HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-22
FIN A L
7:00 P.M., Adjourned Meeting
November 22, 1994
Room 7, County Office Building
1) Call to Order.
2) Joint ".tinq with Planninq Commission:
a) Public Hearing to receive comments regarding the FY 1995-96 through
FY 1999-2000 Capital Improvements Program.
b) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
3) aecesB and Reconvene in Room 5/6.
4) Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
5) SP-94-26. Holiday Trails, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to locate
monopole antennae of approx 180 ft & equipment shelter on 70.87 ac
zoned RA and EC located at end of Rt 702. TM75,Ps47C,47C1. Samuel
Miller Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth
area.)
6) SP-94-27. Joseph R. Adlesic. Public Hearing on a request for a stream
crossing on 6.43 ac zoned RA within Scenic Stream Overlay Distrct.
Located on SW sd of inters of Rts 614/674. TM26,P12A. Rivanna Dist.
(This property is not located in a designated growth area.)
7) Approval of Minutes: Ocotber 13, 1993; August 17 and September 7, 1994.
8) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC and BOARD.
9) Adjourn.
/
CON S E N T
AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
4.1 Resolution in support of funding for Virginia Cooperative Extension.
4.2 Resolution to take roads in Raintree Subdivision, Phases 6, 7 and 8 into
the State Secondary System of Highways.
FOR INFORMATION:
4.3 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for Ocotober 11 and October 25, 1994.
4.4 Letter dated November 15, 1994, from J. W. Wade, Superintendent, Shenan-
doah National Park, to Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, providing a status of
the Related Lands Project at Shenandoah National Park.
4.5 Notice dated October 21, 1994, of an application filed with the State
Corporation Commission by Tidewater Touring, Inc., for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity as a special or charter party carrier by
motor vehicle.
If ..,
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning & Community Development
Ella W. Carey, ClerkE1.1.L~
November 23, 1994 . ð . 0
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Board Actions of November 22, 1994
Following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its
meeting on November 22, 1994:
Agenda Item No.1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
Agenda 2a. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission: Public Hearing to
receive comments regarding the FY 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000 Capital
Improvements Program.
Received public comment; Planning Commission to hold work session on
December 6, 1994 and forward recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for
its work session scheduled for December 7, 1994.
Agenda Item No. 2b. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. There were
none.
Agenda Item No.3. Recess and Reconvene in Room 5/6.
At 7:50 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in Room 5/6 at 7:54 p.m.
Item 4.1. Resolution in support of funding for Virginia Cooperative
Extension.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Item 4.2. Resolution to take roads in Raintree Subdivision, Phases 6, 7
and 8 into the State Secondary System of Highways.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
1
*
Printed on recycled paper
4
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
November 23, 1994
2
Date:
Page:
Agenda Item No.5. SP-94-26.
request to locate monopole antennae
70.87 ac zoned RA and EC located at
Miller Dist.
Holiday Trails, Inc. Public Hearing on a
of approx 180 ft & equipment shelter on
end of Rt 702. TM75,Ps47C,47C1. Samuel
APPROVED SP-94-26, subject to the following conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet with whip antennae extensions
not exceeding total of 165 feet;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal
agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize
visibility from the ground;
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administra-
tive approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of,
the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may
be part of the same network or system as any antennae administra-
tively approved under this section;
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to
property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the
tower and components will remain within the lease area;
6. Tower shall be located within lease area shown on Attachment C (on
file); and
7. This permit shall be void and the tower shall be removed within 90
days if the use of the tower is discontinued for longer than six
months.
Agenda Item NO.6. SP-94-27. Joseph R. Adlesic. Public Hearing on a
request for a stream crossing on 6.43 ac zoned RA within Scenic Stream Overlay
District. Located on SW sd of inters of Rts 614/674. TM26,P12A. Rivanna Dist.
DEFERRED indefinitely at the applicant's request to allow the applicant
to request the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance to required
criteria for the special permit set for in the County Zoning Ordinance Section
30.5.5.2.d.6.
Agenda Item No.8. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC and BOARD.
Mr. Tucker asked the Board if it planned to have another public hearing
on the CIP. CONSENSUS of the Board that a decision be made at its work
session on December 7, 1994, upon receipt of the Planning Commission recommen-
dations.
Agenda Item No.9. Adjourn. 9:17 p.m.
EWC/jng
C,\. ..\ACT&AGND\ACTl122.94
Attachments (2)
2
')st(löulB(j t) ~·41ß..9.SiJ
.~ Ittm No LfliJLGL:tø£ô
-ze J..ð_
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
October 26, 1994
Holiday Trails
P. O. Box 5806
Charlottesville, V A 22905
RE: SP-94-26 Sprint Cellular Company
Tax Map 75, Parcels 47C and 47Cl
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 25, 1994, by a vote of
4-3, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 180 feet;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 ofthe Zoning Ordinance;
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower
lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground.
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall
constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae,
etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae
administratively approved under this section;
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that
in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease
area.
Page 2
October 26, 1994
6. Tower shall be located within lease area shown on Attachment C.
At this same meeting, the Planning Commission approved a modification to Section 4.10.3.1 to
allow reduction of setback.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on November 9,1994. 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,
v~Ø-
William D. Pritz
Senior Planner
WDP/jcw
cc: Ella Carey
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
M. E. Gibson, Jr
-, '.
LAW OFFICES
TREMBLAY & SMITH
P.O. Box 1585
CHARLOTIESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902·1585
105·109 EAST HIGH STREET
TELEPHONE (SO-4) 977-4-455
FACSIMILE (S04) 979·1221
October 27, 1994
RECEIVED
iLï 8 7 1994
Plan .
nlng Oept
William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Dept. of Planning & community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE: SPRINT CELLULAR COMPANY
SP-94-26
Dear Bill:
Sprint appreciates the decision of the Planning Commission to
recommend approval of its application for a 180' cellular telecom-
munications tower at its October 25, 1994 meeting.
I am writing to you to further clarify the discussion at that
meeting regarding the height of the facility. I believe two of the
Planning Commission members said they would prefer to see the
height at 150', as opposed to l80'. I made the comment at the
Planning Commission meeting that this site was extremely important
to Sprint and Sprint would far prefer to have approval for a tower
at a height of 150' (plus whip type antennae to a total overall
height of 165') than it would to have its application for a tower
at this site rejected because of the height. The height which
works the best for Sprint is 180' and if the height were reduced to
150' there would be a slight reduction in the coverage objective
for this site. It is Sprint's view that the visibility of the
tower will not be significantly different at 150' than it would at
180'; however, Sprint wants to stress that it is of critical
importance to its network that a facility be approved at the Camp
Holiday Trails site, even if that facility is a tower of 150' and
an overall height with whip type antennae of 165'.
I hope this clarifies the situation. If you deem it appropri-
ate, you may include this letter in your report to the Board of
Supervisors.
MEMBER, COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP
'.
TREMBLAY & SMITH
Fritz
October 27, 1994
Page 2
Thank you for your attention to this. Best regards.
Very truly yours,
~\~
M. E. Gibson, Jr.
MEGjsp
cc: Keith Lee
Mechele Goss
Edward Byers
Larry Bickings
Kelly Truax
28\Spri\Alb\Fritz.006
"
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
OCTOBER 25,1994
NOVEMBER 9,1994
SP-94-26 Sprint Cellular
Petition: Sprint Cellular petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit to
allow the construction of an antennae and support facilities on 70.87 acres [10.2.2(6)]. Property,
described as Tax Map 75, Parcels 47C and 47Cl, is located at the end of Route 702 in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is within the EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This site is not within a designated growth area (Rural Area
3).
Character of the Area:
A sketch showing the proposed improvements is included (Attachment C). The area of the
proposed tower is located at the end of an existing gravel road near the tennis courts and ropes
course for Camp Holiday Trails. An access road to the proposed tower site exists and limiting
site work will be required. Utilities to serve the facility will be buried in the access road. The
right of way for 1-64 is approximately 21 feet from the proposed tower site. The pavement ofl-
64 is approximately 225 feet from the proposed tower site.
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant proposes to construct a cellular communication tower, a 336 square foot equipment
building and a generator within a 3,000 square foot lease area on the Camp Holiday Trails
property. The proposed tower is 180 feet tall with several whip antenna near the top and a 4 foot
grid dish antenna at approximately 80 feet. This dish is located so as to clear the tree line to
allow communication with other towers in the cellular system. Preliminary designs for the tower
is included as Attachment D. A letter providing a description and justification for this request is
included as Attachment E. (Please note that this letter refers to a monopole tower. That proposal
has been amended to a stand alone lattice tower in an effort to reduce visual impact.)
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
and does not recommend approval.
Planning and Zoning History:
The property has been issued three special use permits for the activities currently taking place on
site. None of these permits are relevant to this review. The Board of Zoning Appeals has
granted a variance for reduction in the 75 foot setback for structures from a public road to allow
construction of the tower and support facilities.
"
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) has reviewed this request. Their original action is
included as Attachment F. The ARB did not support a modification to allow the reduction of the
setback based on height of the tower which is allowed by Section 4.10.3.1. A rehearing of this
original recommendation has taken place. The ARB does not support this request.
Comprehensive Plan:
A stated design standard ofthe Comprehensive Plan is "design public utility corridors to fit the
topography. Corridors should be shared by utilities when possible. Distribution lines should be
placed underground." The intent of this statement is to consolidate locations. No other towers
are currently located on this site. Therefore, this request is not consistent with past efforts to
locate new towers in existing "tower farms". The travelling public is one of the main user of
cellular telephones. Therefore, this request may be considered as serving the {-64 corridor.
Other cellular towers have been approved and serve the 1-64 corridor (as well as other sections of
the County). However, the opportunity to cluster cellular telephones to serve large areas and
long lengths of corridors is limited by both technology and topography. Staff has included in
this report discussion on the nature of cellular telephone technology.
ST AFF COMMENT:
Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections:
1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Characteristics of Cellular Telephone Technology.
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 nearest dwelling to the proposed tower site is located approximately 1,500 feet distant. This
tower is proposed to be located approximately 750 feet from the nearest Rural Area property.
The tower is proposed to be located approximately 21 feet from the edge ofthe right-of-way for
1-64. The proposed tower will be visible from 1-64. (The equipment building will not be visible.)
Lighting of the tower is unlikely due to the fact that the tower is under 200 feet in height. Should
this special use permit be approved, staff has recommended as a condition of no lighting except
as required by the F .A.A. or other federal agencies.
Staff opinion is that the proposed tower will not limit use of any adjacent private property or be
of substantial detriment to those properties. As to the effect on 1-64 right-of-way, another
adjacent property, please see Section 4.10.3.1 discussion later in this report.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby.
This tower will be a stand alone facility. This will result in a change in the appearance of the
area. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas and have not in the opinion of staff resulted
in a change in the character of the Rural Areas to this point. Staff opinion is that this tower will
not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, no road
construction, no new utility corridors (electric, phone, etc.), and no impact on use of this or other
property for any by-right uses including agricultural/forestal use. Staff does recognize this
introduces a new tower to a location at which no towers exist. Multiple stan<\ alone tower
locations could ultimately have the cumulative effect of changing the charact~r of the Rural
Areas District. The ARB has not supported this request due to potential impact on the Entrance
Corridor district. Staff is unable to provide additional comment on this recommendation by the
ARB due to a pending reconsideration of the request.
and that such use will be in harmony with the pUl:pose and intent of this ordinance.
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5
and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment G). All of these
provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of cellular
telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in
use. Sprint Cellular is a public utility as identified by the State. Based on the provision of a
public service staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with that purpose and intent of the
ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
This site is used for a camp and school. The proposed tower will not affect the current uses,
other by-right 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.
Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
Section 4.1 0.3.1 states:
The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings,
agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential
chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack,
water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise
permitted by the commission 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.
