be provided:
Membership Agreement (7/1/99) including the following exhibits:
a. Exhibit I - sample declaration pages and coverage forms (7/1/99).
b. Exhibit 2 - Virginia Municipal Self-Insurance Association Constitution and By-
Laws (7/1/95).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors, of the County of
Albemade, at a meeting held on the 12t" day of July, 2000, that the Board certifies the County of
Albemade's intention to become a member of the Pool beginning July 1, 2000, for the current Pool year
and for two additional consecutive Pool years thereafter; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that such membership is contingent upon:
Final approval of the Member Agreement and of the membership of the County of
Albemarle by the Association's Members' Supervisory Board, or its designee; and
Payment of $186,103, or the first year contribution as well as an additional $100.00
membership fee to the Pool pursuant to the quotation submitted to the County of
Albemarle or such final amount as mutually agreed upon by the member and the
Association or their respective designees.
FURTHER RESOLVED that it is recognized that members of the Pool may be required to pay
additional assessments to the Pool and that in the event the Pool is in a deficit position which is not
corrected, a member will be liable for any and all unpaid claims against such member; and
RESOLVED that Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, is authorized to do all things necessary to
enable the County of Albemade to become a member of the ~iation and the Pool including but not
limited to execution of the Member Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Albemade, has caused this
resolution to be executed on its behalf by its Chairman and attested by its Clerk.
Charles S. a n
Title: Chairman
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Property and Liability Insurance
AGENDA DATE:
July 12, 2000
ITEM NUMBER:
S U BJ ECT/P RO POSAL/RE Q U EST:
Request approval of the selection of the Virginia
Municipal League to provide the County's Property and
Liability Insurance coverages and to adopt a resolution
for membership in the Virginia Municipal League Pool.
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
Several months ago, staff began investigating the possibility of increasing the County's insurance coverage in the
areas of Public Official and Law Enforcement Liability. Under the current coverage, through the Virginia Division
of Risk Management, this coverage was provided to the County with a limit of $1M and a deductible of $5,000 per
occurrence. The County began purchasing these coverages through the Division of Risk Management in the eady
1990's due to the increase in cost through commercial markets. In recent years, the Virginia Association of
Counties (VaCorp) and the Virginia Municipal League (VML) have began providing these coverages.
With the assistance of the County's insurance consultant, we approached the Virginia Association of Counties and
the Virginia Municipal League regarding their Public Officials and Law Enforcement Liability coverage. In order
to participate in this coverage, both pools required the entity's property, automobile, and general liability coverages
as well. Staff decided to submit a proposal to VACO and VML for the County's entire insurance package. Both
pool programs responded to our request.
Staff and the County's insurance consultant have reviewed both proposals. After review, it is the recommendation
of staff and the County's insurance consultant to move the property and liability insurance coverages to the
Virginia Municipal League. This recommendation is based on the following points:
Issue Current Coverage Virginia Municipal League VaCo Insurance
Programs
Public Officials and
Law Enforcement
Liability
$1M Limit
$5,000 deductible
each occurrence
$4M Limit
No deductible
$4M Limit
$5,000 deductible
each occurFence
$100,000 in Defense
Costs for Certain
Excluded items in
Public Officials
Coverage
No
Yes
Yes
Voice in selection of
legal council
No
Yes
Yes
:AGENDA TITLE:
Property and Liability Insurance
July 12, 2000
Page 2
Issue
Comprehensive and
collision coverage on
al! Automobiles
Current Coverage
Comprehensive on all
vehicles; collision on
1992 and newer
Deductibles:
$250 Comprehensive
$1,000 Collision
Virginia Municipal League
Comprehensive and
collision on all vehicles
Deductibles:
$250 Comprehensive
$500 Collision
VaCo Insurance
Programs
Comprehensive and
collision on all vehicles
Deductibles:
$250 Comprehensive
$250 Collision
Flood and
Earthquake No $25,000 Property Limits
Coverage ($43M)
Premium $186,962 $186,103 $196,565
In addition, VML covers the City of Charlottesville, Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority, and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. This would simplify any coverage issues should a multi-
jurisdictional claim arise.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors accept the Virginia Municipal League as its insurance provider and
approve the resolution authorizing membership in the Virginia Municipal Liability Pool. A copy of the exhibits are
located in the Clerk's Office and the Finance Department if you are interested in reviewing them.
00.150
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING MEMBERSHIP IN THE
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LIABILITY POOL
WHEREAS, the County of Albemade wishes to join with other political subdivisions to establish
the Virginia Municipal Self-Insurance Association ("Association") to create pools to jointly and
cooperatively self-insure and to pool the separate dsks and liabilities of the individual members pursuant
to the terms of Title 15.2, Sections 2700-2709 of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, through such Association, the County of Albemade wishes to join with other political
subdivisions to create the Virginia Municipal Liability Pool ("Pool") whereby members can jointly pool
funds to provide the necessary anticipated financing for commercial general liability, automobile liability,
and automobile physical damage; and
WHEREAS, such Pool is licensed by the Bureau of Insurance of the State Corporation
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemade has been provided with the following documents which
provide a prototype of the responsibilities of the members of the Pool and the amount and terms of the
coverage to be provided:
Membership Agreement (7/1/99) including the following exhibits:
a. Exhibit I - sample declaration pages and coverage forms (7/1/99).
b. Exhibit 2 - Virginia Municipal Self-Insurance Association Constitution and
By-Laws (7/1/95).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Suparvisers, of the County of
Albemade, at a meeting held on the 12th day of July, 2000, that the Board certifies the County of
Albemade's intention to become a member of the Pool beginning July 1, 2000, for the current Pool year
and for two additional consecutive Pool years thereafter; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that such membership is contingent upon:
b=
Final approval of the Member Agreement and of the membership Of the County of
Albemarle by the Association's Members' Supervisory Board, or its designee; and
Payment of $186,103, or the first year contribution as well as an additional $100.00
membership fee to the Pool pursuant to the quotation submitted to the County of
Albemarle or such final amount as mutually agreed upon by the member and the
Association or their respective designees.
FURTHER RESOLVED that it is recognized that members of the Pod may be required to pay
additional assessments to the Pool and that in the event the Pod is in a defttit position which is not
corrected, a member will be liable for any and all unpaid claims against such member; and
RESOLVED that Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, is authorized to do all things necessary
to enable the County of Albemade to become a member of the Association and the Pod including but
not limited to execution of the Member Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of SuperviSors, of the County of Albemade, has caused this
resolution to be executed on its behalf by its Chairman and attested by its Clerk.
Attest:
By:
Charles S. Martin
Title: Chairman
LocaI.GiSVemmen'tL-:iaSility' -. ,.:,, -
'Each O~.cUl-rBtlce)Limit "'::-"." .... "..~"'., :, .
.Fire',Dfimkge:Limit -: .-.--., ~-"": ,.'.:.-,'.::--
:. M~di.~al~EkpeiiS.~,Limit:,_: " .",:~: )..:-
' "N6. Fault 'Prope~rty;Damiige"~ '
Deductible """ ""' '
,- ,,,., -,1 , - . ,, .
T, -', ....
Autom0bile.':Lihbility;.
',DeaUctible - -,'. . -'
U'~insuredMotj0ris~s ','.'-" ""-'
,. ,... ,~, ., .
$1 ~000,000 COmbinedSingle:Limit:'.'--.- ':..
..... 000/$20~i]00
$25,000/$50 "'
Property Coverage -~ - .
.'Boiler:. and .Machinery Coverage
Fidelity/Crime/Surety C6verage.'
PropertY. CoVerage, Iniadi:l Marine: Coverage; and Boiler and Machinei'y Coverage, if theeke& 'il provided for
alL'ocCurrences fiom JUly 1, 2000 ' to"July 1; 2001; pursuant to theattached.declaration piiges; member: .
For the period of July 1, 2000 to 'July 1., 200i Property Coverage and Inland Marine' reinsurance iS purchased
excess of a per occurrence deductible of $50,000, subject to an annual aggregatestop-toSs' Coi~ei~age of $500,000.
Boiler and Machinery Coverage is reinsuredexcess of a per occurrence deductible of $25,000:
Fidelity, crime and surety coverage
occurrence deductible of $25,000;
will be a part of the VMLP. This coverage is reinsured excess of a per
I2. Contribution
$ 186,103 due July 1, 2000. See Declaration Pages attached to Coverage Forms for contributions by individual
coverage lines. The contribution was determined based on actuarially approved rates. In the event of a deficit
in the. Pool's fund, additional assessments may be imposed by the Members' Supervisory Board.
III. Servicing Company .
Virginia Municipal League .
~V. Virginia Insurance Guaranty Association
A local government group self-insurance pool is not protected by the Virginia Insurance Guaranty Association
against default due to insolvency. In the event of insolvency, members and persons filing claims against
members may be unable to collect any amount owed to them by the Pool regardless of the terms of the member
agreement. In the event the Pool is in a deficit position, a member may be liable for any and all unpaid claims
against such member.
V. Virginia Uninsured Motorist Rejection
The Virginia Municipal Liability Pool, by resolution of its Supervisory Board, has elected not to be go.verned by
the' provisions of Virginia Code§38.2-2206 or to offer to its Members uninsured or underinsured motorist
coverage in excess of the limits therefor shown in the Primary Automobile Liability Section on the front of this
cover page. The uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage provided hereby is limited to the minimum
statutory amounts specified by Virginia law. Inasmuch as Virginia Code §38.2-2206 is inapplicable to this
coverage, the provisions of Virginia Code §38.2-2202 B are also inapplicable and rejection of limits in excess of-
said minimum statutory coverage by the Member who is covered hereby is not required by law.
(Signature of Authorized Representative)
(Date)
· MEMBER AGREEMENT
#
%
T.'.-IIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of by and between all
the parties who are now or may hereafter become members of the Virginia MUnicipal Liability Pool ("pool") and
the Virginia Municipal Self-Insurance Association ("association"), acting by and through the Members'
S~pervisory Board (the "board"), and the Virginia political' subdivision or agency thereof which has executed this
agreement, and all Virginia political subdivisions, or agencies thereof, which are now, or hereafter apply to
become, and upon admission will become, members of the pool and the association (individually, the "member"
and collectively "members").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the members of the association have agreed to provide for joint and cooperative action to self-
ir. sure and to pool their separate risks and liabilities pursuant to the tenus of Title 15.2 of Sections 2700-2709 of
Code of Virginia (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of this agreement the members have organized and formed a pool, as a
joint fund to provide the necessary anticipated financing for commercial general liability, automobile liability, and
a'atomobile physical damage; and
WHEREAS, the board is authorized to direct the affairs of said pool and association and to act on the
admissibility of applicants for membership in the pool; and
WHEREAS, membership in the pool automatically constitutes membership. in the association; and
WHEREAS, each member of the pool is required to execute an agreement whereby each member will
covenant and agree to pay contributions and assessments, based upon appropriate classifications and rates, into a
~esignated fund out of which expenses of the pool and lawful and proper claims and awards are to be paid, and
farther, that there will be no disbursements out of this fund by way of dividends or distribution of accumulated
reserves to the respective members, except at the discretion of the board as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, each member of said pool has elected to become a party to this agreement, to comply with the
conditions set forth herein and establish a self-insurance pool pursuant to the provisions of the Act and regulations
promulgated thereunder, and to execute such other instruments and take such other action as may be required to
form and continue such pool.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and obligations herein
contained, which are given by the pool and each member to each other member and so accepted by each member'
and the pool, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. Membership. Each member hereby agrees that the board may admit as members of the pool only
acceptable political subdivisions in the Commonwealth of Virginia or agencies thereof as defined in the Act.
Subject to the provisions of the Act and rules relating to the approval of any members, the board shall be sole judge
as to whether or not an applicant shall be admitted to membership. Each member agrees that a member may, in the
sole discretion of the board, be terminated from membership in the pool at any time after 30 days notice in writing
has been given to such member, except that a member may be terminated at any date after 10 days written notice to
such member for non-payment of contributions and/or assessments. No liability except that available to the
member under an appropriate supplemental extended reporting period shall accrue to the pool or to the remaining
members for any liability under the pool of any terminated member arising subsequent to the date of termination
specified in said notice and such terminated member shall be separately and solely responsible for any liability
arising thereafter.
2. Membershin Withdrawal. Each member represents that its present intention is to remain in the
pool for at least three years. A member may withdraw from the pool upon 90 days written notice to the board;
provided, however, any member which for any reason does not remain in the pool for at least three consecutive
years shall not be entitled to receive any funds of paid contributions or assessments nor unless otherwise determined
by the board, any share in surplus assets of the fund. After the member has been in the pool for three consecutive
years, the member may withdraw upon 90 days written notice and may be entitled to share in any surplus assets of
the fund; upon such termination however, the member will not receive any refunds of paid contributions or
assessments.
3. Entr.v Fee. Each new member agrees to pay an entry fee of $100.00.
4. Administrator. Each member authorizes the board to designate and appoint Virginia Municipal
League (or such substitute or replacement as shall be appointed by the board) as the administrator which shall be
empowered to accept service on behalf of the association and authorized tO act for and bind the association and its
members in all transactions relating to or arising out of the operation of the-pool. The administrator shall receive
such fee for its services and shall be agreed upon by the board. The board, in its discretion, may at any time revoke
the powers of the administrator and substitute another in the place thereof.
The administrator is hereby appointed by each member as agent for the association, to act directly or
through a service contract with the service agent in its behalf and to execute all contracts and reports, waivers,
agreements, and excess insurance or reinsurance contracts, to make or arrange for payment of claims, and all other
things required or necessary, as covered by the terms of this agreement and the rules and regulations as now
provided or as hereafter promulgated by the board or the Virginia State Corporation Commission (the
"Commission").
5. Service At!ent. The members ratify and confirm appointment by the board of VML Insurance
Programs Member Services Division (or such substitute or replacement as shall be appointed by the board), as
service agent for the pool and its members, individually and collectively, subject to its continued approval as a
service agent by the commission. The service agent shall calculate all annual contributions due from the members,
pay all approved items of expense as directed by the board, service claims under the pool against members, give a
monthly account of all monies so handled, and undertake all other duties set forth in the agreement employing
service agent. For handling the administrative and servicing functions of the pool, the service agent shall receive
such fee as shall be agreed upon by the board which shall be in consideration of all services and expenses contracted
for with the pool which services or expenses may include counselling with the board as to safety procedures, claims
handling and investigations, and providing for reinsurance or excess insurance coverage. The service agent's books
and records are to be open to inspection by the board or its agents or designees at all reasonable times.
6. Denosit of Funds. The board or its designee shall deposit to the account of the pool, at any bank or
banks designated by the board, all contributions as when collected and all other funds received from or for the pool,
and said monies shall be disbursed only as provided by (1) the rules, regulations, by-laws of the association, and the
resolutions of the board; (2) the agreements between the board and the service agent; and (3) this agreement.
7. Investment of Funds. The board shall have the authority to invest the funds of the pool as permitted
by the association's by-laws and the Commission's regulations.
8. By-laws, Rules and Reaulations. Each member of the pool agrees to abide by the rules and
regulations of the pool and the association and the Constitution and By-laws of the association as attached hereto as
: Exhibit 2 and as shall be amended or modified. In the event of any such amendment, the member shall be notified
promptly thereof.
9. Coveraide. The pool will provide loss protection to members as provided in the coverage Forms as
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and as amended by the board from time to time. In the event of any such amendment,
the member shall be notified promptly thereof.
10. Reinsurance and Excess Insurance.
(a) The board is authorized to obtain and maintain specific and/or aggregate reinsurance and/or
excess insurance in such amounts and with such retentions as in its discretion are advisable, if available at cost and
on terms deemed by the board to be reasonable under the circumstances. Such reinsurance or excess insurance
coverage, if any, shall be as set forth in the association's Financial Plan as adopted by the board and attached hereto
as Exhibit 3. Such coverage may be increased or decreased in the discretion of the board.
(b) The board is also authorized and empowered to obtain and maintain other insurance, letters
of credit or commitment for loans from insurance or financial institutions which in the judgment of the board will
furnish additional security and resources for payment of claims covered by the pool in excess of the contributions
made by members.
11. Punitive Damal!es Exemnt. The coverage of the pool shall not apply to punitive or exemplary
damages awarded against any member.
12. Limit of Liability. The members agree that, for the payment of any claim against the pool or the
:performance of any obligation of the pool hereunder, resort shall be had solely to the assets and property of the pool
and no member, officer or board member of the pool or the association and neither the administrator nor its
designcos shall be liable therefor. A member of the pool shall have no liability to the pool, to other members of the
pool, or to any claimant against the pool itself or another member of the pool, except for payment of contributions
under this agreement, deductible amounts, assessments if approved or required, and the entry fee.
13. Payment of Claims. All claims against members, if approved by the service agent and as directed by
the board, shall be paid as follows:
(a) To the extent of (i) the poors funds for each pool year, (ii) plus any other pool assets and
reserves available and authorized by the board therefor, and (iii) subject to the applicable limits of coverage retained
by the pool for each member;
(b) Covered claims in excess of the pool's funds for each pool year shall be paid from the
reinsurance or excess insurance coverage, if any, in effect for the pool;
(c) All deductible amounts and the amounts of any claims in excess of amounts available
therefor under the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 13 shall be the sole obligation of, and shall be
: paid by, the member liable therefor.
14. Reimbursable Deductible. Each member agrees that upon the payment of any deductible amount by
the pool for, or on behalf of, a member that such member shall reimburse the pool therefor within 12 days of written
notice from the pool. After the specified time, interest thereon will accrue at the rate of the highest yield on the
pool's most recent investment at that time. If the reimbursable deductible has to be collected by suit, the member
agrees to pay the pool's reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs incurred in the suit.
15. Contributions and Assessments. Each member agrees to pay contributions to the pool computed in
accordance with a rating plan, approved by the board, and as amended from time to time.
Each member agrees that the contributions shall be payable in full in advance of coverage unless the
board in its discretion shall determine otherwise. Such contributions are deemed earned by the pool when received
and are not subject to refund.
In the event of the poors deficit, the board may adopt, following approval by the Commission, a plan
it deems equitable for the elimination of such deficit, including but not limited to the assessment of all members in
the proportion which the contribution of each bears to the total contributions of all members in the year in which the
such deficit occurs provided such assessment does not exceed two times the member's annual contribution. A
member is obligated to pay any assessment which applies to a pool year in which it was a member. If the assessment
has to be collected by suit, the member agrees to pay the poors reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs incurred in
the suit.
Each member agrees to execute necessary authorization forms permitting the pool or its designee to
obtain information and data required in determining the experience or other rating modification of such member.
16. Re!~ortin~ of Claims or Losses. All liability claims-and acci0ents, incidents, or occurrences with the
potential of producing claims against a member or the pool, no matter how insignificant they may appear, shall be
promptly reported to the board or its service agent,providing such information thereon as shall be requested by the
board or service agent. All property losses with potential of being reimbursed or paid by the pool shall also be
promptly reported in like manner to the board or its service agent.
The claims and loss reports shall be in accordance with the procedures established from time to time
by the board or its service agent.