By the requirements of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of
180 feet from the edge of the right -of-way for 1-64. The proposed tower is located
approximately 21 feet from the edge of the right of way. This location was determined by the
topography of the area. The edge of pavement for 1-64 is located 225 feet from the edge of the
right of way and significantly lower than the proposed tower site (approximately 100 feet lower).
A small level area is located just beyond the edge ofthe right-of-way. It is in this area that the
tower is to be located. The land then drops away at a slope of approximately 70%. Therefore,
any increase in setback to achieve the one to one setback requirement of the ordinance would
move the tower down this slope and require a significant increase in tower height to obtain the
same absolute elevation for the top of the tower.
Staff opinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to
prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. The Virginia Department of Transportation was
contacted regarding this request and has stated no opposition as the tower is located beyond the
edge of the right of way and even in the event of total failure would not impact the travel lanes of
1-64. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a condition requiring
approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure (such a
condition is proposed by staff for this request). This condition protects the public safety.
Relocation of the tower is not a viable option in the opinion of staff as it would result in a
substantially taller and bulkier tower. Therefore, staff is able to support this request should the
special use permit be approved.
Additional comment on Section 4.10.3.1:
The Board of Zoning Appeals reviewed a variance request for reduction of the district's structural
setback requirements from a public road (75 feet) for the tower and equipment building on
October 11, 1994. The BZA approved that request with the following condition, "This approval
is subject to and valid only with approval of the special use permit. This does not allow
construction of additional structures, including towers, buildings of the like without amendment
of this variance. In the event the special use permit is denied, this variance shall be null and
void". Staff did not include the BZA decision to grant the variance as a factor in granting the
modification of Section 4.10.3.1 as the criteria for review of the two requests is different.
Characteristics of Cellular Telephone Technology
The Board has previously requested staff research future tower needs in the County as related to
communication trends or technology. Although staff is still researching technology and demand,
staff can provide the following information regarding cellular technology. The technology of
cellular phones results in a demand for tower locations unlike the demands of other users of the
airwaves. The public has general familiarity with commercial broadcast on A.M., F.M. and
Television, including wireless cable. A.M. stations generally require a cluster of towers in low
locations. This is due to the fact that this type of broadcast relies on ground modulation for the
transmission of the signal. F.M. and television, including wireless cable broarcast, utilize single
towers for broadcast. Towers for this type of use are generally found at the highest available
location. The broadcasts are generally only receivable in a line of sight with the tower.
However, with the use oflarge wattage for the transmission (in this area up to 5,000,000 watts)
small obstructions will not block the signal. This characteristic allows a single broadcast
location to serve a broad area.
All of the commercial broadcasts listed above are received in a single direction. That is, the
broadcast is made from the tower and received by the individual with no return of information.
Cellular use differs from standard commercial broadcasts in several ways which results in a
different demand for tower locations.
Cellular broadcast rely on line of sight for the transmission and reception of signals. This results
in the need to locate towers at higher elevations. The broadcast power at the cellular tower is
limited to 100 watts effective radiating power. At this low power small obstructions, including
but not limited to foliage, can block signals. Even if the transmission power could be increased,
(the signal strength is limited by the F.C.C.), transmission range is limited by the power of the
hand held or car phone unit. The F.C.C. may authorize increased output. However, increased
tower output has limited uses due to the need to replace existing equipment and increased signal
interference. The power of the personal units ranges from approximately 0.6 to 3 watts. This
low power limits the broadcast range and increases the potential of obstruction of the signal from
small objects. Alone, these two transmission power limitations result in the need for multiple
tower locations.
Another factor resulting in increased demand for tower locations is the limitation on the number
of calls which can be processed at each tower location at a given time. Currently, one cellular
provider has indicated that on one given peak hour, up to 4,000 blocked calls were recorded.
These blocked calls are due in part to the limitation on the handling capacity of the existing
cellular towers. Increases in technology may enable each tower location to accommodate more
calls at one time. However, the limiting factor is the number of channels available for cellular
telephone use. Using multiple towers effectively increases the number of available channels in
the system. This is due to "handing off' of calls which occurs automatically within the cellular
system. That is, when an individual places a call, the nearest tower receives that call and utilizes
a channel to complete the call. (As an individual moves away from the original tower another
tower takes over the call.) The fewer number of towers within the system the fewer number of
calls which can be handled. As the system matures the coverage area for each tower is reduced
due to the placement of new towers. These new towers, by virtue of their reduced coverage area,
may be constructed at lower elevations.
Cellular use requires uninterrupted service for data transmission, such as faxes and computer
connections. This sets a high standard of reliability and quality. Technology to reduce the need
for multiple towers, such as satellite technology, currently is unavailable. The use of monopole,
guyed or free standing lattice towers is possible. The use of existing structures for the provision
of cellular coverage is preferred by the County and the service providers, due to reduced cost.
However~ ~s has been ~ta~ed previously, t~e nature of cellular communicatio~ is such that limited
opportumtIes to use eXIstmg structures eXIsts.
SUMMARY:
The hilly to mountainous terrain of Albemarle County, which results in "dead spots" in a cellular
system, has resulted in a number of requests for cellular towers. This tower request is due to
both terrain and a need to increase the capacity of the cellular system to accommodate the
increased usage of cellular technology. This request is not located within a "tower farm" as is
encouraged by the County. This tower is located along an existing highway corridor and serves,
in part, the users of that corridor. Due to the character of cellular technology, additional stand
alone towers are likely.
Staff opinion is that this request has mixed impact on the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance. It should not be of detriment to adjacent private properties nor change the
character of the Rural Area District. However, the request does require modification of Section
4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as the tower relates to the 1-64 right-of-way. Furthermore, the
opinions of the ARB indicate an impact on the character of the Entrance Corridor district.
Relocation of the tower will result in a taller tower on less favorable terrain. A tower of
increased height may have equal or greater impact on the entrance corridor, although this
alternative has not been presented to the ARB. If the tower is over 200 feet in height lighting
will be required by the F . A. A. and the larger tower could be more visible from adjacent
properties. Staff opinion is that the proposal is acceptable in terms of provisions of Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, as they relate to the Rural Areas District. However, without
resolution of issues related to the Entrance Corridor district and support of the ARB, staff is
unable to recommend approval. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this
proposal, staff recommends modification of Section 4.10.3.1 by the Planning Commission as
well as the following conditions of approval for the Special Use Permit.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 200 feet;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower
lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground;
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall
constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae,
etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae
administratively approved under this section;
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that
in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease
area;
6. Tower shall be located within lease area shown on Attachment C.
----------------
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Sketch Plan
D - Tower Plan
E - Applicant's Information
F - ARB action letter
G - Sections 1.4, 1.5 & 1.6
H - BZA action letter
LITTLE
fLAT
MTN.
. 1!JI()r~I,CKH~~~~'AIN"
~- ---7 T4O""--~
_./70 .. - '
,,..,.@IJ\)., .r
GIBSON MOUNTAIN "
c
(j
·
·
I
·
I
I
·
·
-.
I
.'
1- _
o
Attachment A
801
t
'<.~
;'
(
'. ,~ SP-94-26
,.~ :,Y"~ ful~~Y/, Tra\~ I;~ ~lrj.-1 ( om
~ \ [~ ~.,~ \ ~, \ r~K-'~~
ALBEMARLE COUNl
74
RESERVOIR
, ,
(
43
/
SP-94-26
Holiday Trails, Inc.
I
I
.00
-----
SCALE .IN FE~T
100 1100
1100 '1°0
89
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT
SECTION 75
~I
j
,
~
rt
PI
[)
¡
~
n
/N ,~ r a
:1 ... I:
~
~.
\;: .
,f..,
j.- ~.
/. .
>..' ; \1. '
~
~,'.
j ~,
~.
, .
...---
~~~ ~
~: (
,,~ ..~.
~F
-
1" = 2000'
v
f~_5~
;- -' .?~
/[J.
oj? t!4'
HC.'D':;
.74 .~ 1
¡:¡ .~./
?é:ii
45~1.·
42 ..
,
~(.I_¡)O
4000
...
...
...
..
w
_.~¿f?. _ q
~ 8J·5!.· .~~ ~
III 8G·J'(·OI·
N ð.J"Cd'C.' R
~ 79'04 ·5~·
5 8.·JI5Y·
52"2'(15'
.,(1'/0)'24-
(i)'-
V'
(oJ)
~~
~
(3
/., ,~~ ·.7.-· : :-=CC:-:'.· -: ::-:~.: .~~::.: :.~::,~=:_::::::::..::.-'\\
'I l
!: Pf?QPOS£D It OF TOI-'ÆR DA TAl
I ¡ (MONOPOLE) I
,¡ TOI-'ÆR HEIGHT = 180':/: I
I i LA TI TUDE = J8"OI'22.2" (NAD 8J) I'
I! LONGITUDE = 78"33'28.2" (NAD 83)
I' GROUND £LEVA TION = 70J.l' (A.M'S'L~)/
.\ .
":::..-... -- .-.. ...-------... --_.._-_.//
"... -~ -_. ---.-----..-----------.---
'.1,,1. #'75 - 4 78
"'/·~tADROW CO/?/'
iI.B 4.,. pc. ,.
AVfRAC[ IRŒ
HOCla ~ 60':/
PROPOSED CHAiN-LINK
).5' INS/DC (EASE AREA LI(VES
MAP
HR'k'!!)'
VICINITY
s'f ¡.. 'fE
!'J'fE~
LEAS E AREA
I
CHARW17'ESVILLE, VIRGINIA SITE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEGINNING ..4 T THE INTERSEcnON OF ST..4 TE ROUTE 702 ..4NO U.S.
ROUTE: 29, 2.0:/: MILES ALONG SAID ROUTE 702 IN A t'rf:STE:RL Y
DIREcnON TO THE END OF STA TE ROUTE 702 AND THE BEGINNING
OF A QTY OF CHARLOTTESVIlLE RIGHT OF WA 1';' THENCE ALONG THE
CENTERUNE OF SAID QTY RIGHT OF WAY S 84"31'59" W. 7.66' TO
A POINT AT THE CENTERÙNE OF AN EXlSnNG 60' INGRESS, EGRESS
AND unuTY EASEMENT; THENCE ALONG SAiD CENTERUNE OF EASEJ.(ENT
S .1912'57" W. 272.07'; THENCE S 67TJO'()6" W. 251.44'; THENCE
ALONG A WR'Æ TO THE LEFT I+1TH A RADIUS OF lJ5.oo: A LENGTH
OF 94.04; THENCE S 27"05'18" W. 2J2.0J:· THENCE ALONG A WR\£
TO THE LEFT I+1TH A RADIUS OF 480.00: A LENGTH OF 126.5.1:'
THENCE ALONG A WR'vf: TO THE RIGHT I'rfTH A RADIUS OF J25.00:
A LENGTH OF 156.56:' THENCE ALONG A CtJR'Æ TO THE RIGHT KITH
A RAf)(US OF 250.00: A LENGTH OF 150.74; THENCE S 74"07'54" W.