17. Defendin~ Claims. To the extent of a member's limit of liability set forth in the declarations
annexed to this agreement and incorporated herein, and the funds described in paragraphs 13(a) and (b), the pool
shall defend in the name of and on behalf of each member any suits or other proceedings which may at any time be
instituted against such member on account of claims within the purview of this agreement even though such
allegations or demands are wholly groundless, false, or fraudulent, and to pay all costs reasonably incurred in any
legal proceeding defended by the pool. all interest accruing against entry of judgment, and all expenses incurred for
investigation, claimant's attorney and negotiate settlements. If a personal appearance by an official or employee of a
member is necessary in any dispute, the expense of such appearance shall be paid by the member. The pool shall
retain and supervise legal counsel on behalf of and at the expense of the pool necessary for the prosecution or
defense of any litigation. Each member agrees to fully cooperate by supplying any information and assistance
dee. med by the board, the service agent, or counsel, to be needed or helpful to defend such action. A member may
upon notice in writing, prevent settlement of a claim involving its locality, but in such event becomes obligated for
any payment of sums above the settlement amount if a higher payout, including attorneys' fees, is ultimately
required.
18. Subrogation. Each member agrees that in the event of the payment of any loss by the pool under this
agreement, the pool shall be subrogated to the extent of such payment to all the rights of the member against any
person or other entity legally responsible for damages for said loss, and in such event, the member hereby agrees to
render all reasonable assistance, other than pecuniary, to effect recovery.
19. Insnection of Member's Facilities and Records. The board, the administrator, the service agent,
and any of their agents, servants, employees or attorneys, shall be permitted at all reasonable times to inspect the
member's facilities and shall be permitted at all reasonable times and within five years after the final termination of
the membership to examine member's book, vouchers, contracts, documents, budgets and records of any and every
kind which relate to the purposes or powers of the pool.
~20. Risk Management. The board or its designees may, but is not obligated to, provide risk
management services to members, designed to assist members in following a plan of managing risk of loss and loss
control which may result in reduced losses and costs. Each member agrees to initiate and maintain a safety program
and agrees to follow the general recommendations of the board and the service agent in this field. Safety to property
: and the public shall have the highest priority. However, each member shall remain solely responsible for all
: decisions concerning its safety program and practices and may not rely upon evaluations and/or recommendations
made by the pool, the board, the service agent, the administrator, or their representatives in making final decisions
~ concerning its safety program and practices.
21. Expenditure of Pool Funds. All funds coming into the hands of the board during any one fiscal year
of the pool shall be set aside and shall be used only for the following purposes:
(a) Payment of a fee for the service agent as provided in section 5 hereof.
(b)
(c)
Payment of a fee to the administrator as determined by the board..:
Payment of lawful assessments, if any, as required by any lawful authority.
(d) Payment of cost of all bonds including errors and omission coverage for all officers and
employees, and auditing expenses required of the association or its employees.
(e)
:board or the pool.
Payment of all legal fees, accounting fees, or other miscellaneous expenses relating to the
(f) Payment of the costs of any excess insurance policy, reinsurance treaty, loan commitment,
letter of credit, or similar agreement entered into by the pool as deemed advisable by the board.
(g) Payment of claims, including, without limitation, settlements, awards, judgments, legal fees,
investigation costs, costs in all contested cases, appeal bonds, and establishment of reserves necessary to provide for
:all of the same.
(h) Subject to the Commission's regulations following the conclusion of each 12 months
operation of the pool ("annual period"), distribution to the extent not otherwise prohibited by law to members in
such manner as the board in its discretion shall deem appropriate and equitable, such discretion being applicable to
but not limited to, denying or limiting any distribution to members who have withdrawn or have had their
membership terminated, and making distribution only to members with a loss ration not in excess of a level
designated by the board, of any excess monies remaining after payment of items (a) through (f) above, including,
without limitation, payments of claims and establishment of outstanding reserves; provided, however, that no such
distributions shall be made earlier than 12 months after the end of each annual period; provided further, that
undistributed excess funds from previous annual periods may be distributed at any time if not required for reserves
and if approved for distribution by the board.
(i) A percentage of any surplus, as approved by the Commission, may be allocated to a restricted
surplus account to be used at the discretion of the board subject to the approval of the Commission.
22. Fiscal Year. The association and the pool shall operate on a fiscal year from 12:01 a.m. July first to
midnight of June thirty of the next calendar year. Application for continuing membership, when approved in writing
by the board or its designee, shall upon payment of all sums due by the member constitute a continuing contract for
each succeeding fiscal period unless cancelled by the board, or unless the member shall have resigned or withdrawn
from said association by written notice as provided in section 2 hereof.
23. Financial Plan. The pool will operate according to the Financial Plan which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 3 which sets forth in general terms: the loss protection provided by the pool, applicable deductible levels,
and the maximum liability which the pool will retain; and the amount of reinsurance or excess insurance to be
purchased by the pool. Such Financial Plan may be amended or modified from time to time.
24. Miscellaneous. (a) The pool and each member agree with each other member, whether now or to
become a member, to be bound by all the terms and conditions of this agreement.
(b) If any provision of this agreement is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other
;provisions of this agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision, and to that end the provisions
of this agreement are severable.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the members collectively have caused this agreement as amended by
addendum No. 1 and addendum No. 2 which are attached hereto to be signed on behalf of .the board by a duly
authorized representative, and by the administrator, and on behalf of the meanbet by its chief executive officer or
other officer designated by its governing body.
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
By
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
By
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL SELF INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LIABILITY POOL
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO MEMBER AGREEMENT
It is agreed between the Virginia Municipal Liabililty Pool for and on behalf of all members of the Pool and
the undersigned member, that the Member Agreement be, and the same herby is, amended as follows:
1. Paragraph 9 shall be amended to read as follows:
9. Coverage
The Pool will provide loss protection. to members, which may be primary
coverage and/or excess or umbrella coverage as provided in the coverage forms,
and as amended from time to time. In the event of any amendment, members shall
be notified thereof promptly.
The Pool's primary automobile liability coverage shall be limited to the
minimum statutory amounts required for the type of vehicle covered for
operation in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Such coverage shall also include
uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage with the same limits and no more.
Excess motor vehicle liability coverage shall be excess of other valid or
collectible insurance or qualified self-insurance, including the Poors primary
coverage. Provided, however, that uninsured and underinsured motor vehicle
coverage as defined in subsection A of Virginia Code §38.2 - 2206 shall not be
offered, provided or made available under or with respect to such excess or
umbrella type coverage provided by the Pool.
2. Paragraph 10 shall be amended to read as follows:
The Pool will allow coverage, by endorsement, for "additional insureds" to the
extent of any and all vicarious liability but not for independent negligent acts or
omissions of the additional insured.
10. Reinsurance and Excess Insurance
a,
The board is authorized, in order to protect the Pool's assets and provide
hedges against losses of members, to obtain and maintain specific and/or
aggregate reinsurance and/or excess insurance in such amounts and with such
retention as in its discretion are advisable, if available at cost and on
terms deemed by the Board to be reasonable under the circumstances.
The Board is also authorized and empowered to obtain and maintain other
insurance, letters of credit or commitment for loans from insurance or
financial institutions which in the judgment of the Board will furnish
additional security and resources for payment of claims covered by the Pool
in excess of the contributions made by members.
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL SELF INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
ADDENDUM NO. 2
THIS ADDENDUM, executed on behalf of the Member named below (the "Member")
and on behalf of Virginia Municipal Self Insurance Association (the "Association") shall
constitute an amendment to the Member Agreement, as amended,. between the Members and the
Association.
Paragraph 11 of the Member Agreement restricts coverage ~'y the Association for punitive
damages asserted against a Member. This addendum amends the Member Agreement by
deletion of said paragraph 11 in its entirety.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum No. 2 to the Member Agreement has been
caused to be executed on behalf of the Member and the Association, each by its duly authorized
officer.
Exhibit 1
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LIABILITY POOL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BINDER
7/1/2000-2001
Automobile Coverage:
$1,000,000 combined single liability limit
$250 comprehensive deductible
$500 collision deductible
$5,000 medical payment limit
$5,000 No Fault Property Damage limit
Local Government Liability
Includes public officials, law enforcement
and general liability.
$1,000,000 combined single liability limit
$250,000 fire damage limit
$10,000 medical payment limit
$5,000 No Fault Property Damage limit
Excess Liability
$3,000,000 combined single limit
Real and Personal Property
$39,005,100 Real & Personal Property ($1,000 ded.)
$5,425,000 Extra Expense ($1,000 ded.)
$1,000,000 Contingent Liability ($1,000 ded.)
$250,000 Off Premises Power Interruption ($1,000 ded.)
$55,000 Fine Arts ($250 ded.)
$5,125,000 Valuable Papers ($1,000 ded.)
$25,000 Accounts Receivable ($1,000 ded.)
$3,506,000 Electronic Data Processing ($250 ded.)
$2,371,862 Mobile Equipment ($250 ded.)
$435,900 TV & Radio Equipment ($250 ded.)
Boiler & Machinery Coverage
$10,000,000 limit ($1,000 ded.)
Crime
$100,000 Forms O & B ($500 ded.)
$75,000 Forms C ($500 ded.)
Annual Contribution
$ 91.215
$ 39,519
$ 23,248
$ 28.262
$ 2,998
$ 861
TOTAL ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION $186,103
Constitution
and
By-Laws
Vir~ni~ Municipal Setf-lns~an~ Association
Exhibit
MUNICIPAL
0
IABILITYPO L
ARTlcx.~. I - PURPOSE OF A,~,SOCIATION
· The purpose.of the Vu'ginia Municipal Sdf-hsura~ce A,ssoci~on ("Association") is to
and admin~er group seLf-insuraac~ pools as the Associationi deems appropriate 'pursuant to the
authority provided in Chapter 11.1 of Title 15.1 of th~ Code o,f Vir$inia, Such pools my be formed
by one or more political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of V'uginia,to provide for cooperalive
action in providing risk managmn~nt and liability inntrance coverage for pool mmnbers and
emplo!~es of pool mmnbers for acts or omissions arising ou~ of the scold. of their employment,
inctud~,g any or all of the following:
1. Casualty in,suran~, indudin$ g~neral and professional and public officials liability
coverage;
2. Property insurance, including marin~ insurau~e and inland marine and transportation
insurance cov~c~S~;
3. Group life, accident and health coyeraSes including hospital, medical, surgical and dental
benefits to the employees of member polilical subdivisions and their dt~ndents;
4. Automobile insurance, including motor vehicl~ liability insurance coverage and co!!i~on
and security for motor w, hicles owned o~ opented, as required by Title 46.1 of the Code of
Vir~',ia, and protin:lion against other liability and loss associated with the ownership and
us~ of motor v~hicl~s;
5. Surety and fidelity insurance coverage; and
6. Umbrella and nc~ss insura~e coverages.
AlfflCLE n - MEMBERS, ~m~.k'TINGS, VOTIN. G
SECTION I. lV!EMBEI~
The members of the Association shall be political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, or agencies thereof, which are members of a pool created pursuant to Article I, and have
been approved as members as provided in Article II, Seaion 2 hereof.
SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF NEW MEMBERS
'l'~e Members' Supervisory Board ("board") shall receive applications for membership from
prospective new members of the Association and shall approve such applicaxions for membership in
accordance with the terms of the member agreement, rules and rqulations established by the board
for admission of new mereben to the Association,: and in accordance with the laws of the
Commonwealth of Vir~nla, and the rules and regulations eSlablished by the State Corporation
Cowm~siou (the "Commission's regulations"). The board ms~ delqate administerial authority for
membership approval to the administrator, subject to .ratifics~,ion by the board.
SECTION J. TERMINATION OF MZMBE]~
A member who fails to make timdy contribution payments as provided by the member agree-
ment my be terminated after' 10 da~s written notice has been given to the member and the State
Corporation Commission ("Cowm~_-~on").
Afte~ t0 dais written notice to the member and the Cornmqt-slon, the board my termlnatc the
membership of any member who fails to comply with the bit-laws, member agreement, or other
requirementS of the pool, as est~bli~herl from time to time b~ the boarxL The board my also ter-
minate mereben which in the board's judgment fail to rn~rttn~n the undexwrit~nE standards for
members or act in a manner detrimental to the fiscal soundness or effectivene~ of the ~on
or any of itS proSrims.
SECTION 4. Wi'xauRAWAL O~ MEMBEr. .
A member may withdraw from the Association or ]any pool created thereby upon 90 dais writ-
ten notice to the board or as otherwise provided in the member agreement. Where the member
agreement specifies other conditions for withdrawal, such aS~ement shall control.
SECTION 5. MEETINGS OF MEMBERS
The members shall meet annually at the annual confereniz of the V'n~_',,is Municipal League,
on such date and at such time and place as shall be designated by the board. Special meetings of
members my be held at such time and place within :the Ccsnmonwenlth of Vir~_'nla as shall be
designated in the notice thereof upon call of the board, the chairman of the board, or by not less
fixan 10 mereben.
SECTION 6. NOTICE OF MEEIINGS
Notice of the annual meeting and any special meethiE Of members shah be given in writing to
members' key officials (who may be the mayor or manager of a ch7 of town member, the chairman
of the board of supervisors or manager of a county member, or the chief executive or principal
officer of any other political subdivision). Such notice of me~ii~g may be made by mail not less than
I0 days prior to the meeting or by insertion in any official publication of the YtrSinia Municipal
League which is mm'ied not leu than 10 days prior to the date fixed for such meeting. No notice of
the time and phce of any regular or special meeting of the members shall be required if each member
waives such notice in writing and such waiver is filed with the records of the meeting.
SECTION 7. VOTING BY MEMBERS
Members shatl each have one vote wkich may be cast only in penon by an elected or appointed
official of the member duly authorized by the member's $overning body for such purpose. Such
votln_e representatives shall register with the secretary :of the meeting or the administrator prior to
any members' meeting.
SECTION 8. CONDUCT OF MEETING
The chairman of the board shall preside' over all meetings of members, except that in his
absence, the vice-chairman or another member of the board shall preside. The secretary of the
board or the . sccretary's designee shall act as secretat7 for all meetings of the members. All meetings
of members shall be conducted in accordance with the proc~lures set forth in Robert's Rules of
'Order. .:
At each annual mee~tg, the chairman or his alesignet shall report on the fmancial position of
the Association and the various pooh created thereby.~ The members shall also elect board members
as provided in Article III, Section 2 of these by-laws. :
SECTION 9. QUORUM
Attendance by voting delegates reprcrta~ fifteea percent (15~) of the membershil) shall con-
stituxe a quorum aud when a quontm is preseu~ at any. met, inS, a majority of the voting
present may decide any question brought before such m~fiag~except as otherwise provided by law
oc these by-laws.
SECTION 10. ACTION WITHOU'[ MEETING
Any action to be taken by members may be taken .v/~thout a meeting if all voting delegates en-
titled to vote on the m~er consent m the action by a writing filed with the recorc~ of the meetings
of members. Such consent shall be trnted for all purposes as a vote at a meeting.
ARTICLE I~ - MEMBEr' ~IJPERYI~ORY BOARD
SECTION I. POWERS
The Association shall be managed by the Members' Supe~rvi~ry Board which my exercise all
the powers of the Association except as otherwise provided 'b~. law or by these by-law~:'
~ECTION 2. COMPOSrrlON AND ELK'TION OF BOARD MEMBERS
The initial board shall be appointed by the Executive Conunittee of the Y~r~n!s_ Municipal
League and shall serve until board members are elected at the first meeting of members.
Thereafter, the board shall be composed of not' more than eight nor less than four board
members elected by the members at their annual meeting- In ~he event the members fail to have an
election, board members currently serving whose terms ha~e mot at such time expired shall as soon
as practical fffi all vacancies on the board for the ensuing ycar. The board shall set the number or
board member~ at least 20 days before the annual meeting of members. If the number of board
members is different from the previous year then the members~shall be so notified at least two weeks
before such meeting.
At least a majority of the board members shall bc cleaed or aplxinted officials of political sub-
divisions which arc members of the Association and each individual pool connected thercwifil.
Subsequent to the terms of initial board members, board members' terms shall be staggered to pro-
vide that one-third of the board shall be elected each year. In dctermi,~h,.~ the number of board
members to be elected, all tractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number, and in the cvent
the number of board members cannot be e~lually divided by three, the board in its discretion shall
determine the additional board members to be allocated to the different tenm for which there may
be vacancies. A board member may be re-elected for no more than three full consecutive three-yea~
terms; provided, however, that any service of a board member for less rJ~n a full three-Tear term
shall not be counted in connection with such limitation. Not less than two weeks prior to cach
annual meeting, the board shall solicit the names of candida.t~s from the members to fill vacancies
thereon. Such candidates shall be considered by the board in x~aking its nominations for new board
members.
In addition to the board members elected by file memberS, the executive director of the Virginia
Municipal League shall serve as an ex-officio board member ,with full power to vote on all mattcrs
which come before the board and whose presence shall be counted in the determination of a quorum
at any meeting. ..
No board member may be elected or continuc to serve aS Such if hc is, or becomes, an owner,
officer or employee of a service agent for the Association as defined in lhc Commission's
regularions.
5~ECTION ~. RESIGNATION OR TERbIINATION OF A BOARD ~
A board member may resign from all dutie~ and responsibilities themruder at any lime by writ-
ten notice delivered to the chairman or secretary of the hoard~ S~e_h_ notice shall state the da~ said
resignation shall take eff~t and such xzsiSnation shall automa.ti.'cally take effea on such date unless
a successor board member shall hav~ beum selected at an ~-iier date in which event such resignation
shall take effea immediately avon the dection of the successor board m~mber.
A board member's turn may be terminated by the board if he no long~ represem a political
sulxlivision which is a member of the AssociatiOn or if :he j two consecutive board meetings or
one half of the meetings held during the ~sodation's fiscal ~ear.
Board members, upon r~iSnation or ~ermination ~for an~ reason shall forthwith turn over and
ddive~ to the chairman of the board, lm desi~ee, or the administrator, at the principal office or the
Association, any and all r~cords, books, documents or:other property in the posser~ioU or under the
conU'ol of such board member which belongs to the Association.
SECTION 4. V ACANCIF~
Any v~.ancy occurring on the board may ~ f~ by ~'~f~ vote of a mjo~ of ~e'
~~ bo~ m~. ~ ~ wh~ vs~ m ~ ~ ~e r~ini~ b~ m~, the
bo~ may, but n~d n~ ~ no~o~ f~m ~e m~.
~ION 5.
R~ ~ of ~e
~s~i~on or ~ ~ch ~ l~on ~ my be a~ble to a mjo~ of ~e ~d. ~ b~
my pr~d~, by ~o~n, ~e
me~ may ~ h~d ~out n~ of ~e ~e, p~ ~d p~ ~u~f.