116.66'; THENCE S 5976'15" W. 26J.69· TO A POfNT ON THE EAST
PROPERTY UNE OF THE GOODKlN PROPERTY. BÐNG THE END OF SAID
EASÐ.IENT AND THE BEGINNING OF A PROPOSED 20' ACCESS EASÐ.IENT:
THENCE ALONG THE CENTERUNE OF SA.ID PROPOSED Aca:ss EASÐ.IENT
S 5916'15" W. .1.47'; THENCE ALONG A CUR'Æ TO THE LEFT KITH
A RAf)(US OF 56.00: A LENGTH OF 160.01: l£A'ofNC THE SAJ[) GOODI'rfN
PROPERTY AT 154.68'; THENCE N 75"J.1'42" E, 178.60'; THENCE
ALONG A CtJR'Æ TO THE RIGHT KITH A RADIUS OF 600.00: A LENG.TH
OF 354.97'; THENCE ALONG A CUR'Æ TO THE LEFT KITH A- RAf)(US
OF SO.OO', A LENGTH OF 45.55'; THENCE N 56'J8'15" £. 98.4B:·
THENCE N 4279'.15" £. 180.01:' THENCE N 2.1"27'58" E. 196.72:'
THENCE S 2900'17' £. 167.02'; THENCE ..4LONG A WR\£ TO THE
RIGHT KITH A RAOIUS OF 40.00: A LENGTH OF 42.11'; THENCE
S .1l'SI·#;" W. 265.75' TO A POINT ..4T THE END SAID EASEMENT
AND ON THE EAST BOUNDARY UNE OF A SPRINr CEUULAR LEASE
AREA; THENCE ALONG SAID LEASE ARE..4 LINE S 1T27'.JJ" ~ 25.00'
TO A SET ROD ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WA Y LINE OF INTERSTA TE
ROUTE 64, SAID ROO 8£lNG THE POINT OF BEGlNNlNC (P.O.B.) OF THE
SAID SPRINr CEUULAR LEASE AREA; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF
i WA Y UNE S 72"J2'27" W. 60.00' TO A sà- ROO; 'THENcÊ:' --.,
SAID RIGH T OF WA Y LINE N 17"27'14" W. SO. 00' TO A ;
. THENCE N 72"J2"2T E. 60.00' TO A SET ROO' THENCE S 17
,~50.00' TO SAID SET ROD; THIS 8ÐNG THE P.O,B.
(LEASE ..4RE..4 = .1,000 SO.FT.)
(PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT = .JJ.85.1 SO.FT.)
r
PLAT SHOWING
A SITE PLAN
SURVEYED FOR
SPRINT CELLULAR
.lOCATElJ ON TAX NAP #75-'(7C, '(7C/ &
NORTn OF /NTE.RSTATE ROUTE 64
CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT · ALBEMARLE COW"
DATE:AUCUST 24, 1994SCALE: 1"= 200
K'
60'
_ 122
'" :
1
I....
I~
"~ INTERSTATE ROUTE 64
~ (VARIABLE mD TH R/W)
------:;---- - - --
<f. W.B.L
STATE ROUTE 702
//Jo' PUK!C "CCf:<;~.; R/W)
:.-, 7 Y u~ .--<ARL () T T£5 VILL £ I?/Hi ( .__.
/ ,i oJ YJ9. pr,. 5flS . "t/ _~_. _.__.. .. __ _..... ;:--::-::-:-
LEASE AREA IS.' ,..,ý /,~__~_.. _'.,.__
p'Rn·'''Y......",..,c-" - ¡ END OF ~'TATE "Q')Y ~'_ ~~2T'- ,-"¡j 2.';1; MI. r(.
,., """-"- nVVVt;.LI. S" ' ~c. ~ ,- # ,~'\~1 t.. -./ ." Clr 7-
....-,;... l· 4,t""NiE.'.¡ANCt: ' ? ~"·.,...r -. .:.~... ,.
-.,. ~' ,"--~C.:' I
1" - 30' .'~'~~~':"-. ::::-.:.::. -' , 'I
- .-.- -.- /~
A..//~ :
/.,{%Y I
¿..,o,ZV~ I
1 . ,~?/) i
TAX .vAP #75-'(7C &'(7C/ ~ .,:f¡....0 :
jJ. .!.. HOL/IJAY TRAI.lS', /NC./~. S 6~;\4~~ ...-: I
~ PARCEL "B" . / ~ /.,... TAX .vAP f75-'(7C &'(7C/ :
~., (0.8. 577. pc. 4~5) v::!~ '~._,.'<-1J5.o..~· HOL/lJAY J'RAILS, /NC. !~ ~ 5\ §
'" !' I L-94.C'4: PARCEL "B" .. .... ¡j ..
...--'\ ~ca ~~ . ð=.J9'S448" I~ '~;¡>
./'",- \ ,~ ,~ ~l (0.8. .577. pc. 4.t5) _ ~ _ .
" EXlSnNG 60' INGRESS, EGRESS ~I <:I. I ""- ~ ~
" It UTlUrr EASEU£NT --..... ,...'V! ',-, '"'
\ I 0.8. 577, pc. 4J5 I< 4J6 ............ .1" '\.; ~ ~ ~ as
\ (ft. OF CASEMENT ALONC 71 . I ~~ '-' <: ô
\ ft. OF EXISTING ROAD,! /,.. R-480.OC'. I;:;
I ·-t2SCP· C
\ . "'-)--.-...;..- '.....:' ~ I
' I ~IS'06r? .tI1
\ .'<: J25. 00 , !(?' ['I/G Tf:i.£. pco. 1.146'" I ¡
\ L-:56.56'",__ '--..10' / t
\ ð-27"J6'OC' 'f.., -- .. ,,~ ù/C POI'offi 80X F224-OC46
, R-25O.00' ~. . í'",..
T.M. p5-47D ' (_I~.7~·. /, / ~ì.~\~ .
N/F GOOOWTN \ ð-J4'J24~ / "',,)I~.~\\\': PROPOSED 20' ACCESS EASEMENT
PARCEL "A" \\ -" ,Ç'"W ~ /' Jy.~:%~~;" (ALONG ft. OF EXISTING DIRT I< CRA\.£Z. RO,I.fJ.)
'-:-74"07, , ", ~.
\ . ....,_S 11~6_--· ~/J/ Œ \
\ ,,6~~,_ . /1'/ ~
16~6"~9' / / ~ ~ : hI '.
, .......~9~ " 56'J8':=' õ \t~/6 ....'!. ' f,.
·~-j£;)C·· '(....).... ~/ 9fl.4t '/);(' ..~.~'-þ ..
l»rlb,J'4¿ J,J ,If r ..154.or-. - -= =-= :::--~6 '~ - '7/~-
'- \~L 178-§Q.~R~600Õo-:- ~-- ~ /'1/
~\ \ ;..---~ ~ - . -..;::: , 2
"~'"J'42' t. L-J54.97' LEASE AREA
W~;"j Ll=JJ'5.J·49· SEE DETAIL
650.02'
-S 89:V'õr
LlMITUJ ACCESS
R/W UNC
DETAIL
=-==-=-_.:-- C:!.~~Vf~ _
~r:"S;;~*::-*~~~~:;~~~!t~~\7";.<~ ~-~~\~.;z:;;~
~
"t~,:
J.K TIMMONS AND ASSOCIATES. P.C.
ENCINEERS · SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
· HENRICO CO. . CHESTERFIELD CO. . PRINCE C
VlRelNlA
J.N.: 940 7
RICHMOND
F.B. 696
GRAPHIC SCALE
- -
-
CHK BY: SL.t1
rL
( IN FEET )
Inch - 200·
tOO
o
"'"
1/0
f-:._ _ p.- ~-\
..----.-------.~. ..M
.:<
Attachment D
.
-
...-- ~_._-------
I
I
.
I
i
I
lBO'
I
I
v - 4.0
PIN 106778
v - 4.0
PIN 106779
v - 4.0
PIN 119492
v - 4.0
PIN 119500
U - 6.0
SECTION
U - 8.0
, \ SECTION
I
I
I
I -f
,
U - 10.0
SECTION
~
U - 12.0
SECTION
~
U - 14.0
SECTION
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
00 NOT BUILD
-,--------
I
CHG I
LET
DESCRIPTION Of REVISIONS
..
;;W-T'~·. : ,'..: ''\\.-' ~'/t\\\\~\)~;!¡¡ ?0"~W· --?
,. 0- -\ .'.. I . -."
.. .,.. '. "-0 . , "¡!/J.... -1!;-~::'''''''} ~
_...;:;:;, . I . .- ~\
_- 1 " / ' ')!Í -- , / ;/,.- [(
, .) , "., ,"\ I' , >: ---::
'.L~ ., \) I~ -
. ..., (' "( L~ .'. J'/,.'
, ' ;/.. /'
, . ~ \~ t\ J.'. " '1"':1- '''''~: .
~. . f.' f~. ' . . .' r.··~ , 1- /-
~.. f/·' I'\')·~l;/.;··-:,,)J,$ý/,
~J ;.r. .: 7../ ,,1"1.' 'd.
. ./ : . uPOtf-¡-
-:; .... f / .--.:2:~:·11 L' ./"'~'..--'-~J
. ::<_ '.' .,.., (I (' / ·r· \
. /.1. þ,;
:):)dtl
,il i /;
(J/ !
,)
4'
~
><
><
- /
/....
X
A (SEE PAGE 21
4'
4'
4'
- B (SEE PAGE 2)
4'
C (SEE PAGE 31
6'
8'
J
10'
o (SEE PAGE 3)
t- 12'
14'
C-C
~I
it-
SPRINT CELLULAR
KEITH LEE REOUEST
ENG. fILE NO.
PROPOSED
NAM
U - 14.0 X 180'
SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER
PiROD INC
PLYMOUTH, INDIANA 4
APPROVEO/fOUND. OR BY OATE
HMA 09/29/94
i i
j-----r--------- APPROVEO/ENG.
I INI I OATE
QWG.NO.
ARCHIVE
0-31502
1
"
0.1
'~ ",";~~T~~ ~ ·~)--H--· ViVO ~:ŸtiòrJO"~' Ü.1~V~
-Ii .;-....,.,.Ib ':- (I) ~ _ -. ."--- --
- [17'; . --=-.~:::.:':.:::..:::.:':'::-':' ::-::- -' ..- ---.
AttachIænt D Page 2
-
-
.'
, ..,-'c·_-,...
\(~
\~ I
\ If
,
.__,_ .___,n.....' -_-=-___, ..____._,. ._-:.:_. ,. ,.,. __ . _ . ..... ßOTTQM OF SECT! ON)
SECTION CONNECTION BOLT PILOT BOLT
. CË·NGTH ~. PARU----·'s I ZE·· ·-w'ÃCC-Ü I AM "LENGTH'··,": 0 IAM·LENGTH· .
:~J!L~'=>~~?·~~~ - .___~.~..~ .·~..~,~??~:~:=_-'I;~.:·~.~:':~/(~I~·:~. .1';. .. S"· ..: ~
, 20' 117989 24" ,375" 1" 4-1/2M17 1" 5" 3
:·2o'---îl-7g9o·---jo';-·---:-3i5'.;;---T';--~·i::.·1/2::-21··'u '1"· 5"·· - 3
~-----_._._._... "-". þ-- -- ----. ---.---.-. -'-'-___.". e" _. _..
20' 118069 36" .375" 1" 5" 25 1" 6" 3
'---"----.--..---.-. .--.- - ---....---- -------.. .---- .--- .--.--... .._- -...
20' 118070 42" ,375" 1": 5" 29 1" 6" 3
!~--;----118071 48-;;-···-·-:-375-;;'--- -1";--- .-5'" -3~--·1"'··.. 6';;· :3
~._-------_._------ ------------- ---..----..--------.-....--. -_.. -.. -.
20' 118072 54" ,375" 1" 5" 45· 1" 6" 3
'20;-~9Õ'j5'- - 60',; ·"·'-:-375'" -~;-..·_·4:.-1ï2=-¡ã-- ---"-'.-'
l20~'-'12 3625--60 "~.~~~~-.~:~~=:~~,~_==_~~..=- :_--=~-= -:.'~__=-~=~':~ ~.--.~
- ' - H"~"~___' --. ~-==1I~I=1
20'
r>/N 117988
i
-.
I
i
20' PIN 117989
I
I
180'
i
¡
I
!
I
.J!:
!
!
20'
I
i
I
I
20'
1
I
I
20'
PIN 118070
PIN 117990
PIN 118069
I
-r
I
20'
I
PIN 118071
1
-*
I
20'
1
20'
-1
20'
I
-
PIN 123625
P!N 118072
PIN 119035
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
DO NOT BUILD
CHGI
LET
DESCRIPTION DF REVISIONS
"
;p. ;-:--. .\.2p?=;~ '(' /~,.~\~:i'~/iJl '~~"L oJ
.-·r'~ . . '\ -:', .l\t:\\'\j;),J,~//-~,~(
... ,..- r' . r'·~0. 1/ .\',.\ :/rl'~;-~'~'~'7ì ~
',-:J 1· ~', / .';Iìl')~/¡;, / : ~:/~ty -~
~) " .; , (/ _ \ :/ \/l~'.'~' -;--'
.~ f~\' '.',' \, ""'"fJ'- '....~: .
y::<~ ' ".: . . /-::1. ~·:ì'ì\(~~' "l:;·)/.~;~y.~·;..~- -(/ '"/
Itn't;,o J. _-/7/, .,1"1' . _,
. \ ;r" ~ /.;'.' . "-'PUtt' I" .