S~ m~ or ~ b~ ~ ~ on ~e ~ of ~e~~, ~ce4~n, or ~y two
~ of ~ch m~. Nofic~ ~f
m~b~ not l_~s ~ fi~ a~ ~ W ~ ~te of m~ m~nS, or (fi) by ~l~hone or tel~
~tted not less th~ ~ ho~ ~or ~ m~ m~. Ba s~ n~ s~ ~ ~e date,
time, ~d 1~ of ~ m~, ~d ~ ~fy ~ ~ th~f ~d ny ~on proJ to
be t~ ~t. 5~ m~ of ~ ~d may ~ hcld~ at ny ~ ~d pl~ ~out nonce
pro~d~ ~ bo~d m~ ~te a ~ of no~d co~t to ~d m~.
SECTION ~. QUORUM :
A~ any meeting of the board, a majority of the beard members then in office shall constitute ~
quorum. :
SECTION 7. ACTION AT I~w. gTING
At any board meeting at which a quorum is present, the vote of a rnajori~ of those present
shall be sufficient to decide any matter, unless a different vote is speci~e~i by law or by these by-
laws.
SECTION 8, A~ANCE BY TELEPHONE
Any person may participate in any meeting of the board or any committee or task force
authorized by the board by means of a confer~ce telephone ~or similar communications equipment
if all persons participatin$ in the meeting can simultaneously!hear each other; participation by such
means shall constitute presence in person at the meeting.
SECTION 9, ACTION BY CONSElSE ~
Any action by the board may be taken without a met'tipS ff consent thereto is signed by all
board members and fried with the records of the boardis meetings. Action taken by consent is dfcc-
tire when the last board menbet sip the consent unless the k~onsent specifies a different dfective
date, in which event the action taken is effective as of the date Specified therein provided the consent
states the date of execution by each board member. Such consent shall have the same force and
effect as a unanimous vote.
SECTION 10. COMMITIEF~
The board may create one or more committees and f~x the number of board members to serve
on them. Each commiUee may have two or more members, Who serve at the pleasure of the bo~d,
Committees may have such powen and duties as maybe designated by the board, except that the7
may not fill vacancies on the board or any of its committees; may not adopt, amend or repeal the by-
laws; may not authorize or approve distribution of any of l~he funds of the Association, except
according to formula or method previously prescribed by the board;. and my not..remove the
Association's administrator or service agent.
SECTION 11. BOARD MEMBERS" LIABILITIES
No board member shall be li~le for any action taken in good faith pursuant to thes~ by-laws or
any member a2xeement or otherwisc with respect to the duti~ imposed thereby or by law or
tion or for an omission to act, exccl)t for ~ross ncZli2encc; nor shall any board member be liable for
any act or omition or commission by another board member or by any Association employee.
The board may employ and consult wixh legal counsel iconcaninE any questions which my
arise with reference to the dudes and powers of the board or with reference to any other matter per-
mining to the Association or member a~reements. The opinion of such counsel shall be full and
complcte authorization and protection with vesl~ect to any action taken or suffered by the board
mcmbers thereunder in good faith in accordance with the opinion of such counsel and the board and
mcmbers thereof shall not bc liable therefor.
SECTION 12. INDICATION
A board member shall be entitled to be indemnified. by the Association and the Association
may indemnify such member to the same extent as provided for a director of a ~tock corporation in
Article 10 of Chapter 9 of Title 13-I of the Code of"ftr~uia, as arecurled,
An officer, employee, or agent of the Association may be indemnified by the Association to thc
same extent as provided for officers, employees, or agents of a corporation in said Aniclc I0,
Chapter 9 of Title 13.1.
In no event shall the funds for such indemnification be paid from any loss fund of the Associa-
tion except to the extent that any portion of such loss fundi may be distributed to the members.
The Association may purchase and maim~jn insurance 0n behalf of an individual who is or was
a board member, officer, employee, or agem of the Association against lhbih'vy asserted against or
incurred by him in that capacity or arising from his stares ~in that capacity to the Same extent as
afforded directors, officers, emp|oyees, and agents of a corporation in said Article 10, Chapter 9,
!
S~ECTION L NUMBER, ELFL'rION AND TERM
As soon as practical after the :,,,final meteinS of thenherS and the ekction of board mereben,
the bo~rd members shall elect f~om mmong themselves a ~hairmsn and a vice-chairman. The
executive director of the Virginia Municipal League sliall serve as the secretary of the board.
Each officer shall hold office unt~ his succcs~r is' du~y elected and quafffled or until his death
or until he resigns or is removed in the manner hereinafter i~.ovidai.
SECTION 2. RF.~OVAL :
Any officer dectea by the board my be removed, with or without c~u.se, by the board
whenever in its jud~nent the best interat of the Association iwould be served thereby.
SECTION,~. VACANCIES
A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal, d~squali~cation o~ otherwise
my be filled by the board for the unexlfired portion of the erm.
SECTION 4. CHAIRMAN
The chsirman shall diana the oV~ra~ons of the ~ssc~iat~on, He shall perform all other duties
incident to his office.
SECTION ~. VlCF_,*CItAIRMk~
The vice-chairman shall have the powers and duties incident to that office and shall have such
other powers and duties as may be prescribed from time to time by the board or the chairman.
SECTION ~. SECREIARY
The seaetar7 shall prepare and maintain custody of :.the minutes of all meetings' of the
roerobes, the board, and when required, of all standing committees. He shall also serve and give all
notices of the Association. He shall have charge of the records and such other books, records, and
papers as the board my direct; authenticate the records of the Association; and perform such other
duties as may be incident to his or her of~c~ or as prescribed by the board o~ the chairman.
ARTICLE It, ADMINISTRATOR AND SERVICE ACENT
SEC'ITON I. ADMINISTRATOR
The board shall appoint an administrator to admims't~r the financial and atiministrativ¢ affairs
of the Association and manage the activities of the various pOols created by the Association. Such
administrator shall not be an owner, officer, or employee d a service agent.
The administrator ~o appointed shall furnish a fidelity ibond with the board as obligee. The
mount of the bond shall be determined by the board 'and the evidence thereof shah be available to
appropriate 8overnrncu'ud a$~ncieS.
The board shaa contract in writing on behalf of ~he iAssocia~on for the service~ Of such
administrator on such terms (including coml~nsation) and for such period as the board shall demn
appropriate. The administrator shall carry out the duties and responsibilities set forth in such con-
tract with the board and as specified in the Commis.~on's regulations.
008
The administntor's duties shall include r~sponsibility ~or filing audited annual f'mzncial
statements of ~ch pool cruI~d by tl~ Association with the Commission within 120' days after the
end of thc pool's f'~ y~ar.
SECTION 2. SERVICE AGENT
The board, subject to the prior approval oE the CommissiOn, may appoint a service agent. The
board shall enter into a w~it~tm contract with such service agent upon such terms, and for such
lx'riod, and with such compensation as the board shall deem i appropriate. The service aS~nt shall
pro~de all services ut~ssary to fulfill the members' riShts under the member agreement and obliga-
tions under the Commission's reSuhtions. The service agent shUll agree mhandle all claims incurred
duri~ the contract period to their conclnsion unies~ approval to transfer them is obtained from the
Com~__~on prior w such transfer.
i
The service agent shall furnish a fidelity bond coverinS igs employees, with the Association as
obligee, in an amount sufficient to protect the Association ai~xinst loss of all monies placed in the
claims fund. In addition to all duties and responsibilities ~'t ~rth in the service agent's agreement
with the Association, the service agent shall comply with all requirements of the Commission's
reZulaflons perr~in,_'ng thereto includinZ but not limitext to ~ an anm~ statement of its financial'
condition with the Col~Djssion within four months after the~completion of its fiscal
The board my select a different' service agent for each pool createa by the Association.
ARTICLE Vl - DUTIES AND RESPONSI~n,~HIES OF
MEMBERS' SUPERVISORY BOARD WITH RESPECt TO POOLS
SECTION I. MANAGEMENT OF POOL, EST~~ OF CONTRIBUTION
For each pool created by the Association, the board slull fix contributions to the pool and
supervise the finances of the pool and the pool's operations to the extent necessary 1o assure con-
fonnity with federal and sta~e law, the Commission's : reSulaltion, the member agreement, and any
other governing instruments of the pool- :.
i
The total mount of each member's annual contvibutio~ to each pool shall be certified by the
board to the governing body of each member at least One month prior ~o the be~i.'nnln~ of the next
fiscal year, if practical.
The Board shall take all necessary precautions ~o safelutrd the assets of each pool, including,
but not limited to, the following:
1. Doing all acts necessary to assure that each member centinues to be able to fulfill thc obliga-
tions of membership; and also reporting promptlyi to th~ Commk~ion ally grounds or
change in circumstances which may affea the pool's ability to meet its obliSations such as
withdrawal of a member;
2. Retaining control of all monies collected for'the pool and the disbursement of such monies
by the pool All assets of the pool shall remain in! the custod~ 'of the board or the act-
ministrator and shall not be comingled with funds of:!another pool. However, a claims fund
for payment of benefits due and other related expemes my be established for the use of
any authorized service agent; and
3. Actively collecting delinquent accounts reSuldn~ from any past due contributions. by
members. Any member of a pool who fails to make the required con~butions af[er due
notic~ may be dectaxed inelilible for the self-insuranee privile~ until this past due account,
including cost of collection, has been paid or adeqqately provided for.
The board or the administrator ~ no~ use ~ of th~ monies collected for ~uy purpose
unrelated to securinS the membexs' liabil~ or other fiStits and ebli~nious under the member ~
ment and any a~m~ni~afive or other necessary expenses of the pool Further, the board shall be
~o!~'bit~l from borrowix~ any monies f~om the pool or in the name of the pool without ~dvisin8
the Commission of th~ nature and ptxrpose of the 1o~ and obtainin2 Couuui~on approval.
The books and records pertaining to the Assochtion and ~ny pool which is a Var~ thereof shall
be kept withLn the Commonwealth of V'trginia,'
~uult
SECTION 2. RESI~YT~
The board shall de~i~e an individusl or entity to Calculsle the amount reasonably determined
to be sufficient to provide for the psyment d every loss or clam arisin~ on or prior to the date of
any annual or' other s~Wmt',rt, whefl~-r reported or unreporU~i fox which the pool is liable. The
pool shall maintain a reserve liabiliV] in an amount estimated ~ the a22re2ate to provide for the pay-
merit of all such knses or claims and any expenses related thereto.
SECTTON 3. DLSTR1BUTION OF SURPLUS
Any surplus asse~ O-e- those assets in excess of the mount nece~ary to fulfill aH obligations
under the members' a~eement~) a~-um~ within a pooVs y~z a~ cetl;ified by ~n ~ may be
declared refundable by ~e board. The tmsrd shall mtsblish the plmx and the dates for palanent of
these excess assets; pn~ided howeva, such rdund for any yesr shall not exceed ~0 percem of the
surplus available for the year without prior consent of the Commission. Paymere of this surplus
shall not be made until certified by an actuary and the cu'ti~cation and plan have been fried with the
Commi-_~sion.
Except as provided below, surplus assets accumulated within a pool year will be used ex-
clusively for the benefit of those members belonging to:the poel during the pool year. The account-
ing of the surplus for each pool year will provide for ai separate itemization of the surplus for each
pool year. The surplus assets of one pool year shall not be used to offset the deficiencies of other
pool years except as provided in the next paragraph.
The board may, however, foilowing Commission approval, provide that a specified percentage
of a pool year's surplus be allocated to a restricted surplus account at the end of that year. The
restricted surplus is to be used at the direction of the poors board subject to the approval of the
Commission.
SECTION 4. POOL DEFICrr
If a pool is in a deficit condition, the board shall promp~y f~e with the Cow. xnission a financial
plan to correct the deficit condition, Such plan may include IeqAng an additional assessment upon
members of a pool to supplement the pool's surplus to assur~ payment of the pool's obligations.
Any such additional a,~e~ment ihall not exceed the mount provided in the member agreement.
SECTION ~. VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION OF POOL
Bdore a pool can voluntm~y dissolve, thc board must prr~ent a plan of dissolution to the Com-
mission for approval. Such a plan shall provide for the payment of all incurred 'losses and aperues
of the fund and its members, including all inawred but not reported los,~, as certified by an actuary
to the extent of the pool' s assets. No assets of the vool may be used for any other purpose until pay-
ment of all such losses and expenses is provided for. ·
~VJ.u
ARTICLE VII - BUDGET
The administrator shall cause to be submitted to the boardi no later than May 1~ of each year a
recommended annual budSet fo~ the upcomins fiscal )~sx, i in c hal inS esimates of anticipated
receipts and expenditures in such detail as the administrator xn~.y deem n_ __m. ssary or the board my
recluire.
The fiscal year of the Association and for each pool created thereby shall be from the ~ day
or July in each year until the thirtieth day of the following i~ne, both inclusive.
ARTICLE IX - CONTRACTSi LOANS, CFIXCIIS,
AND DEPOSITS AND ~. "'
SECTIOIV 1. CONTRACTSEither the chairman or the secretary may e~ecute contracts on
behalf of and in the name of the Association or any .pool cennected therewith. The board may
authorize any other officer or officers, agent or agents to cnte~jnto any contract or cxeCtitc an)' iri-
sUmtnent in the name of and on behalf of the Association or any pool co\smected therewith, and such
authority may be ~eneral or confined to specific instances.
· ~CT/ON 2. LOANS/~Io loans shall be contracted on behalf of the Association and no
evidence of indebtedness shall be issued in its name unless autlxoriz~l by The board. Such authority
my be general or confined to specific instances.
S~ECrION -~. CHECKS, DRAFTS, ElYCAll checks, drafts, bills of exchan2e and other
nqlotiable insuumenu (except promissory notes) of the Association or any pool connected
therewith shall be siSned by either the.chairman, The secretaryi or by such other officer or a~t of
the Association as may be authorized so to do by the board. Such auThorivy may be I~xeral or con-
freed to specific instances.
SI[CT/ON 4. DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTSAll funds of the Association not otherwise
cmploycd shall be deposited from time to time in such banks o~ other depositories as the board may
select or invcstcd as allowed under state law and the Commission's regulations.
All funds relatin~ W individual pools created by the Association shall be maintained separately
and not comin~ed exc,~pt for such funds as are necessary for die administration of the pool and the
Association. :
ARTICLE X - INSPECrIOI~ OF RECORDS
The books and records of account of the Association, thei mi~utcs of meetings of members, the
board, and committees, and The records showing the names and addresses of all m~mbers, shall bc
subject to inspection durin2 normal business hours by any board member or any persoft so auThoriz-
ed by the Commission.' In addition, the books and records of the Association r~lall be subiec~ to in-
sl~ction by any member w the extent provided for in Article 18 of Chapter 9 of Title 19.1 of the
Code of Virgit~ia, or any subsequen~y enacted applicable provisions of said Code.
ARTICLE XI - AMENDMENIS
These by4aws may be mended at any time by ~hc coucurrcnce or a majority of The board or by
a majority-of the members. However, these by-laws may noti be amended so as to change the pur-
pose of the Association as set forth in Article [ hereof or u) Dennit the diversion or application of
any of the funds of the Association or any pool connected there~vith for any purVc~se other than
those specified in thesc by-laws, any aVeements, 'state and federal law of the Commission's regula-
tions. The board, upon adoption of an amendment to tlsse b~/-taws, sisil send a cop,/of any such
amendment to all mereben of the Association. Any by-law adopted-by the board may be amended
or rt~pesled by the members and the members may prescribe that any by-law made by them shall not
be altered, amended, or It'pealed by the board. :.
AlrflCli Xll - TERMINATION OF AS,q)CIATION
The Associstion my be terminated at any time Upon the concurrence of thrcc-foutths of the
parties to the member agreement.
In the event of termination, the remainittg funds avahb|c to the A~,md~tlon, aft. e~ l:~ovidinl
for all outstanding oblilptfions, shall be tstn'butcd to psrtiCipsting members through a formula
det~, ,,~ined by the board. Such plan for dis.solution ~ dism'btm'on of funds shall be s. p~-oved by
the: CertainLy'on.
SECTION I. SITUS OF TIlE ASSOClA~ON: " \-.
The situs of the Association is the Comm_onwealth of V!rlginia, All queSions lx'rminixxs to its
validity, construction and administration shall be determined in
Commonwealth of V'trgnia.
SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION
Whenever any words axe used in these by-laws in the ~e gendex, they shall be consm~
as though they w. ex~ also used in the feminine or neuter gender in all situations where they would so
apply. Whenever any words axe used in these by-laws in the singular form, they shall be construed as
though they were also used in thc ptural form in all six~___~__'Dns where they would so apply, and
whcncver any words were used in these by-laws in the plural f~rm, they shall be construed as though
they were also in the singular form in all sit,_,~fions where they would so apply.
ledVJ. l
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community DeVelopment
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
June29, 2000
John K. Voight
111 West High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-00-007 Church of the Cross; Tax Map 46, Parcel 26F
Dear Mr. Voight:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 27, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the concept plan dated
6/21/00 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play
equipment, and walkways.
All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential
districts and away from adjacent streets.
3. 'A left turn lane from Ashwood Boulevard shall be provided. Additional intersection improvements
may be required during the site plan review and approval process.
4. A concrete sidewalk shall be placed on at least one side the driveway from Ashwood Boulevard
to the church.
5. Street trees shall be placed on at least one side of the driveway from Ashwood Boulevard to the
church.
6. A pedestrian connection shall be made Kendalwood at the rear of the church building.
7. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment.
8. Impervious parking space shall not exceed 1 space for every 2 seats in the church.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 12, 2000. 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.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
MAY 30, 2000
JULY 12, 2000
SP 00-007 Church' of the Cross
Applicant's Proposal: A new Episcopal church is proposed by the Diocese of Virginia and Church of the
Cross for the Forest Lakes neighborhood. The church is proposed on the "Farinholt" property, which is a
20-acre undeveloped parcel, located adjacent to the Forest Lakes South dubhouse and behind Hollymead
Elementary School.' The proposal is for a "campus type" church, which will begin as a 200 - seat chapel.
As it grows, the church would like to build a 600-seat sanctuary with a colurnbarium (place for retention of
ashes of the dead). The proposed church is shown on the conceptual plan, which is "Attachment E".
Attachment A describes the applicant' s request for the proposal.
Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section 13.2.2.10 of the
Zoning Ordinance, to allow a church use in a R-1 zoning district. This petition is requested for parcels
described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 26F. The property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on
Ashwood Boulevard at the northwest comer of Ashwood and Kendalwood Drive near Forest Lakes South.
The property is zoned R-1 Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood
Density in the Hollymead Development Area. (See Attachments B & C.)
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the church is residential, recreational, and institutional:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. - ....
Plannin~ and Zonin~ History.: The Farinholt parcel has no planning or zoning history.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Neighborhood Density residential. With
rezoning in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the property could potentially accommodate 60 to 120
new dwelling units. Churches are viewed as supportive to residential uses in the County.
The Neighborhood Model
At a meeting held on May 3, 2000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors began the process of
assessing the report provided by the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee (DISC) to change the
form of development in the Development Areas. On June 7, the Board adopted the twelve principles that
are part ofthe Neighborhood Model as guiding principles for new development. The full report, known as
The Neighborhood Model, has not been adopted. The Board, however, asked that staff reports for
legislative actions include an analysis of how a proposed development is or is not in conformity with the
recommendations of DISC. It is noted that the following comments are provided for information only
and the report is not binding on the applicant or the County.
Twelve principles or characteristics of development are proposed with the Neighborhood Model. Each
principle is named below with statements of how this development proposal addresses the principle..
Pedestrian Orientation - The proposed development provides for a pedestrian orientation by connecting a
4-foot asphalt path along the entry road to the existing pedestrian path across the front of the parcel. The 4-
foot asphalt path follows a long driveway up to the church building and connects in with a proposed series
of paths to meditation areas. The path does not connect through to the Kendalwood cul-de-sac, but it does
connect through to the paths for the Hollymead/Sutherland school complex.
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths - Trees lining the driveway to the church are shown on the
conceptual plan. The trees lining the streets make for a. more neighborhood friendly driveway. If the
driveway were ever to extend to Kendalwood, which is not proposed with this special use permit, it could
form atree-lined street with a path on one side. -
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - The proposed driveway for the church provides
for automobile access to Ashwood Boulevard at a single point. A pedestrian path is shown to interconnect
the development to the school campus. Although the driveway extends only to the church parking lots, a
future interconnection to Kendalwood is not precluded.
Parks and Open Space - Open space on the site is abundant. Meditation paths provide excellent access to
open space.
Neighborhood Centers - Neighborhood Centers are to be places of intense activity surrounded by mixed
uses, with lower density residential uses provided on the outside of the mixed uses. In this particular
situation, the church acts as a neighborhood center. Along the lines of the transect, this center would be
surrounded on two sides by existing centers - a large school complex and a recreational complex. If the
church were developed in accord with the Neighborhood Model's recommendations for centers, the property
would be developed with medium density residential uses and single family detached houses.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale -BecauSe of the "campus style" plan for development of the
church, the development does not provide for much spatial enclosure. The large columbaria area sets up a
circular arrangement that will be a prominent design feature. The church building is set back from the
public road, outside of view of the driving public. To provide buildings and spaces of human scale, the
church would need to be placed fairly close to the public road with the parking areas .and open 'space and
paths behind.
Relegated Parking -Parking is a fairly prominent feature of this development: Approximately 210 spaces
would be provided, at buildout, with opportunities for additional gravel parking areas. As the driveway is
proposed to be 30 feet wide, the church also hopes to have parking alongside the circular driveway to reduce
the needs to provide additional paved parking areas. To be relegated in accordance with the Neighborhood
Model, the church buildings would be closest to the public roads and the parking areas would be placed
beside or behind those buildings.
Mixture of Uses - The proposed development is for a church. The reservation of approximately five acres
provides opportunities for development of two types of uses on the land. As proposed, though, there is no
mixture of uses.
2
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability- No housing is proposed for the development. If the
reserved area were developed residentially, oppommities for housing would be available.
Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment - The parcel is undeveloped; as a result, redevelopment is not
a criterion for assessment.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain - The parcel is gently rolling and major grading is not needed. The
proposed development respects the terrain.
Clear Edges - The parcel is located well within the Development Area boundary; and therefore, keeping a
clear edge is not a criterion for assessment.
In terms of the principles embodied in the Neighborhood Model, this proposed development has some of the
characteristics suggested by DISC. By reserving almost five acres of land, options for future development
in keeping with the Neighborhood Model are not precluded.
The Neighborhood Model, however, is just now receiving public review and has not yet been adopted.
Therefore, the previous assessment has been provided for information only.
Engineerinl~ Analysis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues
related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. The Engineering Department is recommending that curb
and gutter be provided on the entrance drive and a left turn lane be provided from Ashwood Boulevard.
Engineering does not believe the additional traffic from this use at buildout will necessitate additional
changes to Ashwood Boulevard.
Zoning Considerations: Zoning has commented that a rezoning would be needed in order to develop any
of the reserve area into residences at a density shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning has also said that
the curvilinear parking and one-way circulation need Planning Commission approval. The Planning.
Commission at a later date would review each of these items if they were still warranted.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will 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
heretrader. 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 principle question relating to detriment to adjacent property has to do with traffic. If the property were
to develop residentially, additional vehicle trips per day on Ashwood Boulevard would range from 200 to
1200 during the week, with the most likely range being 600 - 900. With the church use, at buildout, likely
vehicular traffic on Sundays would be about 1200 vehicle trips~ This additional traffic does not warrant a
widening of Ashwood Boulevard. It would wan'ant some intersection improvements including a tum-lane.
Residents of the Forest Lakes area would likely notice and have to accommodate large volumes of traffic on
peak Sundays. The traffic on Sundays, though, is not viewed to be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby.
The character of the Forest Lakes residential district is not expected to change as a result of this proposed
use. -
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The R1 zoning district was created to establish a zone that provides for low-density residential uses. The
Land Use Plan shows that the property should support higher density uses than the R= 1 district. Within all
residential districts,. though, uses supportive to Albemarle County residents are anticipated. This use would
be supportive of the Forest Lakes community's religious needs. Letters of support for this church and its
role in supporting the community's religious needs are in Attachment D. Also in Attachment D, there is a
letter which recommends disapproval of the request.
with the uses permitted by fight in the district,
By-fight uses in the R-1 district are single family dwellings, duplexes, and public 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.
Engineering's recommendations for tttm lanes and intersection improvements should deal with safety
considerations. No additional impact to the health, safety, and general welfare is expected.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas'identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The Land Use Plan suggests that churches .are supportive to residential uses in the County.
2. There is sufficient land on which to build a new church in the Forest Lakes area.
3. Approximately five acres of land have been reserved out of the twenty acres to be made available for
future development, which may become residential in use.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Approximately 15 acres of Development Area land will be removed from the inventory of land
available for residential development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
From the beginning of this process, staff has been concerned about the loss of residential land in the
4
Development Areas for a large "suburban" style church. Loss of available land for residential units puts
pressure on other development area lands to absorb the loss and can have the ultimate affect of putting
pressure on the boundaries for expansion. After several discussions between the staff and the applicant, a
compromise was reached wherein almost five acres of land would remain in the inventory for future
residential development. If the Board adopts the Neighborhood Model, future church proposals may be
viewed as more appropriate if they have smaller acreages. In this interim period, however, staff believes
that approval of a 15-acre church site with five acres remaining for potential residential development is in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. As a result, staff recommends approval of the request with the
following conditions: ....
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the concept plan dated 6/21/00
and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play equipment, and
walkways.
All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential
districts and away from adjacent streets.
A left turn lane from Ashwood Boulevard shall be provided. Additional intersection improvements
may be required during the site plan review and approval process.
A concrete sidewalk shall be placed on at least one side the driveway from Ashwood Boulevard to
the church.
Street trees shall be placed on at least one side of the driveway .from Ashwood Boulevard to the
church.
A pedestrian connection shall be made Kendalwood at the rear of the church building.
Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Applicant's letter dated 6/16/00
B. Tax Parcel Map
C. Location Map
D; Letters from nearby and adjoining property owners
~.. Concept Plan dated 6/21/00
HEYWARD,
Architects
BOYD & ANDERSON,
o Interior Designers o Planners
PC
ATFACHMENT A
June 15, 2000
Elaine EchoIs
Albemarle County Department of Planning
401 Mclntire Road ·
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Church of the Cross
RECEIVED
JUN 19 2000
pLANNiNG AN~
COMMUNtTY DEVELOPMEN'f
Dear Ms. EchoIs:
Pursuant to our application for a Special Use Permit for the referenced project, we are
submitting this letter in order to provide you with this brief narrative, designed to aide you in your
understanding of the rationale behind some of our planning decisions. In addition, we would
like to use this letter to place into writing, our willingness to make certain commitments
pertaining to the anticipated growth of the Church over the coming years.
that r ti intended residential
use. The balance of 16.70 acres is the area for which we are requesting the Special Use Permit.
The question has been raised as to why the church would need this amount of acreage. There
are two separate reasons, as follows: The Diocese of the Episcopal Church in Virginia has
recently made a co. nscious decision to increase the sizes of tracts of land which are being
purchased for all new parishes. Over the past several years it has become apparent that a
large percentage of existing parishes are experiencing severe difficulties. in responding to
growth pressures. Almost without exception, these difficulties are the result of older properties
which have become land-locked with no space available for expansion of parking, added
structures such as parish houses or educational facilities, indoor or outdoor recreation space,
etc.
The second reason is based more on the specific design and planning concept which is being
developed for the Church of the Cross at the Forest Lakes South site. Our concept is one in
which the entire site is to be thought of as "the church". We believe that one very serious
problem being experienced by modern human-kind is a loss of our connection with nature. By
allowing our site to retain most of its original natural state, we intend to develop the site as a
"spiritual sanctuary" within a high-density community where all members of the community can
come to share in the spirituality of the place.
The plan includes a network of foot paths which allow for pedestrian circulation through and/or
around the "spiritual sanctuary". The12 short paths which stem off of the main path and lead to
small secluded areas (shown as circles on the plan) are intended as meditation stations.
Although no specific designs have been developed for any of these stations yet, the concept is
that they could be anything from a simple bench to a small garden, gazebo-like structure, or
tiny chapel for I person or a family. We see these stations as places where any local resident
can go for a quiet moment or perhaps the location of a small outdoor wedding.
111 West High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Tel: (804) 296-5353 Fax: (804) 971-6634 E-Mail: bob@hbapc.com
6
Another question which has been raised concerns the potential future traffic which might be
generated as the church grows. Obviously, the first phase of development will not result in the
generation of large amounts of vehicular traffic. The phase one building'is intended to
accommodate up to 200 people with a second phase building for up to 600 people probably not
breaking ground for at least another seven to ten years. The County, however, has expressed
a concern about the possibility of the church at some future time growing to a size capable of
handling one thousand or more. Although we do not anticipate this kind of growth in the
foreseeable future, we are willing to commit to providing future road construction that would
include the addition of a left turn lane, if growth were ever to occur that would dictate the need
of such construction.
The Church of the Cross views Forest Lakes as its permanent home and the members of that
community as its neighbors. The Church is fully committed to developing and maintaining this
relationship and it is understood that the Church's own growth will be managed in such a way
as to assure a positive connection with the community.
On behalf of Father Sweeney and all of the members of the congregation of the Church of the
Cross, I thank you for your assistance and patience in working with us in the preparation of this
application.
Yours very truly,
Bob Anderson, AIA
111 West High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Tel: (804) 296-5353 Fax: (804) 971-6634 E-Maih bob@hbapc.com
7
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
45
32
~A ~ 29B
,
S/93J
30A
34A
33F
36C
93D~
498
SP-aLE IN FEET
22 C
142
RIO
AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS
/
SECTION~i.~':46·' ~ g
FOREST. LAKES
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
ATTACHMENT D
May 12, 2000
Ms. Elaine Echols
Albemarle County Department of
Planning. and Community Developmere
401 Melntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Church of the Cross Episcopal
Application for Special Use Permit
Dear Ms. Echols,
This letter is to inform you of our support for the subject application. We have reviewed
the Church's proposed plans for the property located in South Forest Lakes and believe
that it would be an acceptable use of that property. I understand that the Planning
Commission will be considering the application on May 25th. Please convey our support
of the application to the Commission,
Feel flee to contact us if you have any questions.
Forest Lakes Community Association Board of Directors
cc:
Bob Anderson
Heyward, Boyd & Anderson, P.C.
111 West High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RECEIVED
HAY 18 2000
PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
10
Post Office BoX 8084, 1824'Timberwood Boulevard Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 (804) 973-7222
LN:'-'-J1,NdO"I:J^'~C~ AJ...INr11/t~O~
C]NV 9NINNV'Ic~
OOOZ ~ Z ~
a:qAlaoaEI
1612 King Mountain Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
22 May 2000
Elaine EchoIs
Depannent of Harming and Community Development
Room 218
401 McIntyre Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Ms. EchoIs:
When the Lord sent Abram to claim: land for himself in Canaan, he told Abram 'to "Go, walk
through the length and breadth of the land." While we have not walked every inch of the Farinholt
property, we've familiarized ourselves with enough of it to be persuaded that the situation, size and
location/accessibility would be ideal as a center for worship in the Forest Lakes-Hollymead
community which we've been called to serve.
My family and I came to Charlottesville in 1959, and I served on the Geology~inviromnental
Sciences Faculty of the University until retiring in 1990; we have always been dedicated to the
betterment of the community (e.g., Head Start, Camp Faith, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, St. Paul's
Memorial Episcopal Church, Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation). Since its
inception three years ago, we've been actively involved in the ministry of the Church of the Cross,
especially in the areas of discipleship and mission. Meeting since then in the gynmasium of
Woodbrook Elementary School, our next step as a church is finding a permanent home. Your
approval of our Special Use Permit would enable us to take that next step, and to"more fully serve
the spiritual needs of this fast-growing community.
Thank you for considering this request.
) ]y'ncere yours,
Robert and Helen Lee Ellison
RECEIVED
~A,'f 2-, 5
pLANNtNG AND
C, Ot, A~UNITY DEVELOPME-N'1
'12
William T. Bray
TO:
CC:
Subject:
Cmartin@albemarle.org
Tchopp@juno.com
Church of the Cross Special Use Permit
Mr. Charles Martin
Chairman, County Board of Supervisors
200 Pineridge Lane
Charlottesville VA 22911
Dear Mr. Martin,
As a citizen of Albemarle 'County and tax payer, I wish to add my voice to the thousands of others in the community
who wish to see the beautiful open space of the Farinholt property in Forest Lakes preserved for the good of the
community under the stewardship of the Church of the Cross.
Instead of more high density housing and congestion, the Church of the Cross proposal will help maintain the beauty of
the open space and use it for education, worship, and the health of our population.
The Church of the Cross plans a more family-friendly, lighter, and more passive use of the property than those who
would exploit it for overdevelopment and bring additional track housing and traffic congestion to the area.
Furthermore, there is a great demand for a full-service, family church in Forest Lakes and Hollymead with adequate
parking and open spaces. The community is family-oriented and crying out for more churches. A growing number of
church plants are being established in temporary housing and rented public school buildings presently because room for
churches and church parking have not been allowed in development planning.
I believe that the proposed church will be a real architectural gem forthe community r- something that future
generations will look back on with gratitude to the foresight of the County Board of Supervisors.
The whole northern corridor needs to have more space allocated for churches, religious education, nursing homes,
worship spaces and other community services that only the faith community can provide to our citizens in a holistic way.
The Rev. Terry Sweeney, his congregation and their denomination have proven themselves to be the kind of positive force
that is greatly needed now in the development of the northern corridor.
i~.sp.~~mitted
Wi;liam Thomas B/f¢~/'~
Box 6511
Charlottesville, VA 22905
wtbray@hotmail.com
cc: Tracey Christine Hopper
Elaine EchoIs
RECEIVED
HAY 2 ?000
PLANN!NG AND
GOMMUNi 'i ", ~v ~..OPMENT -~
13
May l9,2000
Ms. Elaine Echols
Albemarle County Dept. of
Planning and Comrmmity Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
RECEIVED
MAY ~- 2BBB
pLANNINe AND
OOMMUNt:P( DEVELOPMENT
Re: Application for Special Use Permit - Church of the Cross
Dear Ms. Echols:
I reside at 2583 Kendalwood Lane, Charlottesville, in the Forest Lakes South
subdivision. On May llth, I sent a letter to each member of the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors in favor of the above-mentioned
application. I have since learned that you are in charge of this project and
would, therefore, like to reiterate my support.
It is my firm belief that the plans that the Church has proposed for the
property will be a benefit not only to the residents of Forest Lakes South, but
the community at large.
· - It will provide residents with a beautiful area to take a walk or experience
s~ome quiet time in designated areas;
· Organizations will be permitted to use the facilities for meetings; and,
most importantly,
· It will become a spiritual haven for those who have yet to find a "home".
What a blessing indeed!
The church continues to keep the lines of communication open with us,
scheduling meetings, requesting input and providing meaningrid information.
Added traffic should not be an issue. Our weekday traffic includes school
buses, construction and landscaping trucks, certainly on a larger scale than
what the church would produce. In addition, yard sale enthusiasts patrol the
14
neighborhood faithfully on Saturday, starting at 6:30 a.m.
In the last week, I visited with neighbors who' either have expressed an
interest in the project or whose property either borders the Church property or
is in close proximity of the property. They have signed a Petition in support
of issuing the Special Use Pennit, a copy of which is attached. I plan to give
the original Petition to the Rev. Terry Sweeney to bring with him to the
meeting on May 30th. I also plan to send a copy to everyone who had
received my previous letter.
I hope you will consider our Petition and comments and recommend acting
favorably upon it.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. Czumak
973-6247 '(home)
15
PETITION IN FAVOR OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CHURCH OF THE CROSS
We, the undersigned, are in favor of the issuance of a Special Use Permit for the building
of a church in the Forest Lakes South subdivision and we respectfully submit it to the
'members of the Planning Commission for their consideration.
NAME
10. ~ ~
12
16.
17.
18.
· ADDRESS
I6
NAME
ADDRESS
19.
20~
22.
.,~-~ "~~
28.
3~~~
3 1.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
17
June 19,2000
2544 Brandermill Place
Charlottesville, VA 22911
The Albemarle County Planning Commission
William Finley, Chair
William B. Craddock II
Tracey Hopper
Jared Loewenstein
William Rieley
Dennis Rooker
Rodney Thomas
RECEIVED
JUN 19 2000
PLANNING AND
,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'
RE: SP 00-007 Church of the Cross - Tax Map 46, Parcel 26F
Dear CommiSsioners:
The Church of the iCross is requesting a special use permit to allow a church on
20.36 acres on Ashwood Boulevard (Tax Map 46, Parcel 26F). I am writing to
support the current R-1 Residential zoning of the property.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, this property is located in a neighborhood
density area of the Hollymead Development. When I purchased my .home in
1999, I understood that remaining property in the Forest Lakes South
development was designated for further residential growth. I chose Forest Lakes
as my home because I wanted a well-planned residential community.
The 20.36 acres is surrounded by homes, two schools and a community swim'
and tennis club. Locating residences on this property is in keeping with the intent
of the development's original plan. It also is, in my opinion, the most appropriate
use for this land. Having family residential growth on this property, as originally
planned, allows parents and children to walk to:
· classes in nine grades (K-8) at Hollymead Elementary and Sutherland
Middle Schools
· before and after school academic activities, clubs, band practice,
intramural events, and more
· special events at the schools, such as parent-teacher conferences,
band and choral concerts, YMCA basketball games, PTO meetings,
and dozens more
· the swimming pools for lessons, swim team practice/meets, swim
parties, swimming recreation, and family fun
· a clubhouse for fitness classes, parties, special events, meetings, card
games, and lots of family fun
several tennis courts for lessons, games, league play, and family fun
the lacrosse field for practice, games, league play, and family fun
· the sand volleyball court for practice, games, and family fun
· a well-equipped playground for family fun
· baseball fields for practice, games, and family fun
· softball fields for practice, games, and family fun
· basketball courts for practice, games, intramurals, and family fun
· soccer fields for practice, games, and family fun
· several all-purpose athletic fields for football practice, kite-flying,
frisbee-throwing, and lots of family fun
· an all-weather track for jogging, running, bicycling, skateboarding,
rollerblading, and lots of family fun
· a friend's house
I strongly urge you to maintain the current zoning for this property. By doing so,
you will help Forest Lakes South remain the type of residential community we all
chose to live in.