. ,. ,'( I '. ... ".~-'/~' -, '.
.~ '.. ., I : . / <. / _ - J
,:;. ,...1,- //.O";~ \ . ,_., ,)
A,". ~-~ .,"" (
,~:~-
.J
-I
. -I
, :1
-, -r
:: ~
-,
1·_,
-I
W
. -
...: - 36 .
I:
i:
.11
¡:
!:
- : f- 42"
-
~
~:r
,-
,-
,-
¡~
I -
i -
I :
1
I
IT
-, ,
I :
I ~
-,
.--
. .0(-
18"
-
-
-
-
-
,-
~A
A-325 BOLTS
SEE TABLE ABOVE
FOR SIZE & OTY
-
24"
':!,
~rP--
~
-- .
-~
-,
30'
TYPICAL INTERNAL
FLANGE CONNECTION
VIEW A
A-325 BOLTS
SEE TA8LE ABOVE
FOR SIZE & OTY
-
-
~
~
-
-
-
-
-
,
.,
-
TYPICAL
DOUBLE INTERNAL
FLANGE CONNECTION
-
48"
VIEW 8
-
f- 54"
- 60'
-
I--=-
:"--8
-) - - 60 .
I
LJ
-
-
SEE PAGE 2 OF THIS DRAWING
FOR OPENING INFORMATION.
-
-
FINISHED GRADE
SPRINT CELLULAR
KEITH LEE REQUEST
NAMr
ENG. FILE NO.
A-
ASSEMBLY DRAWING
PiROO INC.
APPROVED/FOUND. OR BY DATE
HHA 09/29/94
PLYMOUTH. INDIANA 46563
T .
~~'------ APPROVED/ENG.
: INI I DATE
ARCHIVE
Q-31505
OWG,NO.
PAGE
1DF 4
.1.1. Þ I:
:]:J ,)}I
l'iI I I'
(~)
(')
~~-:~~.::"~~~~ :~; -~,::~.~..~::
.\1 ,IO.~Î,9f1 N
:"\1 ..;~~;.·;';.1-h' ~
~ilv
(¡/ .'
\.
,
"
.''''
! :
~
LAW OFFICES - Attachment E
TREMBLAY & SMI1IfIII
P.O. Box 1585
CHARLOTfESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585
105·109 EAST HIGH STREET
TELEPHONE (804) 977-4455
FACSIMII.E (804) 979-1221
.
August 23, 1994
Mr. William Fritz
Albemarle County Planning Commission
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Sprint Cellular Company
Application for Monopole Tower - Camp Holiday Trails
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Sprint Cellular Company proposes to install a 180' monopole
tower on property owned by Holiday Trails, Inc., designated Tax Map
75, Parcel 47C and 47C1, and zoned R-A. Attached please find the
completed application for Special Use Permit, Landowner's Consent
and 14 copies of the plan. I offer the following comments to
describe and justify this application.
Sprint's proposed Camp Holiday Trails site will, if approved,
replace another facility which was approved by Albemarle County
last year, but which has not been constructed. Sprint received
approval for a cellular communications facility on Bear Den
Mountain, with the following designations: SP-93-16¡ SDP-93-16¡
ARB-P(SDP) 93-06. The Bear Den site would have required the
construction of an access road up Bear Den Mountain facing
Interstate 64. Sprint has determined the Camp Holiday Trails site
will enable it to achieve approximately the same coverage objec-
tive¡ however, an access road exists to the Camp Holiday Trails
site and therefore a new one will not need to be constructed. It
is Sprint's intention to abandon the Bear Den site if the Camp
Holiday Trails site is approved.
The Camp Holiday Trails facility would consist of a 180'
monopole, 4' to 6' in diameter at the bottom, tapering to l' in
diameter at the top. The pole will be painted a color to blend in
as determined by the Architectural Review Board, and will not be
lit. Tree disturbance will be minimal. The site is located in a
rural, sparsely populated area of the County on a mountainside,
MEMBER. COMMONWEAI.TlI LAW GROUP
TREMBLAY & SMITH
- Attachment E Paqe 2
-
.
Fritz
August 23, 1994
Page 2
adjacent to Interstate 64. The site is surroundßd by trees of a
height of 801 to 1001. The Virginia Department of Transportation
has informally indicated it has no objection to the proposed
facility.
The facility will also consist of ,a l2 I x 28 I equipment
shelter which would not be visible from I~64. An 81 high chain-
link fence will surround the facility and the 501 x 601 lease site
would not be visible from 1-64. ,
Both whip type antennae and dish antennae will be located on
the tower. The whip type are sky blue and practically invisible.
The dish antennae will be of a color (off white or slate gray) to
minimize visibility.
Sprint needs to construct this facility in order to provide
good, continuous cellular telephone coverage for its customers.
There are currently dead spots in coverage on 1-64 and the 250
Bypass, and it is Sprintls expectation this facility will fill in
some of those dead spots.
Sprint is a public utility and is obligated by Federal
Communications Commission licensing requirements to provide good
levels of cellular telephone coverage to its customers. As the
demand for cellular telephone service grows, the number of
complaints of inadequate coverage increases, and Sprintls goal is
to address those complaints by constructing facilities such as the
one proposed.
Cellular telephones are becoming more a matter of necessity,
safety and desirability than a matter of convenience or luxury.
Many businesses and individuals use cellular telephones as part of
their daily lives. There have been numerous reported instances
where cellular telephones have been beneficial in reporting
accidents and other emergencies in order to summon emergency
personnel. Local radio stations ask cellular telephone users to
phone in traffic problems so motorists can be alerted to alternate
routes. Spr int I s bus iness has exper ienced sign i f icant growth since
it began the cellular telephone service and Sprint finds it
necessary to construct a new tower at the Camp Holiday Trails site,
in order to improve coverage and service to existing and future
cellular telephone users in the Albemarle County area.
There will be no electrical disturbance emanating from
Sprintls facility which will adversely affect adjoining properties
or navigation or control of aircraft, as provided in Section 4.14.7
/'
~''i
;.'~.:
I ....
;~
.,
"
)\.
TREMBLAY & SMITH
.
nt E pa<Je 3
- Attac.
-
-
Fritz
August 23, 1994
Page 3
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Based on engineering
studies presented to Albemarle County ln support of previous
applications, Sprint notes that facilities of this type generate
only a small percentage qf the RF levels allowed by the Federal
Communications Commission. No risk exists to the public of
exposure to the power density levels. generated by cellular
facilities as those levels do not even remotely approach the
maximum protection guide levels. Please see August 5, 1992
Engineering Statement of Jules Cohen and Associatds, P.C., filed
with the application of Sprint (formerly Centel) Cellular Company
for the site plan for Buck's Elbow Mountain.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Best personal regards.
Very truly yours,
~ r:LCß7h-
M. E. Gibson, Jr.
MEGjsp
Encs.
CC: Camp Holiday Trails, Inc.
Attention: Ms. Cleo VelIe
Sprint Cellular Company
Attention: Mr. Keith Lee
Larry Bickings
28\Spri\Alb\Fritz.OOl
fb-t'l(
Attachment F
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
TDD (804) 972-4012
September 20, 1994
···1'·
M.E. Gibson
Tremblay & Smith
P.O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
>1\' f) ,. 1~94
'"'d t:..
Re:
ARB-P(SDP)-94-19 Centel Tower
Tax Map 75 Parcels 47C & 47Cl
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its
meeting on Monday, September 19, 1994. The board was asked to provide a
recommendation to the Planning Commission concerning the request for a waiver to place the
proposed monopole at a height greater than 100'. The board determined in a vote of 3:2 to
recommend that the Planning Commission deny the waiver request for the proposed 180'
monopole.
The board was also asked to provide a recommendation for the variance request for a
decrease in setback for the building and the monopole. The board voted 5:0 to have no
objection to the variance request.
If the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the requested waiver and
variance then a certificate of appropriateness will be required prior to receiving final site plan
approval.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above please contact me.
Sincerely, t
G l~.vCyC-· :-----
Marcia Jos~p
Design Planner
cc:
Bill Fritz
Holiday Trails, Inc.
Attal..-~ ..nent G
-
.
ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1 .0 AUTHORITY, ESTABLISHMENT. PURPOSE AND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
1.1 AUTHORITY AND ENACTMENT
This ordinance. to be cited as the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle
County. is hereby ordained, enacted and published by the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County. Virginia, pursuant to the provisions
of Title 15.1, Chapter II, Article 8, Code of Virginia, 1950, and
amendments thereto.
1.2 AMENDMENT TO ADOPT
An ordinance to reenact and readopt the Albemar1e County Zoning
Ordinance and the Albemarle. County Zoning Map.
Be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia: That the following ordinance known as the Zoning Ordinance
of Albemarle County, Virginia, together with the Zoning Map attached
thereto, be and the same are, readopted and reenacted effective
immediately upon adoption of this ordinance.
1.3 EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
This Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County. Virginia, shall be effec-
tive at and after 5:15 P.M.. the 10th day of December, 1980 and at the
same time the Albemarle County IIZoning Ordinance" adopted December 22,
1969, as amended, is hereby repealed.
1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT
This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord
wi th and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County
adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article
4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent
set forth in Title 15.1, Chapter II, Article 8.
As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code, this ordinance is
intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of
ci tizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future
development of communities to the end that transportation systems be
carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with
adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational
facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be·
recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with
healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal
land be preserved; and that the growth of the community be consonant
with the efficient and economical use of public funds. (Added 9-9-92)
Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, for the purposes of promoting the health, safety,
convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the
-1-
(Supp. H68, 9-9-92)
1. 4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
1.4.5
1.4.6
1.4.7
1. 4. 8
1.4.9
1. 4.10
1.4.11
Atta.,
.ent r; Page 2
-
-
future development of the conununi ty, that the zoning ordinance of
Albemarle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed:
To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety
from fire, flood and other dangers;
To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets;
To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community;
To facilitate the prOV1S1on of adequate police and fire protection,
disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage,
flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrourds, recreational
facilities, airports and other public requirements;
To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas;
To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of
land, undue density of population in relation to the conununity faci-
lities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and
congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or
property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers;
To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable
employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92)
To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and
other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environ-
ment; (Amended 9-9-92)
To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed air-
ports, including United States government and military air facilities;
(Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92)
To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable
state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater
defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added
11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92)
To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92)
1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT
This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated
and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable considera-
tion for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehen-
sive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of
growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements
of the conununity for various purposes as determined by population and
economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of
the conununity, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools,
parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for
-2-
(Supp. H68, 9-9-92)
Attach
t G Page 3
-
-
the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood
plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the con-
servation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the
most appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended 11-1-89)
1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consi-
deration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose
of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall
encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan. To this end: development is to be encouraged in Villages,
Communities and the Urban Area; where servi~es and utilities are
available and where such development will not conflict with the
agricultural/forestal or other rural objectives; and development is
not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are\to be devoted to
preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water
supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historic
resources and where only limited delivery of public services is
intended. (Amended 11-1-89)
1.7 OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
The unincorporated areas of Albemarle County, Virginia, are hereby
divided into districts, as indicated on a set of map sheets entitled
"Zoning Map of Albemarle County, Virginia" which, together with all
explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and de-
clared to be a part of this ordinance.
The Zoning Map shall be identified by the signature or the attested
signature of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, together with
the date of adoption of this ordinance.
The zoning administrator shall be responsible for maintaining the
Zoning Map, which shall be located in his offices, together with the
current zoning status of land and water areas. buildings and other
structures in the county.
The zoning administrator shall be authorized to interpret the current
zoning status of land and water areas, buildings and other structures
in the county.
No changes of any nature shall be made on said Zoning Map or any
matter shown thereon except in conformity with the procedures and
requirements of this ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any person
to make unauthorized changes on the official Zoning Map. Violations
of this provision shall be punishable as provided in section 37.0.
1.8 CERTIFIED COPY, FILING
A certified copy of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of Albemarle
County, Virginia, shall be filed in the office of the zoning admini-
strator and in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albe-
marle County, Virginia.
-3-
(Supp. ff68, 9-9-92)
Attachment H
-
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 9724060
TDD (804) 972-4012
Octob~r 12, 1994
Tremblay & Smith
P. O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, V A 22902-1585
ATIN: M. E. Gibson, Jr.
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-94-12, Tax Map 075, Parcel 47C & 47CI
Dear Mr. Gibson:
This letter is to inform you that on October II, 1994, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for V A-94-12, subject to the following condition:
This approval is subject to and valid only with approval of the special permit. This does not allow
construction of additional structures, including towers, buildings or the like without amendment of this
varianœ. In the event the special pamit is deni~d, this variance shall be null and void.
This variance approval allows relief from S~cti()n 10.4 of the Alb~marl~ County Zoning Ordinance to allow the
applicant to reduœ th~ front setback. from 1-64 from 75 to 21 f~eI for the construction of a tow~r and to an II foot
setback for an equipment bl~ilding tò construct a cellular telephone communication tower.
If you hav~ any questions, please contact our oftiœ.
Sincerely,
(~ t{ /'fìUCulQgt-Q"
Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P,
Zoning Administrator
st/
cc: Sprint C~lIular Company
William Fritz, Senior Planner./'
Holiday Trails, Inc.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
roD (804) 972-4012
October 25, 1994
Dick Gibson
Sprint Cellular
c/o Trembly & Smith
P.O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1585
Re: Centel Tower ARB-P(SDP)-94-19
Tax Map 75 Parcel 47C & 47C I
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its
meeting on Monday October 25, 1994. The board voted 4: I in favor of a recommendation
to the Planning Commission. The recommendation stated that they could not support the
request for the Special Use Permit that would allow the proposed 180' communication tower
on this site.
If you have questions please call me.
SinC~relY, \
j '1 :. .~!
L\}L¿(~-i} I
I
I
Marcia Josepl~ >
Design Planner
cc: Holiday Trails
J.K. Timmons & Associates
Bill Fritz
/
/
/
/
ÁOPOSED 180'
TALL MONOPOLE
/
liNE..
ðF ~
SIG-Ití /
/
-~--··INÆRSTA TE 64
/
EX. GROUND ~
----
/
SPRINT - CHARLOTTESVILLE SITE
A T CAMP HOLlOA Y TRAILS
.. TYPICAL SITE SECT70N
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"= 50'
VERT7CAL SCALE: 1 "- 50'
. - ... ~ .. - .
..
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296·5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
While Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr
Scoltsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
November 23, 1994
Ms. Betty J. Queen
Temporary Chair
Virginia Cooperative Extension Council
Route 2, Box 215
Louisa, VA 23093-9553
Dear Ms. Queen:
At its meeting on November 22, 1994, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
unanimously adopted the attached Resolution in support of funding for Virginia Cooperative
Extension.
If you need further assistance, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
~eyl0~~
Clerk, CMC
EWC/jng
cc: Charles Goodman
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
*
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUfION
WHEREAS, Virginia Cooperative Extension is ajoint program of the Federal, State and
local governments in cooperation with Virginia Tech, Virginia State University; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Cooperative Extension contributes significantly to the quality of
life and economic development of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the educational programs and services of Virginia Cooperative Extension
are available to every resident of the Commonwealth without regard to socio-economic status,
race, age, or any other consideration; and
WHEREAS, a 1992 study conducted by the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget
cited Virginia Cooperative Extension as a major player in prevention and early intervention
programs, these programs and services being delivered to residents via local agents and
volunteers; and
WHEREAS, since 1989, Virginia Cooperative Extension has lost sixty extension agents
statewide, and since 1990, has suffered a twenty-two percent General Fund reduction; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Tech's 1995 budget amendment request represents a restoration
of funding to the levels necessary to allow existing programs to continue; if this funding is not
restored, an additional forty-five extension positions will be lost with' twenty-nine of those being
in the Agriculture Experiment Station; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Cooperative Extension Advisory Committee and newly created
Virginia Cooperative Extension Council on October 28, 1994, endorses Virginia Tech's 1995
budget amendment request of $2.898 million with $1.5 million for Cooperative Extension and
$1.398 million for the Experiment Station, and also requested that Virginia State University's
General Fund support of Cooperative Extension be maintained at current levels.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby support the budget request endorsed by the Virginia
Cooperative Extension Advisory Committee and the Virginia Cooperative Extension Council.
*****
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that this is a true, correct copy of a Resolution
unanimously adopted by the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors at a regular meeting held
on Noember 22, 1994.
DleuLU
s r.i ðü
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Cooperative Extension is a joint program of the Federal, State and
local governments in cooperation with Virginia Tech, Virginia State University; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Cooperative Extension contributes significantly to the quality of life
and economic development of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the educational programs and services of Virginia Cooperative Extension
are available to every resident of the Commonwealth without regard to socio-economic status,
race, age, or any other consideration; and
WHEREAS, a 1992 study conducted by the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget
cited Virginia Cooperative Extension as a major player in prevention and early intervention
programs, these programs and services being delivered to residents via local agents and
volunteers; and
WHEREAS, since 1989, Virginia Cooperative Extension has lost sixty extension agents
statewide, and since 1990, has suffered a twenty-two percent General Fund reduction; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Tech's 1995 budget amendment request represents a restoration of
funding to the levels necessary to allow existing programs to continue; if this funding is not
restored, an additional forty-five extension positions will be lost with twenty-nine of those being
in the Agriculture Experiment Station; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Cooperative Extension Advisory Committee and newly created
Virginia Cooperative Extension Council on October 28, 1994, endorses Virginia Tech's 1995
budget amendment request of $2.898 million with $1.5 million for Cooperative Extension and
$1.398 million for the Experiment Station, and also requested that Virginia State University's
General Fund support of Cooperative Extension be maintained at current levels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby support the budget request endorsed by the Virginia
Cooperative Extension Advisory Committee and the Virginia Cooperative Extension Council.
- ,.
Virginia Cooperative Extension Council
Route 2, Box 215
Louisa, Virginia 23093-9553
(703) 967-2537
Betty J. Queen, Temporary Chair
Lewis W. Peery, Temporary Vice-Chair
November 7, 1994
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Albemarle County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville VA 22901
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Virginia Cooperative Extension, a joint program in higher education of Virginia Tech, Virginia
State University, and local governments, is a valuable asset to the Commonwealth. There is no
other educational organization that identifies and solves the problems of individuals, youth,
families and communities so effectively.
Despite its popularity and remarkable record of achievement, Virginia Cooperative Extension
continues to suffer declining state General Fund Appropriations. At a recent joint meeting of
the Virginia Cooperative Extension Advisory Committee and the Virginia Cooperative Extension
Council, these two volunteer groups passed a resolution in support of General Fund restoration
for Virginia Cooperative Extension and the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station amounting
to $2,898,000. As you see from the enclosed copy, the resolution endorses restoration of
$1,500,000 to Cooperative Extension and $1,398,000 to the Experiment Station, a companion
of Cooperative Extension in the discovery/ delivery process.
We urge your local government to support restoration of the full $2,898,000 for 1995-96.
Please consider sending a resolution, as we have done, to Governor Allen requesting that he
include the $2,898,000 in the upcoming Executive Budget. Please also share a copy with
appropriate members of the General Assembly.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
~gc2JÆU-/
Betty J. Queen
Temporary Chair
Virginia Cooperative Extension Council
The mission of Extension Leadership Councils is to develop and implement a program plan that will direct Extension's
resources toward the resolution of identified issues and concerns.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors ~ ~
November 23, 1994
Resolution for Raintree Subdivision, Phases 6, 7 and 8
Attached is the original resolution (plus three copies) adopted by the Board on November
22, 1994, requesting aceptance of Raintree Subdivision, Phases 6, 7 and 8 into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
EWC/jng
FORMS\ROADRES.FRM
Attachments (8)
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, in meeting on the 22nd day of November, 1994, adopted the
following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the streets in Raintree Subdivision, Phases 6, 7
and 8 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
November 22, 1994, fully incorporated herein by reference, are
shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Raintree Subdivision, Phases 6, 7 and
8 as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
November 22, 1994, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Reauirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: 'MrE~ HÙmphris
Seconded by: Mr. Martin
Yeas: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
Nays: None.
Absent: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall.
A Copy Teste:
~w
Ella W. Carey,
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Raintree Drive from the edge of pavement of state Route
652 0.40 mile to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on
plat recorded 1-26-89 in Deed Book 1032, pages 482-487,
with a 50 foot right-of-way, additional plats recorded
10-25-89 in Deed Book 1072, pages 640-645, and on
5-14-93 in Deed Book 1308, pages 11-18, total length
0.40 mile.
2) Brightfield Place from the edge of pavement of Raintree
Drive 0.07 mile to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown
on plat recorded 10-25-89 in Deed Book 1072, pages 640-
645, with a forty foot right-of-way, total length 0.07
mile.
3) Robin Hill Court from the edge of pavement of Raintree
Drive 0.07 mile to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown
on plat recorded 10-25-89 in Deed Book 1072, page 640-
645 with a forty foot right-of-way, total length 0.07
mile.
Total mileage 0.50.
Cfstributed to Board: Î i I J b l::1j
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEÞ«~"dI j~m No, ~¡l!JZ-,{ð-~l)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Board of Supervisors Clerk
Loret M. Ruppe, Civil Engineer II ~~-
November l5, 1994
Raintree Subdivision, Phases 6, 7, & 8
The roads serving the above referenced subdivision are
substantially complete and being readied for a VDOT acceptance
inspection. Attached is the completed SR-5(A) form for a
resolution, which I request be taken to the Board for adoption at
your next opportunity. Once the resolution has been adopted,
date and sign the SR-5(A) and please provide me with the original
and four copies.
Thanks for your assistance. Please call me if you have any
questions.
LMR/
Attachment
Copy: Reading File
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902·4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296·5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkms
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scollsvi!le
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
November 4, 1994
Mr. Scott A. Williams
Project Manager
Robert Hauser Homes
2401 Hydraulic Road
Chalottesville, VA 2290l
Dear Mr. Williams:
Your request to have roads in Raintree Phases 6, 7 and 8
taken into the State Secondary System of Highways was received
and has now been referred to the County Engineer. When she has
certified that all work has been completed in accordance with
approved plans, this request will be placed before the Board of
Supervisors for adoption of the necessary resolution.
EWC:mms
Sincerely '\ ./'
_.~"-,~ / I / /Y /
. (Êl~;/c;r~ :i~~tr
cc: Jo Higgins, County Engineer
*
Printed on recycled paper
HäiiSerHomes
"
October 31, 1994
Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk of the Board
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE: Raintree Phases 6, 7 & 8
Dear Ms. Carey:
I am writing this letter to ask that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
adopt a resolution to allow the following roads to be accepted into the Virginia
Department of Transportation's secondary highway system: Raintree Drive, Robin Hill
Court, Brightfield Place.
Should you have any questions, please feel tree to contact me at 979-7334. I
thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely,
tJtA.tiJ~
Scott A. Williams
Project Manager
SW:lgb
2401 Hydraulic Road· Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 ·804-979-7334· Fax 804-979-7443
·
Ú~5 '¡-) ec ct
l l ·LZ LJi._~
r
\J: e::¡
,¡
Albemarle County, Virginia
Albemarle County, Virginia
Celebrates its 250th Birthday
1744 - 1 994
Capital Improvement Program
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00
;..