I look forward to seeing you at the Planning Commission meeting on June 27.
Sincerely,
Sue Friedman
Home Owner
Cc:
Steve Hammond, President
Forest Lakes Community Association
Elaine K. EchoIs, AICP, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Department
19
· 0 am USED AS
OPPICB SPACE
DUitXN9 PHASE 1
IStre)l~CT TO BUTT NIle
ON~
ATTACHMENT E
Revisions
FOR ,~
PHASE2
,
DgXVI~mvAy. DRII~ '~O
PB~ES'I~IAIm
30 FT J~I~%LT DIIVEWAy
LOGSATED
30
LAm~S AS
LOTS.
4.79
PLAN '
· 20.36 ~C:RES
LOTS · 4.79 ~CRES
TO m? CONS/DEHI~D FOR
PETIT · 15.57 ~RE$
FOR NI~X~S
P~I~ L~8.
CAPACITY · 200 IlO
SRATINO CAPACITY · 600 IN
PARKING · 50 iIiZOUIRIP. D:
PARKING, 150 RETIRED; 166
O~Y ~ ~BS8 E~.
I H.C. SPIES · 2 R~IJ~; 2
ZZ H.C SPIES · 6 6
$P~E R~XR~. 1 V~ $PMB
0012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
SP-O0-11 CFW INTELOS - CV201 (RT 676) (SIGN #26}
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
?'77
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesvii le, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 40~2
July 5, 2000
Paula Figgatt
1150 Shenandoah Village Drive
Waynesboro, VA 22980
RE:-
SP-2000-11 CFW Intelos-CV201 (Rt. 676)
Tax Map 44, Parcel '12H
Dear Ms. Figgatt:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 20, 2000by a vote Of 4-2,
recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors,
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 12, 2000. 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,
~ ,,,/.,~,~,w~~
David B. Benish
Chief of Planning & Community Development
DBB/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Bob Ball
Amelia McCulley
Steve AIIshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DAVID BENISH
JUNE 20, 2000
JULY 12, 2000
SP-2000-11 CFW Intelos - Iw Creek Methodist Church (CV-201--Rt. 676)
ApDlicant's ProOosa!:
The applicant is requesting approval to install a self supporting wooden pole approximately 10
feet above the tallest tree to provide improved wireless service for the Earlysville/Free Union
area, within Albemarle County. The proposed tower site is a 20-foot by 20-foot lease parcel that
is approximately 20 feet from the northem property boundary, west of the church. The tower
itself will be approximately 25 feet from the northern property boundary.
The applicant has provided information indicdting that there is a grove of mature trees
[approximately 9 trees] within 25 feet of where the tower will be located (Attachment C). The
tallest trees; four of them, were surveyed to be approximately 110 feet in height. The applicant
seeks to locate the panel antennas 10 feet above the four 110 foot trees. Two panel antennas
[approximately six feet by one foot] will be flush-mounted to the top of the pole. The proposed
tower is a wooden pole. The specific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on
Attachments C and D. Staff has indicated the location of the proposed tower and access to the
tower on a topographic map, which is included as Attachment E. A detailed description
prepared by the applicant is included as Attachment A.
Petition:
Petition by CFW wireless to construct a telecommunication tower [95 feet] slightly above tree
top level with associated ground facilities on a portion of 1.34 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas
[t0.2.2(6)]. Property described as Tax Map 44, Parcel 12H, is the site of the Ivy Creek United
Methodist Church and located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at 674 Woodlands Road
(Route 676), approximately ½ mile east of the intersection of Routes 676 and 660. The
ComprehenSive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 1.
The applicant is also requesting a site plan waiver and a reduction in setback. The applicant
obtained a setback variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 5, 2000 (Attachment I).
Character of the Area:
The tower site is on parcel 44-12H, approximately 20 feet from the fenceline bordering parcel
44-12, which is included in the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District. The tower itself will be
approximately 25 feet from such property boundary. Access to the site is through the church
parking lot, via an access easement to the 20-foot X 20-foot tower lease area. (Although located
on separate and adjacent parcels, the church, the parking area, and the cemetery appear as one
property and are used for the same purpose.) The tower lease area is located on the parcel west
of the church, which only one dwelling currently exists. The church also owns the subject
parcel. Existing development within the immediate area is primarily agricultural and rural
residential, with smaller parcels along the road and large farms interspersed and located back
from the road. Properties located within the Panorama AgriculturaFForestal (A/F) District lie
immediately adjacent to the north; the [same] adjacent parcel (TM 44, Parcel 12) also has a
conservation easement.
There is some screening of the site. The tower site is located in a stand of 9 trees, the tallest trees
being surveyed at 110 feet in height (Attachment C). The fenced enclosure at the base will
partly or mostly screened by the house to the south and by topography that rises slightly, then
falls away to the north. All of the labeled screening trees shown on the survey are deciduous. (In
Winter, of course, the screening foliage will be gone.)
The proposed tower site lies at an elevation of 550 feet ASL (Above Sea Level). The tower site
is at a higher elevation 'than the property in the A/F District to the north and east and so will be
slightly visible from the pastures in the neighboring A/F District parcels and from the house on
parcel 44-12Q. The closest dwelling is the residence located on the same parcel. The tower is
proposed to be located approximately 70+ feet to the northeast of such existing residence and
100+ feet noahwest of the existing church. Approximately 36 residences are located within
2,000 feet (0.37 miles) of the proposed tower. No existing towers are located in the immediate
area. The closest existing CFW Wireless facilities are located west of Forest Lakes and at
Fashion Square Mall, well to the north and east of this site. The site will be accessed by a 15-
foot easement that partially makes use of the existing church travelway, directly off of
Woodlands Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends does not recommend approval.
Planning and Zoning History.:
October 5, 1999 - The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a setback variance to allow for the prior
proposed tower to be located 10 feet from the northern property line, rather than 35 feet.
August 30, 1999 - The Agricultural/Forestal Committee considered a proposal to construct a
tower in the church cemetery that would be located only ten feet from an agriculmral/forestal
district, but made no motions. According to the minutes, Mr. Jones, a Committee member,
"...summarized by saying that the Committee has a negative feeling of tower development or
any related development this close to an agricultural/forestal district".
October 26, 1999 - The Planning Commission recommended denial of SP 99-55 (4-1) for a 95
2
foot tall wooden pole tower to be located on the northeastern comer of the subject property, in
the cemetery. Minutes of the public hearing are attached as Attachment F. The Commission
noted their concem with the tower location only 10 feet away from the agriculturaMforestal
district. It was also noted that a single oak tree provided insufficient camouflage for the
proposed tower.
May 31, 2000 - The Ag~culturaFForestal Districts Advisory Committee reviewed a request to
construct a tower at a revised location on the church property. Minutes are attached as
Attachment G. The revised location increased the distance separation by 10 feet from the
property line and placed the tower with a stand of more trees. The Committee found "... that the
CFW Intelos Tower on the ,Church property is not compatible with the AgriculturaFForestal
District" by a vote of 4-3,
April 5, 2000 - The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a setback variance to allow forthe tower
site to be located 20 feet from the property line, rather than 35 feet. Attachment I is a copy of the
approval letter.
Comprehensive Plan:
No provision of tl~e Comprehensive Plan prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting Personal
Wireless Services. The limited area included in the lease area for the facility will not
substantially reduce the existing or potential use of this property under the intent of the Rural
Areas designation. The current use is residential. Staff notes that no clearing is necessary for
construction of the site, access, or for the provision of utility service.
Proximity to Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District and Conservation Easement.'
This property is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan, which is adjacent to an
A/F District and also to property with a dedicated conservation easement. The Plan discourages
uses not related to bona fide agriculture or forestry in the Rural Area. Currently, the
Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers.
The A/F District Advisory Committee discussed this project at its May 31, 2000 meeting and
indicated that "... the CFW Intelos Tower on the church property is not compatible with the
Ag~cultural/Forestal District", by a vote of 4-3 (Attachment G, minutes). The primary concem
was the minimal distance between the proposed tower and the A/F District. The presence of a
conservation easement on the same adjacent property also was considered to be a contributing
negative factor towards the vote. However, it is Planning Staffs opinion that the tower location
within a stand of 9 trees, the character of the pole design, and the successful history of using
these types of facilities throughout Albemarle County, all contribute to determining that there
will be a limited visual impact on the adjacent A/F District.
The county has reviewed two similar wooden pole tower facilities in relation to their impact on
A/F Districts and/or conservation easements. They are discussed as follows:
SP 98-09 CFW Wireless :(Arrowhead): After prior acceptance of a deferral to allow the
3
applicant additional time to research altemative locations, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended denial of a proposed 100 foot tall wooden pole tower, on July
14, 1998. Their recommendation for denial was cited for two reasons:
Inadequate information pertaining to alternative locations; and,
The proximity of this particular site to a conservation easement and historical
resources on the adjacent Arrowhead Farm property.
The proposed site would have been located in a wooded area a little less than 100 feet
from a property that was under a V.O.F conservation easement and also of historical
significan'~e. The Board of Supervisors granted a unanimous deferral of this project in
August of 1998. In May of 1999 a slightly revised proposal was considered by the
Planning Commission in which the tower height would not exceed 6 feet above the tallest
tree (with 2 additional feet for a lightning rod) and the panel would not exceed the height
of the tower. The owner of the property also indicated he had no plans to remove trees on
the property. The Commission recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors.
Subsequently, at the request of the Arrowhead property owners, the applicant the
applicant agreed to move the site further away from Arrowhead Farm (from 98 feet to132
feet distant).
SP 99-36 Foxfield - CV202: On October 28, 1999, the Board of Supervisors
unanimously approved a request to construct a 97 foot tall wooden pole tower located
within the center of a large parcel, entirely within an existing A/F District. The Planning
Commission recommended unanimous approval. The Agricultural/Forestal District
Committee did not support this tower, citing concerns about its consistency with the
purpose and intent of the A/F District.
To date, the County has reviewed each tower application on a "case-by-case" scenario.
Approval, or denial, of this application will not conflict with prior County actions or policies.
Historical Aspect:
Ivy Creek Methodist Church was built in the early part of the 1900's. Although the site. was not
surveyed in depth to determine its eligibility for the National Register, the Virginia Department
of Historical Resources survey includes the following comment:
"This site is a well-executed example of early twentieth century Gothic Revival
architecture on a small scale."
Chapter Two of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (adopted March 3, 1999) sets forth
the following goals and objectives:
GOAL: Protect the County's historic and cultural resources.
OBJECTIVE: Continue to identify and recognize the value of buildings, structures, landscapes,
4
sites and districts which have historical, architectural or cultural significance.
OBJECTIVE: Pursue additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle's
historic and archaeological resources in order to foster pride in the County and maintain the
County's character.
Staff notes that constructing a tower on the church property would not further the above cited
goals and objectives, and could compromise the potential eligibility of this historic resource for
listing on the National Register' of Historic Places.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections:
,
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
Waiver of site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance; and,
Reduction in setback in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
1. Section 31.2.4.1 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 proposed tower site is located approximately 20 feet from the nearest property line (to the
north); that boundary is shared with Tax Map 44, Parcel 12, which is in the Panorama A/F
District and also has a dedicated conservation easement. The tower itself will be located
approximately 25 feet from the property line. (A setback reduction is requested for this site in
addition to the setback variance.)
The proposed tower may offer limited opportunities for collocation in an area which has been
identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff notes that:although the County
encourages collocation of facilities where opportunities exist, future collocation on this tower,
should it be approved, should not introduce telecommunications facilities that more significantly
impact the adjacent property and the district. The wooden pole construction and limited height
result in a lack of capacity for vertical separation of antennae belonging to different providers,
and thus collocation does not appear probable. No lighting of the tower is proposed.
There is some screening of the site. The tower site is located in a stand of 9 trees, the tallest trees
5
being surveyed at 110 feet in height (Attachment C). The fenced enclosure at the base will be
partly or mostly screened by the house to the south and by topography that rises slightly, then
falls away to the north. (In Winter, of course, the screening foliage will be gone.) Allof the
labeled screening trees shown on the survey are deciduous.
The proposed tower site lies at an elevation of 550 feet ASL (Above Sea Level). The tower site
is at a higher elevation than the property in the A/F District to the noah and east and so will be
slightly visible from the pastures in the neighboring A/F District parcels and from the house on
parcel 44-12Q. The top of the facility will slightly extend above the existing tree canopy in the
area, but it is anticipated that the additional 10 feet above the tree canopy will have minimal
impact on the overall aesthetics of the site.
It is staff opinion that the only adjacent property potentially effected by this proposal is the
property to the north, which is located in the Panorama Agriculmral/Forestal (A/F) District. The
same adjacent parcel (TM 44, Parcel 12) also has a conservation easement. At the time of the
original proposal, the owner of that parcel submitted a letter that she did not object to a setback
waiver (Attachment H). However, at the October 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the
same adjacent property owner expressed verbal opposition of the tower (Attachment F, minutes).
This application in response to the opposition of the A/F District property owner, as well as the
concerns of the Planning Commission discussed at the October 26, 1999 meeting for SP 99-55.
The revised location includes the following improvements:
The prior site had virtually no vegetation to assist in camouflaging the site. As noted
above, the revised tower site is within a grove of trees~
The prior tower site was located only 10 feet from the A/F District property line to the
north. The revised tower site is located 20 feet from the A/F District property line to the
north.
The prior tower site was located only 20 feet from the A/F District property line to the
east. The revised tower site is now 400 feet from the A/F District line to the east and 100
feet from the A/F District line to the west.
The AJF District Advisory Committee discussed this project at its May 31, 2000 meeting and
indicated that "... the CFW Intelos Tower on the church property is not compatible with the
Agricultural/Forestal District", by a vote of 4-3 (Attachment G, minutes). The primary concern
was the minimal distance between the proposed tower and the A/F District. The presence of a
conservation easement on the same adjacent property also was considered to be a contributing
negative factor towards' the vote. However, it is Planning Staffs opinion that the tower location
within a stand of 9 trees, the character of the pole design, and the successful history of using
these types of facilities throughout Albemarle County, all contribute to determining that there
will be a limited visual impact on the adjacent A/F District. The minimal visibility of the site
does not, in the opinion of staff, result in a substantial detriment to adjacent property, although it
does not further support the purpose and intent of the A/F District. Additional information may
be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts.
6
Staff has presented information related to prior County actions related to site proximity to
conservation easements and A/F Districts. As discussed above (Page 3, bottom), staff finds that
the County has reviewed each tower application on a "case-by-case" scenario. Approval, or
denial, of this application would not conflict with prior County actions or policies.
that .the character of the district will not be changed thereby.
Staff has reviewed the impact of the proposed tower relative to the character of the Rural Areas
District and Panorama A/F District. Staff notes that physical impacts to the property are
anticipated to be minimal since no clearing is required, and access and electrical service already
exist on site. As stated previously, the sitingof this facility within a grove of trees will allow for
it to be slightly visible from Woodlands Road and surrounding property. The visibility of utility
type use in the Rural Areas is not uncommon (power lines and telephone switching stations).
However, the County attempts, where possible, to limit the visibility of these uses. 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 surrounding
area. This facility is located in a grove of mature trees, which has been the favored approach of
the County. The existing trees will serve to hide most of the facility. Although the panel
antennas will be located 10 feet above the tallest trees within the grove, staff finds the increase
above the canopy to be minimal and thereby not altering the character of the district.
The existence and visibility of this facility will not on its own result in a change in the character
of the district to an extent that the area would no longer be considered rural. However, it will
have a visual impact on the area and, therefore, to some extent the character of the A/F District.
Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas in the past, without finding of significant change
to the character of the district depending upon the specific site and its surrounding terrain, land
use, and other site-specific factors. Staff suggests those site-specific factors such as size,
construction type and site characteristics are considered within the larger context of the pattern of
tower location during the special use permit review process. At the present time, there does not
appear to be an excess of tower facilities in this area.
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 Sections 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.8 and 1.5. Sections 1.4.3, 1.4.4,
and 1.5 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. Sections 1.4.5 and 1.4.8 address preservation of historic
areas and agricultural, forestal and other lands significant to the natural. Staff finds that minimal
impact will result from .the proposed tower with the diminished visibility through the grove of
7
trees. Staff opinion is that this request is in compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed tower will not restrict the church, cemetery, residential, or other by-fight uses
available on this site; or by-right uses on any other 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 and 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 insmentality 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 Commissions' 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 protect the public health and safety.
2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Teleeommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement. construction and modification of personal
wireless facililies by any 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 personal
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 service. 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 location for collocation, which would
eliminate the need for construction of a tower. Altemate sites for the construction of a new tower
have not been discussed.
3. Site plan waiver 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 construction of the ground equipment, provision of a parking area
(additional gravel), a gravel driveway to access the site, and adequate drainage. The access road
will have minimal impact, because little clearing is necessary to construct the road and a portion
of the road already exists. Based on the minimal activity necessary for installation staff is unable
to identify any purpose, which would be served by requiring the submission of a site plan.
Staff recommends approval of a full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions:
Should the area of disturbance exceed 10,000 square feet (including the access road), an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building
permit; and,
2. Provision of one parking space.
e
Reduction in setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zonin~
Ordinance.
Section 4.10.3.1 states:
The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to bams, 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 otherwise permitted
by the Commission in a 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.
According to the requirements of ihis provision, the proposed tower would need to be located a
minimum of 120 feet from the edge of the property. The revised site location is approximately
20 feet from the noah property line, 45 feet from east property line and 100 feet from the west
property line. The proposed tower site meets the setback requirement to the south. As noted
earlier, this application has attempted to diminish the impact to the property owner to the north,
by increasing the setback an additional 10 feet and placing the tower within a small grove of
9
trees. For the above noted reasons, staff can support such reduction in setback from the northern
property line. Staff also finds that a reduction of 20 feet from the western property line will have
minimal impact for the same reason. Since the property owner to the east is the church who also
owns the lease parcel, no objection to the reduction in setback is anticipated. Staff supports the
above noted reductions in setback.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. 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 is such that it will have limited impact on adjacent
properties;
Access to the will be partially from an existing driveway and through an existing
entrance; and,
This request generally complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
This site and tower will be slightly visible from the surrounding area which is in an
Agricultural/Forestal District and conservation easement, but due to the design and siting
of the tower, staff believes that any change in character to the district will be minimal;
There is a relatively limited number of trees (9) screening the site. Although in this case
staff believes the trees and other aspects of th~ site (topography,. existing structures)
effectively screen the site, a larger stand of trees is generally preferred.
A non-agricultural use will be introduced into a rural area, immediately adjacent to an
AfF District and a conservation easement; and,
Conitmcting a tower on the church property would not further the goals and objectives
set forth in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, and could compromise the potential
eligibility of this historic resource for listing on The National Register of Historic Places.
The following factor is relevant to this consideration:
:1.0
1. There is an existing reasonable use of the property;
This proposal may not be considered to be contributing to an "attractive community" as
outlined in Section 31.2.4.1 of the 'Zoning Ordinance; and,
To date, the County has reviewed each tower application on a "case-by-case" scenario.
Approval, or denial, of this application will not conflict with prior County actions or
policies.
Staffs review has resulted in mixed findings. The issue with towers generally focuses on
visibility. Although the revised site location within a stand of 9 trees provides screening, the site
may become more visible if any one tree is lost in the future. While, the site will be visible from
Woodlands Road and the surrounding area, including property in an Agriculmral/Forestal
District and a conservation easement, given the character of the pole design and the successful
history of using these types of facilities throughout Albemarle County, the visual impact should
be limited. The A/F District Committee, by majority vote, recommended against this proposal
because of the incompatibility of the tower to the District. Due to the lack of tall structures in the
vicinity to allow for co-location, no alternative site analysis could provide for superior siting
options. However, the impacts created by this site are unique in that it is in close proximity to a
property in an AgriculturaFForestal District and under a conservation easement and will be
visible from that property. Also, installation of the tower on the church property could
compromise the potential eligibility of this resource for listing on the National Resister of
Historic Places.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff does not recommend approval. Should the Board chose to approve this application, staff
recommends be 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 retum to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
· Antenna may not extend. above the height of the tower, and therefore shall not exceed a
total height of 120 feet;
,
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be of wood;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. The tower shall have no lighting; and,
All equipment mounted to the pole shall be painted or othenvise treated to match
the pole in color;
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Lease Parcel &
Ingress Egress Easement" dated January 28, 2000 (Attachment XX);
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. The Antennas shall be limited to those shown in a plan titled "CFW Wireless
Route 676 CV201" (Attachment XX);
b. .Antennas shall be flush mounted to the pole; and,
c. Satellite and microwave 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
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 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. Outdoor
lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. A lighting plan must be
provided with the building permit application;
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 the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site outside the access
easement and tower lease area. The Director of Plarming shall identify which trees may
be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly
authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees
within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building;
0;
11.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Fencing of the lease area shall consist of a wooden fence of wood color, which is limited
to a 10 foot by 10 foot area and 6 feet in height;
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;
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later
than July l of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall
identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service pro~rider;
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;
12. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; and,
13. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section.
Waiver of Site Plan Requirements:
Should the Planning Commission support a waiver of the requirements of a 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:
Should the area of disturbance exceed 10,000 square feet (including the access road), an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building
permit; and,
2. Provision of one parking space;
Reduction in Setback:
Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of the following reductions in setback:
A setback reduction to 25 feet from the north property line;
A setback reduction to 45 feet from the east property line; and,
A setback reduction to 100 feet from the'west property line.
13
ATTACHMENTS:
E-
F-
G-
H-
I-
Applicant's Application for Special Use Permit
Tax Map
Lease Parcel Survey with Surveyed Tress Titled "Lease Parcel & Ingress Egress
Easement" and Dated January 28, 2000.
Details Plan Titles "CFW Wireless: Route 676 CV 201
Topographic Map
October 26, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 2000 A/G District Advisory Committee Minutes
Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Dated September 1, 1999
Board of Zoning Approval of Setback Variance Dated April 5, 2000
14
Application for Special Use Permit ATTAc T A
Project Name o~,,., ~ ,~ ~er ~, mi~ ~cs.,,.?)
*Existing U~ ~ a ~ ~ ~k
*Zo~ Dis~ct ~ ~
(*s~f will ~sist you ~ ~e i2ms)
Number of acres m ~ covered by Sped~ Use Pe~t (~a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~) ~ ~ t ~ a 0 t
*Zoning Ordinsnce Section number requested
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with this application?
I, ~e d2.r~6
Ownerofland<As,ist. inm¢coun./smcords): '--LULt ;8 ire !
myme mone C f04 > q~- 4 ?q-3 v~ #
Applicant (Who is the contact person tepresenting?Who is requestingthe specialuse?):
·
DaytimeVhone&~'4~ ) t3dtO ' 7c~q~
Location of property (~dmarks. intersections, or other)
Physical Address (if assigns) & 7d
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list
those tax map and parcel numbers ' I~ ' H '
OFFICE USE ONLY
Fe~ mount $
History: ~ S~iM U~ P~B: '
Cheek #: ~lqq.
n ZMAs and NotTen:
CI Variances:
O LeUer of Authorization
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? O Yes ~ No
401 McIntire Road -:. Charlottesville, XtA 22902 ':' Voice: 296-5832
15
Fax: 972-4 126
· ATTACHMENT A
~Section 3 1.2.4.1 of the A/bemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board or' supervisors
hereby reserves unto itseft 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, that the character of the district
will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations pwvided in section
5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their hnalysis of your request. Please complete
this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request.
If you need assistance filling out these .items, staff is available.
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property ?
How is ~e ~e in h~ony wi~ ~e p~o~ ~d intent of~e Zoning ~din~ee?
' d
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
How will this use promot~ the public health. safety, and general welfare of the community ?
2
Describe your request in detail and 'inClUde all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved'in the u;e, operating hours, and'~y)~iquefeamres of the use: ~ZA} ,~'/~/(~ fe~~
8t rro rJi .
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
ATTACHMENT A
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership
or association, or in the name of a mast, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
todoso. . .
- · .If the applicant is 'a'contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable tQ the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
~r//3. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
C~] 4. Additional Information, if any.
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in
filing this application. I also certify. that the information provided is tree and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
Signature
Printed Nine
7 /
Date.
,
Daytime phone number of Signatory
3
r 2
ALBEMARLE
30
COUNTY
7
ATTACHMENT B
9C
.',..-.'
,?. . ./'
43
4F
,jRt. 658
· I 31A
4e
SP-99-55 CV201 Route 676 (Iw Creek Methodist Church) (Siwn ~43)
:;
19a
19
ffj /
~5r
zSt,
45
,/
33G?
1
33c
60
WHITE HALL, JACK
~3 ./52
64.
JOUETT is
I
35A ..
'4' '
35
-)
/ MARY RIVIERE
S88'4.1'31 "E TM 44-12
20.00'-", D.B. 1276, PG. 421
S01'18'29"W D.B. 1494, PG. 720
IRON PIN
F'ND.
o
" """' ""'
I
METHODIST CHURCH IN ~ D B 173 ~O 375 STONE
LEASE
~'="~ ~ ~ ~ O' PB~$%~ODL~D CHURCH
¢. LEASE PARCEL DERIVED FROM A RELD
SURVEY AND DEEDS AND PLATS OF
RECORD AS FOUND AMONG THE LAND
RECORDS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA IN:
DEED BOOK 383 AT PAGE 493
DEED BOOK 173 AT PAGE 375
5. -- DENOTES IRON PIN SET
.... DENOTES PROPERTY LINE
CONSTRUCTED
FROM PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
NOES:
1. OWNER: TRUSTEES OF THE IVY CREEK METHODIST
CHURCH IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
TAX PARCEL 44-12H D.B. 383 PG. 493, &
TAX PARCEL 44-14 D.B, 173 PG. 375
ZONED RA .
2. OTHER EASEMENTS, IF ANY, NOT SHOWN.
NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED.
3. THIS PARCEL IS NOT IN A
F:E.M.A. FLOOD HAZARD
ZONE "A" OR
SURVEY OF A
P ARCEL &:
EGRESS EASEMENT
FOR CFW WIRELESS
ON THE LAND OF
OF THE IVY CREEK METHODIST
IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
JACK JOUETT DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY o VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1"=; 50' DATE: DECEMBER 10. 1999
REVISED DATE: JANUARY 28, 2000
Chanttlly,Va.
Bxtdiewuta,,Vm. V~'linia Beach,We.
l~elburg,Va. lllne, hemf~m-,Va.
TREE DATA
HEIGHT ABOVE
SlllE +/-
A 5-24" POPLAR 110'
B : 30" POPLAR 100'
C 30" MAPLE 80'
D TRIPLE 8" MULBERRY 20'
E 15" MAPLE 60'
F 8" POPLAR 25'
PHR&A 104.1
C,
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
'CFW
WIRELESS
ROUTE 676
CV 201
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SC.N..E
SITE LATITUDE: 38° 06' 46.9" N
SITE LONGITUDE: 78° 30' 40.3' E
INDEX:
DRAWING NO.
VIRGINIA
TITLE
· TITEE
SURVEY
"H" FRAME DETAILS
SITE PLAN
ANTENNA GROUND DETAIL
ANTENNA DESIGNS
STRUCTURAL DETAILS/PAD
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
rz'J
APPRQVI~D I~Y;
ENGINEER:
01RECTOR:
DATE:
CONTRACTOR:
o
PROPOSED WOOD POLE,
CAB:EENMiNANEZ~r Y~,,~ '~
'==' ~ ~ ~ 4" x 10" OPENING
..... : FOR CONDUIT
MONOPOLE OR SELF SUPPORT r N o e-- :~. 0"
~"~' ~ 2" ~LCO ~:LVAN~ED D ' , POWER CO
/ 12" LONG
~-// 1" ABOVE PAD ~ /
~PICAL ~CH ~ 6" GROUNDED
--
CORNER
[ NE~ 4X
INCOMING POWER AND ~LCO
TO BE LOCA~D IN ~E RELD
NOTE:
"H" FRAME TO BE MADE UP OF 3"
SC. 40 GALVANIZED PIPE AND
UNI,STRUT PLACED TO RT INSTALLATION.
SUPPORT STRUCTURE MUST BE SUBMITTED
TO CFW FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
J--
· 10' 'l 4"
20' X 20' GRAVEL
COMPOUND
INCOMING POWER AND TELCO
TO BE LOCATED IN THE FIELD
·
2" PVC
12" LONG
1" ABOVE PAD
TYPICAL EACH
CORNER
PIPE
OR
/~ ~ "H" FRA4.M~AL VANiZED
0
0
CO~ ANTENNA '
PROPOSED WOOD POLE,
:OPOLE OR SELF SUPPORT
TOWER- TO BE LOCATED IN THE
D
· ~ ~ x x K . ~ · 2'6' GATES
COAX TO ANTENNAS
SC 611
NOT TO SCALE
GPS
'T""" 2-3"
LIGHTNING ROD
GROUND TO BUSSBAR,
COPPER STAPLES
EVERY 36"
FRONT SIDE OF POLE
POLE
GROUND (#2 TINNED) CABLE
GROUND TO LIGHTNING
ROD, COPPER STAPLES
EVERY 36"
FROM BUSS BAR TO ROD
CAD-WELD
GROUND LEVEL /18"
. ........,\
-)
BACK SIDE OF POLE
ATTACHMENT D
PANEL
ANTENNAS
7/8' CDAX TO BE USED
· TO BE FURNISHED BY CF~
ROUTE 676 0V201
SPECIFICATIONS
24
CFW
WIRELESS
CHAIN
6 1/2' IMA. M'114 1 I/4' SLOT.
/,NO Irn4 PROVlBON FOR t 3/8' SI.MaK IN A 1
LINK FENCE DETAIL ,,~..~c..~
i DOUBLE SWING GATE
SECTION THROUGH TOWER YARD
NO SCAL~
ANTENNA TYPE 7221.14 7221.14.
AZIMUTH 125' I BOWNTILT=O' AZIMUTH 255' ~ DOWNTILT=O'
FROM/TO COAX LENGTH (FT)"' COAX LENGTH (FT)*
CABLE CABLE
SIZE RX/~"X SIZE RX/TX
ANTENNA TO
PRIMARY RADIO 7/8" 115' 7/8" 115'
CABINET
* ESTIMATED LENGTHS FROM AVAILABLE INFORMATION. FIELD ENGINEER TO UPDATE ON AS-BUILT DRAWINGS.
ANTENNA LINE SCHEDULE
FOUNDA~ON AND PaD
NO SP_JU, E
12'
' I
51' ~ 54'
2' PVC
12' LONG
1' ABOVE PAD
TYPICAL EACH
CORNER
E. CONCREI[ C0V~R AROUND REINFORCSNG BARS (U.N.O.) SHAll
1. COUCRE~ CAST AGAINST ANO PERMANENR,Y r, XPOS~D EARTH.....3'
2. CONCRE1E EXPOSED )'O EARTH. Vr~AIHER .........................2'
S. SLABS ....................................................
4. ALL O'IHER CONCRLr'~ .....................................I I/2'
07-19-99
Is~''m-: 6 J
27
SECTION 44
_Deferred Items:
ATTACHMENT F
SP 99-55 CV201 Route 676 (Ivy Creek Methodist Church)
Request for special use permit to allow 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 44, Parcel 12H, is the site of the Ivy Creek United
Methodist Church and is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at 674 Woodlands Road
(Route 676), approximately ~ mile east of the intersection of Routes 676 and 660L The property
contains 1.6 acres and is zoned RA, Rural'Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property
as Rural Area 1. Deferred.~om the October 19, ]999 Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, stating that the application is very similar to other treetop
facilities the Commission has considered; this proposed site is adjacent to an Ag/Forestal District,
and adjacent to a parcel which has a conservation easement on it. She noted that the site has a very
short setback from that parcel boundary '- approximately 10 feet. Ms. Thomas reported that the
church itself owns' two parcels, with the tower site on the "panhandle"-shaped parcel. She stated that
staff felt that the site characteristics did not offer much camouflage, although from certain angles on
Woodlands Road, large oaks provide good camouflage for the traveling public. Ms. Thomas
emphasized that there is very little screening provided for the adjacent parcels to the north and to the
east; this is not a uniformly wooded site. She concluded that staff recommended denial of the
application because the visual impacts of the tower would negatively impact the character of the
district and the adjacent property. Ms. Thomas noted that staff agreed with her recommended
alternative condition that the tower be removed if the large oak providing most of the screening were
to come down.
Mr. Rooker asked if the more heavily wooded areas near the site were owned by the same property
owner as the church. Ms. Thomas responded that she understood the property to the west of the
church parcel to be owned by a different private owner.
Ms. Thomas confirmed that there have been towers adjacent to A/F Districts before, as well as
towers adjacent to conservation easements; however, she noted that the Arrowhead tower, for
example, is set back a distance greater than its height, and would not greatly impact the conservation
easement parcel. She added that that site is a completely wooded site, which this proposed site is
not.
Mr. Rieley recalled that the Commission recommended denial of the first Arrowhead application,
and the applicant withdrew the application because of the same issue -proximity to the line. He
added that the one eventually approved was in a different location.
Ms. Thomas said that the location was slightly modified, approximately 35-40 feet further away
from the shared boundary, which removed the issue of the potential falling of the tower onto the
adjacent conservation easement property.
Planning Commission - October 26, 1999
28
ATTACHMENT F
In response to Mr. Rooker's question regarding neighboring property OWners, Ms. Thomas noted
that the adjoining property owner to the north has contacted staff expressing her opposition to the
Ivy Creek Methodist Church tower proposal
Mr. Dick Shearer of CFWflntellos addressed the Commission. He explained that CFW had
Waynesboro Landscaping & Garden Center evaluate the large oak tree on site, and they determined
that the tree was quite healthy (Attac. hrnent "A"). Mr. Shearer confirmed that CFW agreed with
staff, s recommendation that if the.tree died, the tower pole would be removed and relocated. He
said that the wooded property. near the church site belongs to Ms. Riviere, and is part of the A/F.
District. Mr. Shearer presented photos of sites similar to the proposed Ivy Creek site. He explained
that because of the system's design, CFW is "confined to a very specific area where these can ~
locate," and if they are moved even ¼ mile to a lower elevation,. the coverage objective will not be
achieved.
Mr. Thomas asked if the tower could .be moved away from the property line.
Mr. Shearer said that the Board of Zoning Appeals agreed to a variance in the setback allowance,
and there is not really another appropriate spot for the tower.
Mr. Thomas said that he visited the site, and it was not visible from the church.
Mr. Shearer said .that the existing telephone poles have been suggested as location sites for the cell
tower, and CFW contacted Virginia Power, asking them to explain why this could or could not be
done. He referenced Virginia Power's written response (Attachment "B") as to why this is not
allowed.
Mr.. Rooker asked Mr. Shearer to compare the proposed pole and antenna array to current CFW sites.
Mr. Shearer replied that the site closely resembles Red Hill, with the site visible only from one short
section of Route 676. He confirmed that the antenna would be panel antenna, flat against the pole,
extending seven feet above the tree line. Mr. Shearer indicated that there are some small trees to the
rear of the site, and CFW is willing to. liindscape to conceal the ground equipment.
Mr. Thomas' asked what part of the tower site would be visible by the Riviere's from their property.
Mr. Shearer replied that the wooden pole would be visible, and it would look like a utility. pole
without wires.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Shearer if Waynesboro Landscape & Garden Center had worked' with CFW on
other projects. Mr. Shearer replied that they do all of CFW's landscaping.
Mr. Rieley asked what the species of the oak is. Mr. Shearer replied that he did not know, and was
not sure if any borings were done to determine the strength of the tree, or if the tree has any lightning
protection.
Planning Commission - October 26, 1999
i
ATTACHMENT F
Ms. Mary Morris Riviere addressed the Commission, stating her ownership of the land that the
church abuts. She explained that her grandmother gave the land for the church, and her father
financed the church. Ms. Riviere said that she and her brother have given land to the church, and
after she acquired the family farm, she gave the church land. She noted that her farm is in a
· .conservation easement, and is well-kept. Ms. Riviere said sh~ disapproves of the tower proposal,
expressing concern that the tower would be put in a cemetery. She added that the person who came
to speak with her about the proposal did not indicate how tall the proposed tower would be. Ms.
Riviere explained that she has given her granddaughter alot right i'n the line of the tower, which
would put any house built in the path of the tower if it were to fall.
Mr. Rooker asked if she .had spoken to the church about not leasing the land for the tower.
Ms. Riviere said that the person who came to talk with her about the tower first asked to put the
tower on her land, a2nd said that the tower would not be noticed. She said that the conservation
easement on her property prevents her from putting up anything like this.
Mr. Rooker asked if she had spoken to anyone at the church explaining her desire for the tower not
to go on the church property.
Ms. Riviere said that she had not talked to anyone at the church.
Mr. Rooker said that regardless of what action the Commission and Board make, it is up to the
church as to whether they lease church property for this purpose. "It sounds to me that [your family]
has been a great benefactor of that church over the years... you may want to express your opinions to
the church about them allowing a tower to be put on the property."
Ms. Riviere responded, "I'm sure they know that I am not for this thing, and they have asked
me... for land. Every time, I have explained that I could not give any land away. Still they call
me...I just can't see having this-thing standing up in front of my house .... should we have a storm or
something, the whole bit would come over on my granddaughter's house."