,
.
Albemarle County
Capital Improvement Program
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00
Project Summary
General Government Projects
$ 13,548,433
School Division Projects
$ 47,898.480
Total CIP $ 61.446.913
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
9
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00
Capital Improvement Program
General Govt. & School Division Projects
FY 95/96 - 99/2000 CIP Project Summary
2% 2%
3%
I
)
~~
I
! 0 Schools
· Public Safety
· Transportation
· Libraries
· Parks
Education
· Utilities
CapitaV Debt Reserve
· Administration
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
11
,
Albemarle County Financial Policies (Excerpts)
Capital Budget Policies:
· The County will coordinate the development of the capital budget with the development of the
operating budget so that future operating costs, including annual debt service, associated with
the new capital projects will be projected and included in operating budget forecasts.
· Emphasis will continue to be placed upon a viable level of "pay-as-you-go" capital
construction to fulfill needs in a Board approved Capital Improvement Program.
· The County believes in funding a significant portion of capital improvements on a cash basis
and will, therefore, increase incrementally the percentage of its capital improvements financed
by current revenues. The County's goal will be to dedicate a minimum of 3% ofthe annual
General Fund revenues allocated to the County's operating budget to the Capital
Improvements Program.
Asset Maintenance. Replacement and Enhancement Policies:
· Within the Capital Improvement Program, the County will maintain a Capital Plant and
Equipment Maintenance/ Replacement Schedule, which will provide a five-year estimate of
the funds necessary to provide for the structural, site, major mechanical! electrical .
rehabilitation or replacement of the County and School physical plant requiring a total
expenditure of $1 0,000 or more with useful life of ten years or more.
· T? provide for the adequate maintenance of the County's capital plant and equipment, the
County intends to increase the percentage of maintenance/ repair and replacement capital
improvements financed with current revenues.
Debt Policies:
· Recognizing the importance of underlying debt to its overall financial condition, the County
will set target debt ratios, which will be calculated annually and included in the annual review
of fiscal trends:
. Net debt per capita should remain under $1,000.
. Net debt as a percentage of the estimated market value of taxable property should not
exceed 2%.
· The ratio of debt service expenditures as a percent of general fund revenues should not
exceed 10%.
General Government Revenues
FY 95/96 . 99/2000 Proposed CIP Revenues for General Government Projects
5% 3% 2% 8%
. . State (Rivanna)
II CIP Fund Balance
!!! Developer Contribution
D General Fund Transfer
. E-911
III Jail Funds
. Miscellaneous
_.~
78%
FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/2000 Total
CIP Fund Balance $270,799 $299,174 $251,847 $246,850 $238,230 $1,306,900
General Fund Transfer $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $12,600,000
State (Rivanna) $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000
Developer Contribution $315,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $315,000
E - 911 Revenue $340,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $340,800
Jail Funds $196,900 $567,032 $0 $0 $0 $763,932
Miscellaneous $121.800 $1 00000 $1 00 000 $1 00.000 $100.000 $521.800
Total $3,545,299 $3,266,206 $2,851,847 $2,846,850 $3,588,230 $16,098,432
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
14
...
Summ1ll:J?--fJf Man dated/ Committed Projects
FY 95/96 - 99/2000 General Government CIP
Mandated (13%)
Maintenance (22%)
Pubic Safety (16%)
CJm Year Page
ADA Compliance -Parks and Recreation - $160,556 FY 96,97 68
Facilities
ADA Compliance - Parks/Recreation- School $178,750 FY 96, 97 69
Grounds
ADA Compliance - County Office Building $103,320 FY 96,97 30
ADA Compliance - Joint Security Complex $54,139 FY96 36
Voting Machines $221,000 FY 96,97 33
PVCC Social Sciences Building $62,335 FY96 88
Health Department Clinic Wing $80,000 FY96 32
Keene Landfill Closure $750,000 FY 96-2000 93
County Master Drainage Plan $300,000 FY 96-2000 92
Comprehensive Assessment System - Admin. $75.000 FY96 31
Total Mandated! Committed Projects $1,958,100
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994 15
FY 95/96 - 99/2000 General Government CIP
Mandated (13%)
Expandedl New (48%)
Public Safety (16%)
County Office Building Maint.! Repairs
Library Maintenance/ Replacement
Parks/Recreation Maint.! Replacement
Transfer to School Maintenance Projects
Stormwater Projects
Ûl£1
$164,771
$163,500
$172,730
$2,550,000
$250.000
$3,301,001
Total
Maintenance (22%)
Year
FY 96, 97
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
Page
35
65
84
103
94
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
16
...
SummaC)!....D/ Administration & Courts Projects
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditures
Administration (15%)
CapitaV Debt Resen.e
(10%)
Utilities (10%)
Libraries (4%)
ADA Compliance - County Office Building
Computerized Assessment System
Health Department Clinic Wing
Replace Voting Machines
General Government Computer Upgrade
Maintenance/ Repairs - County Office Bldg.
Joint Security Complex - ADA Compliance
JSC Renovations - Kitchen/Laundry/Canteen
JSC Renov. - HVAC/ Electrical Upgrade
JSC Renovations - Intake Center
Cost
$103,320
$75,000
$80,000
$221,000
$535,000
$164,771
$54,139
$52,892
$165,399
$567.032
$2,018,553
Total
Transportation (26%)
Year
FY 96,97
FY96
FY96
FY 96,97
FY 96-2000
FY 96,97
FY96
FY96
FY97
FY97
Page
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
36
36
36
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
29
p
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditures
Capital! Debt Reserve
(10%)
Utilities (10%)
Transportation (26%)
Parl<s (17%)
libraries (4%)
Police - Radio Receiver System
Police Computer System
NCIC 2000 Upgrade
Fire/Rescue Building Equipment Fund
Fire Pumper Replacement
E - 911 Building
Cost
$363,851
$126,242
$15,000
$1,250,000
$250,000
$340.800
$2,018,553
Total
Year
FY98
FY 96, 97
FY98
FY 96-2000
FY96
FY96
Page
40
41
42
43
44
45
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
39
,
Summar)!.JJ/High.JJ!Jl)J & TransportaJkm Projects
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditures
Administration (15%)
Transportation (26%)
CapitaV Debt Reserve
(10%)
Utilities (10%)
ParKs (17%)
Libraries (4%)
Cost Year Page
Forest Lakes/ Hollymead Dam Road $315,000 FY96,97 48
Zan Road Extension $27,850 FY99 49
Carrsbrook Road Extension $359,500 FY99 50
Revenue.Sharing Road Projects $2,500,000 FY 96-2000 51
Meadowcreek Pkwy./ Rio Road Bicycle Path $20,000 FY97 52
Route 250 - Route 616 Turn Lane $100,000 FY 97, 98 53
Hydraulic/ Rio Bicycle Path and Sidewalk $53,500 FY98 54
Avon/Route 20 Interchange Study $50,000 FY99 55
Greenbrier/ Hydraulic Streetlights $19,250 FY 98,99 56
Greenbrier Drive Extended Sidewalks $27,500 FY98 57
Ivy Road Street Lights $31,900 FY 98,99 58
Old Ivy Bicycle Path and Sidewalk $53.500 FY99 59
Total $3,558,000
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
47
Summa1)LJJ/Library Projects
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditures
Administration (15%)
Capital! Debt Reserve
(10%)
Utilities (10%)
Parks (17%)
Central Library Recarpeting
Main Frame Computer Upgrade
Reconstruct Gordon Ave. Parking Lot
Maintenance/ Replacement Projects
Public Safety (17%)
Transportation (26%)
libraries (4%)
Total
om
$20,000
$293,447
$42,500
$163.500
$519,447
Year
FY96
FY98
FY98
FY 96-2000
Page
62
63
64
65
SummalJ?-.Df Education Projects: General Govt.
PVCC Social Sciences Building
Total
Cost
$62.335
$62,335
Year
FY96
Page
88
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
61
·
Summar)!...1JjParks & Recreation Projects
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditura
Capital! Debt Res.rve
i'O%1
Trllnsportation (26'MÞ)
libraries (4%)
ADA Compliance - Parks Facilities
ADA Compliance - School Grounds
Red Hill Elementary Rec. Improvements
Greer Outdoor Rec. Improvements
Outdoor Rec. Project Completion
Walnut Creek Park Improvements
Towe Park Rec. Improvements
Rivanna Greenway Access and Path
Northern Area Elementary School Rec.
Swimming Beach Playground Structures
Scottsville Comm. Ctr. Outdoor Improv.
Milton/Chris Greene/Mint Springs Security
Northern Park Improvements
Crozet Park Improvements
Warren Ferry
Forloines Study
Maintenance & Replacement Repairs
Ctl£1
$160,556
$178,750
$67,000
$77,000
$49,600
$131,000
$143,144
$350,000
$71,500
$30,000
$118,925
$30,000
$635,000
$100,000
$20,000
$25,000
$172.730
$2,360,205
Total
Year
FY 96,97
FY 96,97
FY97
FY97
FY97
FY 98-2000
FY97
FY 96-98,00
FY 2000
FY97
FY 97,98
FY 96-97
FY 2000
FY 96-2000
FY96
FY96
FY 96-2000
Page
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
67
CapitaV Debt Reserve
(10%)
Utilities (10%)
County Master Drainage
Keene Landfill Closure
Stormwater Projects
FY 1995·96 to 1999-00 General Government CIP Expenditures
Administration (15%)
Public Safety (17%)
Year
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
Page
92
93
94
Transportation (26%)
Parks (17%)
Libraries (4%)
Total
Cost
$300,000
$750,000
$250.000
$1,300,000
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
91
,
Changes to Project Requests:
Project Request Recommend Change
Not funded
Police Satelite Facility 947,573 0 947,573
Rte. 29 Underground Utilities 9,051.449 0 9,051.449
Landscaping 18,500 0 18,500
Crozet Library 3.390,000 0 3.390,000
New Library (Plans, site) 162,500 0 162.500
0
Reduced Funding 0
Fire Pumper Replacement 325,000 250,000 75,000
Library - Circulation Desk 10,000 1,000 9,000
Gordon A venue Parking Lot 85,000 42,500 42,500
0
Increased Funding 0
Crozet Park 72.000 100.000 -28,000
Total 14,062,022 393,500 13,668,522
Proiects Moved to Another Year
Avon St.lRt 20 Interchange Study
Greer Elementary Recreation Improvements
Walnut Creek Park Improvements
FY94-95 Recreation Improvements
Red Hill Outdoor Recreation Improvements
T owe Park
Rio Road Bicycle Path
Meadow Creek Bicycle Path/Pedestrian Path
Carrsbrook Road Extension
Northern Area Park Improvements
Greenbrier Drive/Hydraulic Rd. Streetlights
Zan Road
Route 250-Route 616 Turn Lane
FY97
FY96
FY96-99
FY96
FY96
FY96
FY97
FY96
FY96-97
FY96
FY97-98
FY96
FY96-97
FY99
FY97
FY97-00
FY97
FY97
FY97
FY98
FY97
FY99
FYOO
FY98-99
FY99
FY97-98
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
6
FY 1995-96 to 1999-00
CapliallmprovementProgram
School Division Projects
FY 95/96 - 99/00 CIP School Division Projects
Maintenance! Repair
(14%)
Miscellaneous (2%)
School Technology
(8%)
\ New School Buildings
\
! (49%)
/
/
ADA Improvements
(2%)
//.
........~/
~-
--
Renovations! Additions
(25%)
Capital Improvement Program
November, J 994
-
.
Summa1J!-fJlEducation Proj.«..ts: Schools
New High School
W AHS Building Renovations
AHS Phase IL III Restoration
W oodbrook Renovation/ Addition
Cale Addition
Stony Point Renovations/ Addition
Brownsville Renovation/ Addition
Crozet Addition
Murray High Renovation
Northern Area Elementary School
Red Hill Expansion
VHF Underground Storage Tank Repl.
CATECADA Compliance
Mai.ntenance & Replacement Projects
Burley Roof Replacement
ADA Structural Changes/ Misc. Schools
Instructional Tech. for Schoo[Division
Administrative Tech. for School Division
Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfig.
Security Systems - All Schools
Ûl£1
$23,020,350
$2,897,500
$1,815,000
$1,950,550
$758,000
$1, 118, 000
$1,229,470
$ 794, 890
$920,000
$325,000
$300,000
$360,000
$14,000
$6,880,100
$140,000
$797,970
$3,658,250
$350,000
$454,500
$44.900
$47,898,480
Total
Year
FY 96-98
FY 96-99
FY 96-99
FY 96,97
FY 96,97
FY 96,97
FY 96,97
FY 96,97
FY 96,98,99
FY 99,2000
FY 2000
FY 98,2000
FY97
FY 96-2000
FY96
FY 96-98
FY 96-2000
FY 96-2000
FY 97-99
FY96
Capital Improvement Program
November, 1994
98
L 'tf··I..Y ,
f't!$tr¡bul;,o ;0 ¡¡(}MCr. L.!.~-~~ .j ;;'!\
Ag~~j'1~m No. _qL;...HÇZ( 7.q J
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
(
IN REPLY REFER TO
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Shenandoah National Park
Route 4, Box s.48
Luray, Virginia 22835-9051
D18
November 15, 1994
Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntyre
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Perkins:
I'd like to bring you up to date on the status of the Related Lands
Project here at Shenandoah National Park.
As you may recall, we initiated the pilot portion of the project in
1991 in Albemarle and Rockingham Counties and in 1993 in Augusta
County to achieve the following objectives:
o develop opportunities for cooperation between the citizens of
each county and the National Park Service to conserve
resources of mutual interest;
o establish specific criteria for acceptance by the Park Service
of land offered for donation; and
o establish criteria for the potential reduction of acreage
included in the 1926 Congressionally authorized park boundary.
Based on the results of the work in these three counties, we are
now ready to complete the resource inventory in the remaining five
counties of Greene, Madison, Rappahan~ocki Warren and Page.
The inventory consists primarily of gathering existing information
on the lands within the authorized boundary. This information will
then be analyzed to determine which lands are still suitable for
inclusion in the park should they be offered for donation and which
lands are not suitable for inclusion in the park. Those determined
not suitable could be included in recommendations to the Congress
for adjustments in the authorized boundary of the park.
The inventory is being conducted by the School of Forestry and
Wildlife Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. They will compile existing resource information using
Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. This will result
in a series of maps that can be used for a variety of purposes
including those stated above.
The contractor from Virginia Tech, Dr. Paul Bolstad, may be
contacting your planning department to see what information may
already be available. All information gathered during the related
lands project will be made available to county and state
governments.
Dr. Bolstad's efforts in the three counties which were part of the
pilot phase of the project will be to provide consistent data in a
format which will allow us to have complete data and to fill in any
gaps in data which may be identified. In order to have a useable
GIS data program for the park, we must have a consistent data base
and format for all counties. Please be assured that the informa-
tion already collected by the University of Virginia's pilot
efforts will be used in this and all phases of the related lands
project.
District Leader, Sandy Rives, will be available at an upcoming
Supervisor's meeting to discuss the Related Lands Project and any
other matters of interest concerning the park. Mr. Rives can be
reached at 804-985-7293 if you have any questions.
~
Enclosure
--
.,
. (
<ç,~A{'!.D 0
~-<-y ~-:):-
~
.. ON A\. ç~
Shenandoah
N a t ion a I P a r.k
Septem ber 1994
.- .
Related Lands Project
What is the Related Lands Project?
The purposes of the Shenandoah National
Park Related Lands Project are:
to develop opportunities for cooperation
between the citizens of each county and the
National Park Service to conserve resources
of mutual interest;
to establish specific criteria for acceptance
by the Park Service of land offered for
donation;
· to establish criteria for the potential
reduction of acreage included in the 1926
Congressionally authorized Park boundary.
To accomplish this, the Park Service has, in
cooperation with State and local govemments,
initiated a resource inventory and analysis of
the lands within the 1926 authorized boundary.
The inventory will identifY lands with a direct
ecological or land use relationship to the
resource values of the Park. The project is, for
the first time, assembling all the existing and
available resource infonnation about the Park
and surrounding lands.
The study area for the project is defined by
the 1926 authorized Park boundary. The
boundary represents the area within which the
Park Service is allowed to accept donations of
land. There are pOliions of nine Virginia
counties within the 1926 authorized boundary
comprising approximately 521,000 acres of
land. Of the acres of land within the 1926
authorized boundary, approximately 195,500
(38%) are within the existing boundaries of
Shenandoah National Park: the remallllng are
private or other public lands.
Why is the Related Lands Project
Being Cond ucted?
Shenandoah National Park can no longer be
seen as an island isolated from its neighbors.
The use of land surrounding the Park has a
tremendous impact upon what M¡:5pens within
it. The Park also has an impact on its
neighbors. The Park Service has limited funds
available to address resource management
issues. In addition, the Park Service is
specifically prohibited from acquiring lands
with Federal funds, and is only allowed to
accept lands offered for donation within the
1926 authorized boundary. This boundary
includes many areas which are obviously not
suitable for inclusion in a national park. The
Park Service would like to work more closely
with Park neighbors to conserve resources of
mutual interest and resolve common problems
without relying solely on land acquisition to
protect Park resources.
How is the project being conducted?
The project includes the following steps:
provide information to interested parties
about the purposes of the Related Lands
Project;
identifY issues and concerns;
gather existing information;
analyze data on natural, cultural and scenic
resources;
hold pub I ic open houses and \\'or1<:shops to
provide oppor1unitics for Park neighbors
and other intcrested par1ies to .review
information gathered during the invcntory:
Shenandoàh National Park Related La/lcÚ Project
Page 2
existing
potential
land use trends to
impacts on resource
exam me
detennine
values;
propose criteria for determining relative
importance of resource values to the Park,
Park users, and Park neighbors;
conduct technical review of maps and data;
and
make presentations to Boards of
Supervisors and other interested parties to
revie\\l _ infonnation gathered during the
project.
What were the issues that led the Park
to initiate the Related Lands Project?
There have been increasing concerns by
Park managers, Park users, and Park neighbors
about the potential impact of land use changes
taking place around the Park and degradation of
the resource values that were the very reasons
a park was created -- abundant plant and animal
life, panoramic views of mountain and valley
scenery, cascading mountains streams, and
recreational access for fishing and camping
within a day's drive of the majority of the
residents of the eastern United States.
Increasingly, private lands adjacent to the
Park's boundary are becoming more urbanized.
Large habitat areas used by wildlife are being
impacted by new residences built immediately
adjacent to the Park. What once were
panoramic views of mountain forests and valley
fanns, are becoming views of subdivisions, and
expanding urban areas. Runoff from new
construction and tree clearing outside the Park
is clouding the once clear waters. Pollution
from oth.er -regions is degrading panoramic
views and acidifying streams. Lowland access
points along the Park boundary are being closed
by landowners who are concerned about
trespassers and vandalism.
The Related Lands Project was initiated to
provide the following information to Park
managers, local governments, neighbors, and
Park users about the conditions of exiting
resource values:
the extent of plant and animal. habitats and
their suitability for supporting species
native to the Park;- ~
the extent of the panoramic views of
mountain and valley scenery;
the areas of land that play an important role
in keeping mountain streams cold and clear;
areas of land that provide suitable lowland
access to trails and streams. ._
the extent of lands that are currently used
for or are suitable for residential or
agricultural use; and
the locations of lands and sites that are
important elements of the- culture and life-
style of the existing communities.
The Related Lands Project was also.·
initiated to improve the lines of communication
between the Park and its neighbors. Perhaps
the biggest related lands issue facing the Park is
whether or not the Park and its neighbors can
build a new sense of community that many feel
has been missing for too many years. The very
qualities that make the Shenandoah area a truly
delightful region in which to live, work and
play can be conserved only when an open and
honest dialogue has been established between
the Park and its neighbors.
How can interested citizen-s or groups
get involved with the project?
Open houses will be held in the counties
surrounding the Park. These workshops will
give interested citizens an opportunity to talk
with members of the study team about specific
issues and concerns, and to review the progress
of the project and make suggestions as to what
steps should be taken to address common
concerns between the Park and its. neighbors.
The National Park Service is very "interested in
working more cooperatively with the counties
that surround the Park to conserve- resources of
*'
. /
.
---.------
Shenandoah National Park Related Lands Project
Page 3
mutual interest and resolve management
problems with its neighbors. Meetings,
workshops and planning sessions with county
representatives and citizens will continue.
- ~
- ~
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Superintendent
Route 4, Box 348
Luray, VA 22835
(703) 999-3400
Shenandoah National Park
Augusta Co.
- ------.
...............--
Related Lands Project Study Area
Existing Park
,
,
,
'---'~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-,
J',¿ ,I
,
,.......-
,', ,-_/~/ '
,/ ".' ~
,
,
"
,
,
-,
Authorized Boundary
--
i .....,
: '....
"",/,'
,-
,
I
,
,
J
,
I
,
,
,
J
,
~
ShenaddOah
...-..........
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
......
"-
--'-
.......,.....
'-
-'---"'-"
"-
,
,
I
,
~-
adiaon "
Madison cd~~_.,
I-
I
!¡
I
I
,-
,", "'u
~..:;.[...r::. -
,
'-,_.,. .:' .--,-
....................
,>
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
/'
-~J
,__,__,{Nelson cd-,
9"
,
I
,
Shenandoah National Park
m.IEl1A TIElD) l1ANlD)§ §TUID))f
October 1994
Number 5
Albemarle and Rockingham Studies Completed
Related Lands Study Extended to Augusta County
Augusta County has agreed to be the third
county to participate in the Related Lands Study.
The National Park Service is providing funding
to extend the Related Lands Study to Augusta.
The fIrst two counties to be studied, Albemarle
and Rockingham are now complete. The Au-
gusta County study will build on the results of
the Albemarle and Rockingham County studies.
The study team will also seek to simplify the
project, reducing the scope of the project to
match the available funds, without reducing the
quality of the work.
As with the Albemarle and Rockingham County
studies, the Augusta study will include only
those lands within the 1926 authorized boundary
as shown at right. The purpose, goals and
objectives of the study will remain the same. In
this newsletter, the fIfth in a continuing series,
the project's purposes are described. The study
process is summarized and some of the key
issues that led the park to initiate the study are
discussed.
The last page of this newsletter indicates the
schedule for the project. An informal open
house to be held in late fall will provide any
citizen with an opportunity to learn more about
the study, and to speak directly with members of
the study team or representatives from the park
about any land use related issues or concerns.
Over 1000 people attended meetings and open
houses in Rockingham and Albemarle County.
The comments and suggestions made at these
meetings provide the fundamental basis for
identifying locally based resource values associ-
ated with the park's related lands.
The 1926 Authorized Boundary in Augusta County (dark
gray) renerally follaws US 250 and US 340.
What is the Related Lands Study?
The purpose of the Shenandoah National Park
Related Lands Study (RLS) is to undertake a
resource inventory and analysis of the lands
within the 1926 authorized boundary to identify
lands with a direct ecological or land use rela-
tionship to the Shenandoah National Park. The
study is, for the fIrst time, assembling all the
October 1994
ccmtinued on next page
Shenandoah National Park Related Lands Study
continued from first paee
existing and available resource information
about the park and its surrounding communities
in a single location. The data is intended to be
used to create a sound technical base for future
joint planning activities by the park and its
surrounding communities.
The study area for the project is defined by the
1926 congressionally authorized boundary. The
boundary represents the area within which the
park is allowed to accept donations of land.
There are portions of nine Virginia counties
within the 1926 authorized boundary comprising
approximately 521,000 acres of land. Of the
33,401 acres of land within the Augusta County
portion of the 1926 authorized boundary, 13,523
are within the boundaries of the Shenandoah
National Park, and the remaining 19,878 are on
private or other public lands.