Mr. Thomas asked if he~ granddaughter's property was also in the conservation easement.
Ms. Riviere confirmed that it is, even though she has not built the house yet.
Ms. Babs Huckle, who owns property adjacent to Ms. Riviere, addressed the Commission. She read
from a prepared statement, expressing her 'opposition to the tower (At.tachment "C").
Mr. Shearer re-addressed the Commission, offering to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker asked him about the height of the tower, in comparison to other towers CFW has used in
the county thus far.
Mr. Shearer responded that their lowest tower is 65 feet, with the highest at approximately 100 feet.
Planning Commission - October 26, ! 999
3O
ATTACHMENT F
Mr. Finley asked how far the property line to the north is from the site. Mr. Shearer responded that
the property is 10 feet from the site. Mr. Finley asked if the tower site is located in the cemetery.
Mr. Shearer replied that the site would be in the cemetery area.
Them being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker noted his consistent opposition to towers that violate setback requirements when there is
an objection by the adjoining property owner. "We clearly have an objection from the neighboring
property owner. You've got a 1 O-foot setback for a 90-foot tower. To me, it could serve as a
significant restriction on her right to use her property." Mr. Rooker added, "We should encourage
people to put their property in conservation easements, Ag/Forestal Districts. We have two property
owners here... who have done so, and to me it would be somewhat of a slap in the face to approve a
tower this Close to the property line." He emphasized that he could not support this application.
Mr. Rieley agreed, noting that the two critical issues are the proximity to the line and the A/F
District on the adjoining property. He also added that sparsely-treed sites do not work for these
towers', stating that the Red Hill site - which Mr. Shearer used in comparison - is one of the least
successful tower installations because it is highly visible due to the angle of view and the fact that
there are just a few large trees. Mr. Rieley said that the focus on the old oak tree underscores the
fact that'there is too much reliance on one tree for screening. He expressed his reluctance to support
the application, and encouraged the applicant to seek a better site in this locality.
Mr. Finley.said, "We've waivered setbacks, but I don't believe it's ever been that short - 10 feet."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded a recommendation for denial of SP 99-
55. In a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Thomas dissenting, the motion for denial of SP 99-55 passed.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Ms. Washington seconded a recommendation for denial of a setback
waiver in association with SP 99-55. In a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Thomas dissenting, the motion for
denial passed.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved; Mr. Thomas seconded a recommendation for approval of a site plan
waiver in association with SP 99-55. In a 3-2 vote, with Mr. Rieley and Ms. Washington dissenting,
the motion passed.
Mr. Rieley explained that his reason for voting against the site plan waiver is that the site is so
narrow, there are site plan issues that would need to come before the Commission.
Commissioners thanked Ms. Thomas for her excellent work, as this meeting was .her last for county
planning.
31
ATTACHMENT G
MAY 31, 2000
The Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee met on' Monday, May 31, 2000,
at 7:30 p.m., Department of Planning & Community Development Conference Room.
Those members attending were Joe Jones, Bruce Hogue, David vanRoijen, Rosemary
Dent, Sherry Buttrick, Jacquelyn Huckle, and Walter F. Perkins. Staff members present
were David B. Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development, Gordon Yager,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Bruce Woodzell, County Assessor.
A quorum was established and the meeting called to order.
Addition to Hardware River AgriculturaUForestal District - - Proposal to add
153.48 acres in five (5) parcels to the Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal District. The
properties descded as Tax Map 88, Parcels 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F are located both
east and west of Seminole Trail (Route 20 South), just north of the intersection of
Secretary's Road (Rt. 708) and Seminole Trail.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting the following:
The Hardware River District was created on November 4, 1987. Additions occurred
on May 3, 1989. The district was reviewed on November 12, 1997, and further
additions occurred on May 13, 1998.
The Hardware River District contains 3,868 acres in 37 parcels. The proposed
addition contains 153.48 acres in 5 parcels.
· A total of 153.476 acres are enrolled in the use value program, 31.6 acres under
agriculture and 117.876 under forestry, with the remaining four non-qualifying acres
allotted to dwellings.
· There are four dwellings on the five parcels.
· The nearest Development Area to this proposed addition is Neighborhood Five,
located four miles northeast of the property.
Mr. Yager noted that the aCreage's for Class 2, 3 and 4 are low, pointing out that these
may represent low land. The land is usable for pasture and hay, there is not much land
suitable for cropland.
Mr. vanRoijen pointed out that the land is in a conservation easement.
Ms. Buttrick noted that Parcel 20 is in a conservation easement, she is hoping to get
this land in the agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Jones noted that this is good forest land, the soil is good for poplar and oaks.
Mr. vanRoijen moved for approval of the 153.48 acre addition to the Hardware River
District.
Ms. Dent seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ATTACHMENT G
SP-00-011 CFW Intelos (CV 201. Rt. 676) - Request for special use permit to allow 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 44, Parcel 12H, contains 1.6 acres, and is located in the Jack
Jouett Magisterial Distdct on Woodlands Road [Route 676], approximately one mile east
of the intersection of Woodlands Road and Reas Ford Road [Route 660]. The property
is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural
Area [Rural Area 1]. This property and proposed tower site is located adjacent to the
Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting the following:
. Request for approval to install a self-supporting wooden pole approximately 10 feet
above maximum tree height to provide improved wireless service for the
Eadysville/Free Union area.
· The location of this site is the Ivy Creek Methodist Church, which is located adjacent
to the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District.
He pointed out that the Code provides for the requirement that the County take into
consideration any development proposals in proximity to agricultural/forestal districts
for their potential impacts. Staff is looking for input from the committee as it relates
to the special use permit..
He noted that this proposed tower would be approximately 18-20 feet from the
boundary line of the agdcultural/forestal district.
In its 'meeting on August 30, 1999, the Advisory Committee considered this previous
proposal, but made no motions. According to the minutes,: Mr. Jones "summarized
by saying that the Committee has a negative feeling of tower:development or any
related development this close to an agricultural/forestal district." On October 26,
1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial on the request. On November
10, 1999, the Board of Supervisors accepted the applicant's request for deferral and
referred the matter back to the Planning Commission. The applicant has since filed
this new special use permit application (SP 2000-011 ) for the new proposed tower
site.
There are some errors on the applicant's survey, and the information shown is
limited.
o Tree "D" (the small, split mulberry) is broken and very thin above 6' or so
above the ground. It will provide very little screening.
o The west edge of 44-12H is screened by a row of large oaks that are not
shown on the survey:. The fence line on the north edge of 44-14 (the church
parcel) has a row of small deciduous trees.
· Tree "C" is an oak, not a maple. Tree "F" is not a poplar--possibly a hickory.
Ms. Dent noted that the wind, at times, is significant and asked if a tree could be used
for the tower.
Mr. Benish pointed out that the tower is wooden and would not be very tall.
33
ATTACHMENT G
Mr. vanRoijen ascertained that there is approximately a 10' drop from the site to the
road.
Mr. Benish noted that the tower is in a gully on the site, but it is in a relatively high
location.
Ms. Huckle questioned the location of the pole with regard to the house.
Mr. Benish pointed out the location of the tower site, noting that it is not very visible
from Rt. 676.
Ms. Huckle ascertained that the distance of the tower from the parsonage is
approximately 25'.
Mr. Woodzell asked if there were any photographs showing existing tree towers.
Ms. Figgatt noted that there are a number of tree towers in Albemarle County.
Mr. vanRoijen stated that there may be a problem connecting the pole to a VEPCO
pole, but noted that the pole could be put in the power line right-of-way.
Ms. Figgatt noted that several poles have been attached to transmission towers.
VEPCO would prevent us from putting the pole in the right-of-way. She noted that the.
church owns the right-of-way, not VDOT. She also pointed out that the base unit could
be buried, pointing out that this is approximately the size of a small ice box.
Ms. Figgatt pointed out that the tower would be more visible if located on the road. A
variance has been approved reducing the setback from 35' to 25'; the pole is
approximately 120' .tall and the highest tree is 110'
Ms. Huckle asked if other site had been explored.
Mr. Van Roijen noted that the applicant is trying to get the optimum height/reception.
Agdcultrual/Forestal Districts were formed for protection and uses. should not be allowed
that are not allowed by right. He noted that he did not feel the setback was sufficient.
He objects to the tower being this close to the property line. He noted that the pole
should be set back the full height of the pole from the property line.
Ms. Buttrick noted that the adjacent property owner, Mrs. Riviera, objects to this tower
being located next to her property.'
Ms. Figgatt pointed out that the majority of the neighbors are not opposed to this tower
location..
Mr. Woodzell pointed out that the Easter site was approved, which was located within
an agricultural/forestal district.
34
ATTACHMENT G
Mr. Jones pointed out that in the case of Peter Easters request, the Committee
recommended denial, but the Board of Supervisors approved the request. The Board
stated;that this was not a detriment to the district, therefore, it could be located within
the district.
Mr. vanRoijen stated that an agdcultural/forestal distdct is for the preservation of
agricultural pursuits, noting that this proposal is for a commercial activity.
Ms. Huckle stated that she did not feel the Peter Easter application and this request
were comparable. She also noted that the adjoining property owner was opposed to
this request. ·
Mr. Figgatt pointed out that the church would benefit from this proposal.
Ms. Dent ascertained that there would not be a light on the tower.
Mr. vanRoijen noted his concam with the loss of trees in the area.
Mr. Block stated that he was in support of the application. He felt that this was a good
application, the pole is wooden, and the concerns of Ms. Rivera have been taken into
account.
Mr. vanRoijen stated that he would like to see the church benefit from the tower,
however, he is concerned with the proximity of the pole to the Riviera property.
Mr. Woodzell stated that he felt putting the pole within the right-of-way would cause
more trouble.
Ms. Dent noted that the benefits the community receives from the agricultural/forestal
district and the land owned by Ms. Riviera that is within the conservation district.
Mr. Benish pointed out that the committee is under no obligation to take a formal vote,
this is before the committee for input only.
Ms. Huckle noted her concern that the agricultural/forestal districts are not being
protected, noting that the people within the district gave up the right to develop. Some
have withdrawn from the district because they did not feel the County went to bat for
them when the telephone towers were being built. She felt this was a bad precedent to
continue.
Mr. Benish noted that the Committee would have to determine if this application was in
conflict with the agricultural/forestal use if this were within the district. Impacts adjacent
to agdcultural/forestal districts are to be considered.
ATTACHMENT G
Mr. Jones stated that he did not feel this request was objectionable, pointing out that the
benefRs outweigh the negatives. He did not feel that the box should be buried.
Ms. Buttrick stated that she has sympathy with the church's need for income, however,
this committee's task is whether or not this application effects the agricultural/forestal
district.
Mr. Jones noted that the previous minutes indicate that the Committee has a negative
feeling about the pole being adjacent to the district. The Committee has also
recommended that districts be an avoidance area for cell towers in general.
Mr. Benish noted that the proprietary interest of the church is not the concern of this
committee. The committee is to advise on land use issues.
Ms. Huckle stated that she felt the pole should be setback the length of the pole from
the adjacent property.
Mr. vanRoijen stated that he felt the setback should be equal to the length of the pole,
he noted that the setback has been reduced from 35' to 25'.
Recommendation-: The Committee finds that the CFW Intelos Tower on the church
property is not compatible with the Agricultural/Forestal District. (4 in favor of;3 against;
Mr. Perkins abstained.)
36
!cFw lnlelos
· eee~
1150 Shetmu:lo~ Villa&N: Drive
P.O. Box 1325
Wa.vnesbofo. Virginia 22980-0909
(540) 94&-IgS0
ATTACHMENT H
September 1. 1999
IamawarethatCFW-I~ispmlxS~to.placea~elepbone~onmyn-i~ohhor'spmpniy(IvyCreek
Metix}di~Chutch). Ihavenoptob_k~nwitlatbispoleb,/r~placedmtheposixionnea_rmypmpatyline,
CF%t,'-lmelos
Ivy. Creek Methodist Church
waFs to: bring more: peOplei:!':tog~ther,.
37
FAX (804) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832
ATTACHMENT I
'I'FD (804) 972-4012
April 5, 2000
CFW Intelos, VA PCS Alliance
Attn: Paula Figgatt
P. O. Box 1328
Waynesboro, VA 22980
RE: Variance Application, VA~2000-005
Tax Map 44, Parcel 12H
Ivy Creek Methodist Church
Dear Ms. Figgatt:
This letter is to inform you that your variance application, VA-2000-005, was heard by
the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals on April 4, 2000. The Board ruled (4:0)
to approve your request subject to the following condition: Approval is limited to the
current application.
This approval allows relief.from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to reduce the rear setback from 35 to 20 feet in order to install a 120-foot
wooden pole for a telecommunications facility.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jan Sprinkle
Chief of Zoning Administration
cc: File
Ivy Creek Methodist Church
Va2000-O05 ivy creek methodist church.doc 38
ORDINANCE NO. 00-3(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained by
amending Section 3-214, Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows:
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
See. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39B, 41A, 41BI, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43,
44, 45, 46, 48; tax map 74, parcels 26, 28; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16F, 27; tax
map 87, parcels 3, 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres); tax map 88, parcels 4, 5, 5A,
6A, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F, 23, 23E, 24, 26B, 29, 40, 41A, 42, 42A; tax map 99, parcels 29,
52. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on
November 12, 1997, shall next be reviewed prior to November 12, 2007.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
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
siX to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on July 12, 2000.
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman Y
Mr. Dorrier Y
Ms. Humphris Y
Mr. Martin Y
Mr. Perkins ._.X..Y
Ms. Thomas Y.
Draft: 07/06/00
ORDINANCE NO. 00-3( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultttral and Forestal Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby mended and reordained by
amending Section 3-214, Hardware Agricultural and Foresial District, as follows:
ARTICLE H. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
See. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Foresial District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Foresial District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39B, 41A, 41B1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43,
44, 45, 46, 48; tax map 74, parcels 26, 28; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16F, 27; tax
map 87, parcels 3, 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres); tax map 88, parcels 4, 5, 5A,
6A, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F, 23, ~ 24, 26B, 29, 40, 41A, 42, 42A; tax map 99, parcels 29,
52. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on
November 12, 1997, shall next be reviewed prior to November 12, 2007.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(I), 8-5-98)
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. Dorder
Mr. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye .Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
June 29,2000
ARROWHEAD CORPORATION Of VIRGINIA (82.490 acres)
GUZZARDI, ANNE WOODS (7.176 acres)
McLEOD, ALEXANDER C OR DORORTHY W. McLEOD (21.740 acres)
WOODS, MONTGOMERY BIRD OR JOSE V LAMBERT (21 acres)
WOODS, THEODORE K JR TRUSTEE (21.07 acres)
RE:
Addition to Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal District
Tax Map 88, Parcel 20B
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 20, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the 153.48 acres in five (5) parcels to the Hardware River
Agricultural/Forestal District.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision
on July 12, 2000, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. 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.
Sincer, ely,
S/cc~tCl~ar?~/'
Planner
sc/jcf
STAFF PERSON:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Scott Clark
May 31, 2000
June 20, 2000
July 12, 2000
ADDITION TO HARDWARE RIVER AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Procedure: In conducting a review, the Board shall ask for the recommendations of the local Advisory
Committee and the Planning Commission in order to determine whether to terminate, modify, or continue the
district.
The Board may stipulate conditions to continue the district and may establish a period before the next review of
the district, which may be different from the conditions or period established when the district was created. Any
such different conditions or period must be described in a notice to landowners in the district, and published in a
newspaper at least two weeks prior to adoption of the ordinance continuing the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board of Supervisors, the district shall continue as originally
constituted, with the same conditions and period before the next review (10 years) as were established when the
district was created.
When each district is reviewed, land within the dismet may be withdrawn at the owner's discretion by filing a
written notice with the Board of Supervisors at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate
the district.
Purpose: The purpose of an agriculturaFforestal district is "to conserve and protect and to encourage the.
development and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural/forestal lands for the production of food and
other agricultural and foresial products..." and "to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued
natural and ecological resources which provide essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection,
wildli'fe habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes."
Factors to Consider:
The following factors must be considered by the Advisory Committee and at any public hearing when a proposed
district is being considered:
1. The agricultural and foresial significance of land within the district and kn areas adjacent thereto;
The presence of any significant agricultural lands or significant foresial lands within the district and in
areas adjacent thereto that are not now in active agricultural of foresial production;
The nature and extent of land uses other than active farming or forestry within the district and in areas
adjacent thereto; .
4. Local development patterns and needs;
5. The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning regulations;
,.._,6. The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in the district tbr agricultural and foresial uses: and
7. Any other matters which may be relevant.
Effects of a District:
The proposed district provides a community benefit by conserving and protecting farmlands and forest;
environmental resources such as watersheds, air quality, open space, and wildlife habitat; and scenic and
historic resources.
The State Code stipulates that the landowner receive certain tax benefits*, and restrictions on public
utilities and government action (such as land acquisition and local nuisance laws) to protect the
agricultural/forestal use of the land. In exchange, the landowner agrees not to develop the property to a
"more intensive use" during the specified number of years the district is in effect.
*Since Albemarle County currently permits all four categories of use value assessment, a district
designation may not provide any additional real estate tax deductions. Land in a district is
protected from special utility assessments or taxes.
The State Code stipulates that, "Local ordinances, comprehensive plans, land use planning decisions,
administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land adjacent to any district shall take into
account the existence of such district and the purposes of this chapter." The district may have no effect
on adjacent development by right, but could restrict proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit
which are determined to be in conflict with the adjacent agricultural/forestal uses. Districts must now be
shown on the official Comprehensive Plan map each time it is updated.
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The property owners in the district are
making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they
would like the area to remain in the agricultural and forestal uses. Adjacent property owners may be
encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
ADDITION TO HARDWARE DISTRICT:
The Hardware River District was created on November 4, 1987. Additions occurred on May 3, 1989. The district
was reviewed on November 12, 1997, and further additions occurred on May 13, 1998.
Location: The Hardware River District is located in the vicinity of North Garden, Red Hill, and Arrowhead. This
proposea'addition is located approximately two miles north of the US 29-Red Hill Road intersection, on the east
and west sides of US 29.
Acreage: The Hardware River District contains 3,868 acres in 37 parcels. The proposed addition contains I53.48
acres in 5 parcels.
Time Period; The proposed time period for the addition is the same time period established when the District was
reviewed, or ten years from November 12, 1997.
Agricultural and Forestal Simaificance: Land in the proposed addition is primarily tbrested, with some agricultural
and residential use.
Significant Land Not in Am'icultural/Forestal Production: The use value assessment program is a good indicator
of the actual use of the property. A total of 153.476 acres are enrolled in the use value program, 31.6 acres under
agriculture and 117.876 under forestry, with the remaining four non-qualifying acres alloted to dwellings.
Land Use other than Am-iculture and Forestry: There are four dwellings on the five parcels.
Local Development Patterns and Needs: The Hardware River area has many large tbrested parcels, as well as
thrms, a quarry, and some residential development.
Comprehensive Plan and Zonin~ Regulations: The Hardware River District and the proposed addition are located
within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area
to this proposed addition is Neighborhood Five, located four miles northeast of the property.
A relevant Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the
interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and
foresial activities rather than encouraging residential development." (Land Use Plan). A relevant strateg7 is,
"Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/foresial districts .... "(Natural Resources
and Cultural Assets Chapter)
The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmlands, forests, and mountains.
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in
the protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, the historic landscape, and open space.
Soil Information:
Parcel Total Acres
Soil Classes Forest Soil Ratings
II III IV Excellent Good Fair Non.Productive
88 - 20A 21.07 3.072 8.312 1.807 3.072 1.807 0
88 - 20B 21 0 0 0 15.8 4.2 0
88 - 20C 7.176 4.327 2.799 0 0 0 0
88 - 20D 21.74 0 1.739 0 1.957 1.739 16.305
88 - 20F 82.49 0 8.479 1.01 5 32.506 6.329 34.161
0
0
0
0
0
Total Acres: 153.476 7.399 21.329 2.822 53.335 14.075 50.466
0
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the addition to the Hardware District as proposed.
AgriCulttraL/Forestal District Committee Recommendation: The committee, in its meeting on May 31, 2000,
unanimously recommended approval of this addition to the Hardware District as proposed.
74
y." / ' ~ ' .~
,
---,,,,, . / '~ .-
~ ~ .~ ..j
.
~
' SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT SECTION
....
PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO HARDWARE DISTRICT
DRAFT SPEECH - VDOT PREALLOCATION HEARING
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors I appreciate this oppommity to
bring the county' s transportation priorities to the attention of the Virgini.a Department of
Transportation. Our complete list of priorities is outlined in our written report. At this time I
would like to highlight for you those projects which we feel are most pressing and critical to the
safe and efficient functioning of our community' s transportation systems. These projects not
only enhance the smooth flow of vehicular traffic but also promote our goal of encouraging
alternative transportation modes including pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as the
possibilities of mass transit to meet the varied transportation needs and pressures of our rapidly
urbanizing county.
We continue to strongly support those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS)
projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint
resolution between Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia and agreed
to by VDOT. In addition to the Route 29 improvements already completed or currently planned,
we recommend construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route
29 Noah. The Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the Route 29 improvements,
and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and
to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City.
The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in
the County's secondary program. This project is being planned as a low speed parkway in the
City of Charlottesville, and the County asks that the same design aspects be employed from
Melbourne Road to Rio RoacL In particular, the County asks that this section designed within a
linear park concept that replaces Mclntire park land lost due to the project and, at the same time,
links Mclntire Park to the Rivanna Foundation trails along Meadow Creek and the County's
urbanizing area along Rio Road. In an effort to further this project, the County is also receiving
funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning and design of the Meadow Creek
Parkway from~Rio Road to Route 29 North.
County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway.~
However, it is not possible to construct this entire project within a reasonable timeframe solely
with secondary funding. due to the cost and dn___m_atic impact it will have on the timing for
completion of other impor,ant secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will mcct
the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's
decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County believes primary funds should bc
rcdircctcd to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate construction of
subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will accelerate the Parkway's completion.
For the 9th consecutive year thc County urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding
sources, particularly primary road funds, to achicvc thc quickest construction of this vitally
important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the northern study area also should be
actively pursued and completed. The County also supports any initiatives to rc-opcn
consideration of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic Road, Grccnbricr Drive and Rio Road,
possibly under modified design concepts.
Completion of the preliminary engineering and widening of Route 20 South from 1-64 to
Mill Creek Drive is a priority that has gained new urgency for us for several reasons. This
roadway now scrvcs heavy vehicular traffic generated by Monticello High School which opened
in 1998. In the last year this curry section of road has bccn the scene of several serious
accidents, including two with fatalities. Wc also strongly support the incorporation of sidewalks
and bike lane facilities into these improvements.
The Route 29 Phasc I Corridor Study recommendations wcrc forwarded to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board in 1996 with the County's endorsement. The
recommendations emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu of a limited access
wad design. The County fccls that it is impcrativc that access management, not limited access,
bc the design basis for the third phasc of the Route 29 widening project from the South Fork of
the Rjvanna River to the Airport/Profit Road intersection. County staffcomments on the! plans
for this:section of road have consistently supported this approach which is more in:keeping with
its location at the center of an merging:urban community. Mcanwhilc, the Route 29 Phases II
and III Corridor Study continues. The County appreciates efforts that have beenmade in this
processto:receive public input. Again, the County does not support a limited acccss design for
thc Albcmarlc County section of the corridor. The County continues to hope that the study will
2
be truly multi-modal in scope and give particular consideration to the benefits of rail service to
the corridor.
The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it
be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations
identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29 Phases H
and HI Co ~rri'dor Study.
We also strongly support road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will
relieve traffic on Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include the
Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector and new roads parallel to Route 29 between the South Fork
Rivanna River and Airport RoadfProffit Roadthat would be built in conjunction with the Route
29 widening project. Such parallel roads should be constructed as urban cross-section design
with sidewalks and bike lanes. This provides a system of roads more in keeping with a
neighborhood street system and complementary with the character of the existing or developing
neighborhoods.
The widening of Route 250 west from Eramet Stree~ to the Route 29/250 Bypass is
covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was
recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study should
be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining potion of Rt. 250 West to
Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) was studied by VDOT with a local advisory committee
to determine long ten needs for this road. The Board of Supervisors has rejected the study
recommendations and, instead, recommends maintaining the present two-lane configuration of
the corridor with any short term or spot improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as
possible with the special character of this scenic by-way,
As a continued theme throughout our recommendations we recognize that mass
transit can relieve traffic congestion and is a desirable alternative to road construction,
particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and we encourage VDOT to shift funds from
road construction to support mass transit as a means of effective traffic management.
3
We are recommending a number of safety improvements with the most
critical being the construction of pedestrian walkways along various primary routes
within the County' s Urban Neighborhoods. The walkways along Rome 20 North are the
most important improvement duc to the significant increase of development and resulting
pedestrian travel along th2ts road. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments arc now. being
served by public bus service which travels along Rome 20 North and a walkway would
provide additional pedestrian access to this service. We are anxious to address the safety
concerns associated with walking along this segment of road as currently constructed.
Finally, we encourage the construction of improvements to Route 250 West along
the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the intersection of Route 637 to just west
of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing and short-term.traffic circulation
problems, including access to developed properties in this area, These improvements
shouldbc undertaken in accor_d. ancc with recommendations approved by the Board of
Supervisors in the :Rome 250 WestCorridor Study.
I thank you again for this oppommity to discuss our community' s pressing
transportation needs with you. We have devoted much time and attention, with
significant input from our citizens, to developing this list of priorities in a way that
manages our traffic flow effectively while also protecting our neighborhood amenities
and community character. If you have any questions that are not addressed in our report,
I hope you will feel free to bring them to our attention.
4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road Improvement 'Plan
AGENDA DATE:
July 12, 2000
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
S U BJ ECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST:
Discussion of recommendation to be submitted to VDOT at its
Primary Road Plan Pre-AIIocation Public Hearing in Culpeper
CONSENT AGEN DA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade, Ms. Catlin
REVIEWED
BACKGROUND:
On July 25, 2000, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will conduct its annual pre-allocation hearing in
Cuipeper for improvements to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper District. All roads with route numbers
below 600 are primary roads (i.e. Route 29, Route 250). This hearing was previously postponed due to substantive
additional funding for transportation provided by the General Assembly in its 2000 session.
DISCUSSION:
The Board of Supervisors previously reviewed the County's priorities and staff has updated that report to reflect current
thinking (Attachment A). Staff has also prepared and enclosed a draft speech for the presentation on July 25, 2000 that
highlights the County's priorities (Attachment B). Changes are indicated as bold italics.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provided for information only.
Cc: Ms. Angela G. Tucker
00.149
ATTACHMENT A
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JULY, 2000
PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN
SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES (July 12.2000)
The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of TEA-21 and each sub-
allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County
supports these projects as referenced.
1)
Undertake those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects eligible for the
primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992joint resolution between
the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29
improvements already completed or currently planned, construct Meadow Creek Parkway
from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's highest priority
project after the Route 29 improvements, and is of the utmost importance in order to
maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway
system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The first phase of this project from the
Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary program. This
project is being planned as a low speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville, and the
County asks that the same design aspects be employed from Melboume Road to Rio Road.
In particular, the County asks that this section designed within a linear park concept that
replaces McIntire park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, links McIntire park
to the Rivarma Foundation trails along Meadow Creek and the County's urbanizing area
along Rio Road. In an effort to further this project, the County is also receiving funding
within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning and design of the Meadow Creek Parkway
from Rio Road to Route 29 Noah. County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get
the design process underway. However, it is not possible to construct this project within a
reasonable timeflame solely with secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it
will have on the timing for completion of other important secondary projects. The County
believes the Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. With the
Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the
County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with
VDOT staff to evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will
accelerate the Parkway's completion. For the 9th consecutive year the County urges VDOT
to investigate all possible funding sources, particularly primary road funds, to achieve the
quickest construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the
northern study area also should be actively pursued and completed. These projects include
the Airport Road improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector. The County
also supports any initiatives to re-open consideration of the Route 29 interchanges at
Hydraulic Rd., Greenbrier Dr. and Rio Rd., possibly under modified design concepts.
2)
Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from 1-64
to Mill Creek Dr; Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements.
This is a curvy section of road in the County's Urban Area that serves the traffic from
Monticello High School and has recently experienced several accidents with fatalities. While
this has historically been a project lower on the County' s priority list, its priority has greatly
increased due to these recent events.
3)
The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 Phase I Corridor
Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in
1996 with the County's endorsement. The recommendations emphasized use of an access
management approach in lieu of a limited access road design. The County feels that it is
imperative that access management, not limited access, be the design basis for the third
phase of the Rome 29 widening project from the South Fork of the Rivatma River to the
Airport/Proffit Road intersection. County staff comments on the plans for this section of
road have consistently supported this approach which is more in keeping with its location
at the center of an emerging urban community. Meanwhile, the Route 29 Phases I2I and III
Corridor Study continues. The County appreciates efforts that have been made in this process
to receive public input. Again, the County does not support a limited access design for the
Albemarle County section of the corridor. The County continues to hope that the study will
be truly multi-_modal in scope and give particular consideration to the benefits of rail service
to the corridor.
4)
The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it be
seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations
identified in the Rome 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being considered in the ROme 29
Phases II and HI Corridor Study.
5) Undertake road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve traffic on
2
Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include the Hillsdale
Drive-Zart Road Connector and new roads parallel to Route 29 between the South Fork
Rivarma River and Airport Road/Proffit Road that would be built in conjunction with the
Route 29 widening project. Such parallel roads should be constructed as urban cross-
section design with sidewalks and bike lanes. This provides a system of roads more in
keeping with a neighborhood street system and complimentary with the character of the
existing or developing neighborhoods.
6)
Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is
covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was
recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study
should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining portion of Rt.
250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) was studied by VDOT with a local
advisory committee to determine long term needs for this road. The Board of Supervisors
has rejected the study recommendations and, instead, recommends maintaining the
present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short term or spot improvements
being as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the special character of this scenic
by-way. VDOT is also completing a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the
Fluvanna County line. The County supports and appreciates this effort and encourages
continued public participation and consideration of recommendations.
7)
Finish the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet and improve Route 240 in accord
with County recommendations regarding this study.
8)
Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the
improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The
County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force.
9)
Undertake the widening of Route
Drive/Fontana Drive. Incorporate
improvements.
20 North from north of Rome 250 East to Elks
sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these
10)
Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an alternative to road
construction, particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and shift funds from road
construction into mass transit to accomplish this.
Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order:
1) Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban
Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road
widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian
walkways: 1) Route 20 North from Route 250 East to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden
Towe Park; 2) Route 20 South from the City line to Mill Creek Drive; 3) along Route 250
East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks; 4) along Route 250 West from
the City limits to the Bypass; and, 5) Route 240 in "downtown" Crozet. Of these, the
walkways along Route 20 North are the most important improvement. Pedestrian travel
along this road has increased significantly with the development in that area. Furthermore,
Wilton Farms Apartments are now served by public bus service which travels along Route
20 North and a walkway would provide additional pedestrian access to this service. There
is great concern with the safety of walking along this segment of road as currently
constructed.
2)
Installation of traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250 and the 1-64 interchange ramps at
Fifth Street.
3)
Improvements to Route 250 West along the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the
intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing
and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this
area. These improvements should be undertaken in accordance with recommendations
approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor Study.
4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet~
5) Functional plans for Route 20 Noah and South for alignment improvements.
6)
Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and
231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created
by large tracks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all appropriate
measures to ensure that trucks travel safely along these roadways in the future. Restriction
of through truck traffic is still considered by the County to be the most effective measure.
Enhancement Projects:
Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order:
1) Construction of pedestrian walhvays along Route 20 North.
2)
Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport
Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, signage,
placement of overhead utilities underground, etc.
3)
Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation trail project between the
Monticello Vistors Center and Monticello.
4)
Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element
of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991).
5) Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
6) Beautification of streets in Scottsville through the Scottsville Streetscape project.
7) Removal of non-conforming billboards.
National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this
area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved
'the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest
priority project in the proposed NHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the
South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road. The County desires to continue active
participation in Route 29 Corridor studies, including the Route 29 Corridor Study south of
Charlottesville, which is currently underway. The County will monitor the progress and
recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies, which are part of the NHS (additional
information is provided under Standard Projects #2).
Congestion Mitigation and Air Ouality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non_attainment for ozone
or carbon monoxide.
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT SPEECH - VDOT PREALLOCATION HEARING
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors I appreciate this opportunity to
bring the county' s transportation priorities to the attention of the Virginia Department of
Transportation. Our complete list of priorities for the allocation of funds is outlined in our
written report. At this time I would like to highlight for you those projects which we feel are
most pressing and critical to the safe and efficient functioning of our community' s transportation
systems. These projects not only enhance the smooth flow of vehicular traffic but also promote
our goal of encouraging altemative transportation modes including pedestrian and bicycle
facilities as well as the possibilities of mass transit. We strongly believe that taken together,
these projects meet the varied transportation needs and pressures of our rapidly urbanizing
county.
We continue to strongly support those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS)
projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint
resolution between Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia and agreed
to by VDOT. In addition to the Route 29 improvements already completed or currently planned,
we recommend construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route
29 North. The Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the Route 29 improvements,
and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and
to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City.
The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in
the County's secondary program. This project is being planned as a low speed parkway in the
City of Charlottesville, and the County asks that the same design aspects be employed from
Melbourne Road to Rio Road. In particular, the County asks that this section designed within a
linear park concept that replaces Mclntire park land lost due to the project and, at the same time,
links Mclntire Park to the Rivanna Foundation trails along Meadow Creek and the County's
urbanizing area along Rio Road. In an effort to further this project, the County is also receiving
funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning and design of the Meadow Creek
Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 Nortl~
County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway.
However, it is not possible to construct this project within a reasonable timeframe solely with
secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion
of other important secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will meet the criteria
for inclusion in the primary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to
eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to
the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate construction of subsequent phases
as a primary road, provided it will accelerate the Parkway's completion.
For the 9th consecutive year the County urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding
sources, particularly primary road funds, to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally
important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the noRhem study area also should be
actively pursued and completed. The County also supports any initiatives to re-open
consideration of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road,
possibly under modified design concepts.
Completion of the preliminary engineering and widening of Route 20 South from 1-64 to
Mill Creek Drive is a priority that has gained new urgency for us for several reasons. This
roadway now serves heavy vehicular traffic generated by Monticello High School which opened
in 1998. Also, in the last year this curry section of road has been the scene of several serious
accidents, including two with fatalities. We also strongly support the incorporation of sidewalks
and bike lane facilities into these improvements.
The Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board in 1996 with the County's endorsement. The
recommendations emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu of a limited access
road design. The County feels that it is imperative that access management, not limited access,
be the design basis for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project from the South Fork of
the Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffit Road intersectior~ County staff comments on the plans
for this section of road have consistently supported this approach which is more in keeping with
its location at the center of an merging urban community. Meanwhile, the Route 29 Phases H
and III Corridor Study continues. The County appreciates efforts that have been made in this
process to receive public input. Again, the County does not support a limited access design for
2
the Albemarle County section of the corridor. The County continues to hope that the study will
be truly multi-modal in scope and give particular consideration to the benefits of rail service to
the corridor.
The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it
be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations
identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29 Phases II
and III Corridor Study.
We also strongly support road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will
relieve traffic on Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include the
Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector and new roads parallel to Route 29 between the South Fork
Rivanna River and Airport Road/Prof~t Road that would be built in conjunction with the Route
29 widening project. Such parallel roads should be constructed as urban cross-section design
with sidewalks and bike lanes. This provides a system of roads more in keeping with a
neighborhood street system and complimentary with the character of the existing or developing
neighborhoods.
The widening of Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass is
covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was
recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study should
be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining portion of Rt. 250 West to
Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) was studied by VDOT with a local advisory committee
to determine long term needs for this road. The Board of Supervisors has rejected the study
recommendations and, instead, recommends maintaining the present two-lane configuration of
the corridor with any short term or spot improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as
possible with the special character of this scenic by-way.
As a continued theme throughout our recommendations we recognize that mass
transit can relieve traffic congestion and is a desirable alternative to road construction,
particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and we encourage VDOT to shift funds from
road construction to support mass transit as a means of effective traffic management.
3
We are recommending a number of safety improvements with the most
critical being the construction of pedestrian walkways along various primary routes
within the County' s Urban Neighborhoods. The walhvays along Route 20 North are the
most important improvement due to the significant increase of development and resulting
pedestrian travel along this road. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments are now being
served by public bus service which travels along Route 20 North and a walkway would
provide additional pedestrian access to this service. We are anxious to address the safety
concerns associated with walking along this segment of road as currently constructed.
Finally, we encourage the construction of improvements to Route 250 West along
the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the intersection of Route 637 to just west
of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing and short-term traffic circulation
problems, including access to developed properties in this area. These improvements
should be undertaken in accordance with recommendations approved by the Board of
Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor Study.
I thank you again for this opportunity to discuss our community' s pressing
transportation needs with you. We have devoted much time and attention, with
significant input from our citizens, to developing this list of priorities in a way that
manages our traffic flow effectively while also protecting our neighborhood umenities
and community character. If you have any questions that are not addressed in our report,
I hope you will feel free to bring them to our attention.
4
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Members, Board of Supervisors
july 6, 2000
March I, 2000
March 15, 2000 (A)
March 22, 2000 (A)
April 12, 2000
Apdl 19, 2000
May 3, 2000
Pages I - 17 (end Item 10) - Mr. Dorrier
Pages 17 (Item 10) - end - Ms. Humphris
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Martin
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Pages 1-22 (end at Item #9) - Ms. Thomas
/ewc