19.878(60%)
13.523(40"10)
~ SNP
II Other Lands
Why is the Related Lands Study Being
Conducted?
The Shenandoah National Park can no longer be
seen as an island isolated from its neighbors.
The use of land surrounding the park has a
tremendous impact upon what happens within it.
As many of the park's neighbors pointed out at
public meetings, the park also has an impact on
its neighbors. The park has limited funds avail-
able to address resource management issues.
The park is specifically prohibited from acquir-
ing lands with federal funds, and is only allowed
to accept lands offered for donation within the
Page 2
1926 authorized boundary. In Augusta County,
this boundary includes a portion of the City of
Waynesboro (which is obviously not suitable for
inclusion in a National Park.) The park would
like to work more closely with their neighbors to
conserve resources of mutual interest and resolve
common problems without relying on federal
assistance. Therefore, the primary purposes of
the Related Lands Study are:
To develop opportunities for potential coopera-
tion between the citizens of each county and the
park, to conserve resources of mutual interest;
To establish specific criteria for acceptance of
land offered for donation;
To establish criteria for the reduction of the 1926
authorized boundary.
How has the study been conducted in
the first two counties?
The study process in the first two counties
included ten steps. The process in Augusta will
be similar, including the following steps:
Preliminary identification of issues and concerns;
Gathering of existing and available information;
Issue newsletter to interested parties providing
information on the purpose of the Related Lands
Study;
Collect and evaluate additional data, if necessary;
Analyze natural, cultural and scenic resources;
Hold informal public open house and workshop:
to provide opportunity for park neighbors to
review maps;
to seek comment on the content of the maps;
Examine existing land use trends to determine
potential impacts on resource values;
Finalize criteria for determining relative impor-
tance of resource values to the park, its users, and
neighbors;
Technical review of maps and data;
Make a final presentation to the Augusta County
Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervi-
sors to review criteria and composite maps
showing the results of applying the criteria.
October 1994
Page 3
What were the issues that led the park
to initiate the Related Lands Study?
There have been increasing concerns by both
park managers and park users about the potential
impact of future land use change around the park
on the resource values that were the very reasons
a park was created in the fIrst place - abundant
plant and animal life, panoramic views of moun-
tain scenery, cascading mountain streams, and
recreational access for fishing and camping
within a day's drive of the majority of the resi-
dents of the Eastern United States.
Increasingly, private lands adjacent to the park's
boundary are becoming more urbanized. Large
habitat areas utilized by forest interior species
are being impacted by new residences built
closer and closer to the park. What once were
panoramic views of mountain forests and valley
farms, are becoming views of mountain houses
and valley subdivisions. Runoff from new
construction and tree clearing is clouding the
once clear waters. Pollution from other regions
is clouding panoramic views and acidifying
streams. Lowland access points are being closed
by landowners who are concerned about tres-
passers and vandalism.
The Related Lands Study was initiated to pro-
vide the following information to park managers,
local governments, neighbors, and park users
about the conditions of existing resource values:
to identify the quality and existing condition of
plant and animal habitats and their suitability for
supporting species native to the park;
to identify the extent of the panoramic views of
mountain scenery;
to identify the areas of land that play an important
role in keeping mountain streams cold and clear;
to identify areas of land that provide suitable
lowland access to trails and streams.
At the request of many of the park's neighbors in
Rockingham and Albemarle, the study has
grown to include information about the follow-
Shenandoah National Park Related Lands Study
ing (in Augusta County as well):
the identification of the extent of lands that are
currently used for or are suitable for residential or
agricultural use;
the identification of the locations of lands and
sites that are important elements of the culture
and life-style of the existing communities.
The Related Lands Study was also initiated to
open the lines of communication between the
park and its neighbors. Perhaps the biggest
related lands issue facing the park is whether or
not the park and its neighbors can build a new
sense of community which many feel has been
missing for too many years. The very qualities
that make the Shenandoah a truly delightful
region in which to live, work and play can only
be conserved when an open and honest dialogue
has been established between the park and its
neighbors.
How can interested citizens or groups
get involved with the study?
An informal open house has been planned for the
fall of 1994. The purpose of this open house is
to give interested citizens an opportunity to talk
with members of the study team about specific
issues and concerns, and to review the findings
of the study and make suggestions as to what
steps should be taken to address common con-
cerns between the park, and Augusta County.
The Shenandoah National Park is very interested
in working more cooperatively with the counties
that surround them to conserve resources of
mutual interest and resolve management prob-
lems with its neighbors. Additional meetings,
workshops and planning sessions with county
representatives and citizens would be a desirable
result of the study.
October 1994
Shenandoah National Park
IRJEJ1A 1rJEID) J1ANID)~ ~1r1JJID)1(
October 1994
IN THIS ISSUE:
· Related Lands Study Extended to Augusta County
· What is the Related Lands Study?
· Why is the Related Lands Study Being Conducted?
· How Has the Study Been Conducted in the First TWQ Counties?
· What Were the Issues that Led the Park to Initiate the Related Lands Study?
· How Can Interested Citizens or Groups Get Involved with the Study?
Number 5
UPCOMING:
· Related Lands Study Open House
Scheduled for Tuesday Dece.11ber 6, 1994 from 4 pm to '7 pm
at the Augusta County Government Center in Verona, Virginia
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Superintendents Office
Shenandoah National Park
RR4 Box 348
Luray, Virginia 22835
(703) 999-3400
-------------------------------------
Superintendents Office
Shenandoah National Park
RR4 Box 348
Luray, Virginia 22835
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
(, !'~', ;;.'.. ,
..'-',¿ -\- ~
94 .. qt{,i!~,('4 '~
l040170;:~
t"· ,
r'C''''U''·~':-~,!T '"'~ì~ ,'T r'(¡'
¡jJL .It,.. -""- .I"'..L
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
C:'; c:r 21 Pi,: 2: 55
APPLICATION OF
AT RICHMOND, OCTOBER 21, 1994
TIDEWATER TOURING, INC.
CASE NO. MCS940138
For a certificate of pUblic
convenience and necessity as
a special or charter party
carrier by motor vehicle
ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING
IT APPEARING to the State Corporation Commission
("Commission") that an application has been filed, pursuant to
Title 56, Chapter 12.4 of the Code of Virginia, by Tidewater
Touring, Inc. for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity as special or charter party carrier by motor vehicle,
requesting authority to provide service from points of origin in
the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Warrenton, Culpeper,
Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, Colonial Heights, Hopewell,
Petersburg, Newport News, Hampton, Franklin, Emporia, and South
Hill, as well as the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Prince
William, Stafford, Chesterfield, Prince George, Westmoreland,
Dinwiddie, Sussex, Southampton, King William, King and Queen,
Middlesex, Lancaster, Richmond, Northumberland, King George,
Essex, Glouchester, Mathews, New Kent, Hanover, Goochland,
Louisa, Fluvanna, Greensville, SPotsylvania, Powhatan, Amelia,
Nottoway, Caroline, and Albemarle, Virginia.
IT FURTHER APPEARING to the Commission that this application
should be scheduled for hearing, a hearing examiner assigned to
,. .
this matter, and the Applicant directed to notify the public of
its application and the hearing scheduled thereon. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) That pursuant to Rule 7:1 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, a hearing examiner is appointed to
conduct all further proceedings in this matter;
(2) That this application be, and the same is hereby,
docketed and set for hearing before a hearing examiner in the
Commission's Second Floor Courtroom in the Tyler Building,
1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, at 10:00 a.m. on
December 14, 1994.
(3) That, on or before November 23, 1994, the Applicant
shall serve a true copy of this Order on (a) the mayor or
principal officer of the city or county in which the Applicant
maintains offices and (b) every special or charter party carrier
by motor vehicle operating within the area proposed to be served
by the Applicant, as shown by Appendix A attached hereto.
(4) Service shall be made by receipted registered mail, or
by first-class mail, to the last known address of the person to
be served. If service is made by first-class mail, proof of
service shall be verified by affidavit submitted by the Applicant
certifying compliance with this paragraph;
(5) That any person who expects to submit evidence, cross-
examine witnesses, or otherwise participate in the proceeding as
a Protestant, pursuant to Rule 4:6 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, shall £ile, on or before December 5,
1994, an original and fifteen (15) copies of a protest with the
2
, .
Clerk, state Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center,
P.o. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23216, and simultaneously send
a copy thereof to Calvin F. Major, Esquire, 1313 East Main
street, suite 339, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
The protest shall set forth (i) a precise statement of the
interest of the Protestant in the proceeding; (ii) a full and
clear statement of the facts which the Protestant is prepared to
prove by competent evidence; and (iii) a statement of the
specific relief sought and the legal basis therefor. Any
corporate entity that wishes to submit evidence, cross-examine
witnesses, or otherwise participate as a Protestant, must be
represented by legal counsel in accordance with the requirements
of Rule 4:8 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure;
(6) That any person who desires to make a statement, either
supporting or opposing the application, but not otherwise
participate in the hearing, need only be present at the hearing
and make known his or her desire to comment;
(7) That, on or before November 23, 1994, the Applicant
publish the fOllowing notice in a newspaper or newspapers having
general circulation in the area proposed to be served:
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given of a public
hearing before the state Corporation
Commission in its Second Floor Courtroom in
the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main street,
Richmond, Virginia, at 10:00 a.m. on
December 14, 1994, to consider the
application of Tidewater Touring, Inc. for a
certificate of public convenience and
necessity as a special or charter party
carrier from points of origin a description
of which can be ascertained by contacting
3
..
Judy Petersen, Deputy Director, Motor Carrier
(Rates & Tariffs) at (804) 371-9683.
Any person desiring to make a statement
on this matter at the hearing need only
attend the hearing. Any person desiring to
participate in the hearing as a Protestant
must file, on or before December 5, 1994, an
original and fifteen (15) copies of a protest
with the Clerk, state Corporation Commission,
c/o Document Control Center, P.o. Box 2118,
Richmond, Virginia 23216, and simultaneously
send a copy thereof to Calvin F. Major,
Esquire, 1313 East Main street, suite 339,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.
The protest shall set forth (i) a
precise statement of the interest of the
Protestant in the proceeding; (ii) a full and
clear statement of the facts which the
Protestant is prepared to prove by competent
evidence; and (iii) a statement of the
specific relief sought and the legal basis
therefor. Any corporate entity that wishes
to submit evidence, cross-examine witnesses,
or otherwise participate as a Protestant,
must be represented by legal counsel in
accordance with the requirements of Rule 4:8
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
(8) That an attested copy of this Order be mailed by the
Clerk of the Commission to Calvin F. Major, Esquire, 1313 East
Main street, suite 339, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and to Judy
Petersen, Deputy Director, Motor Carrier Division (Rates and
Tariffs) .
A True COPY W~ ..;;. fj....;,j!-M..
Teste~ Clerk of the --~
~. Sté3te Corporé.'ltion Commission ,.~.
4
DATE~' 22--, IcnL-j
AGENDA ITEM NO. gLj Ill7·&f.rJ9
AGENDA ITEM NAME s.p #gLL1J \ "- J~ ~. AdJJ ~1 r )
DEFERRED UNTIL~i
Form. 3
7/25/86
l
·., 1~
"," '.....¡.. :.' ,':" " .,
. iL¡¡;'t;\¡ í{¡ ,J(;/ir!' lJ:Jfi.~. ....
!W"~~~ ...,,; '\f,Qli!{j ZZ·(j,7J
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesvil1e
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902·4596
(804) 296·5843 FAX (804) 296·5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Ha1l
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsvilte
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel MiI1er
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC k~/
DATE: November l8, 1994
SUBJECT: Reading List for November 22, 1994
October l3, 1993 - Mr. Bowerman
August l7, 1994 - pages lO (Item #ll) - end - Mr. Martin
September 7, 1994 - Mrs. Thomas
EWC:mms
*
Printed on recycled paper