2001-01-10January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Humphris made a motion to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4 on the Consent Agenda and to
accept Item 5.5. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
________________
Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: General Fund, $4,572.75 (Form #20043).
The Sheriff’s Department incurred salary and fringe expense for July, 2000 relating to services
provided to the Town of Scottsville. This represents the final expenses incurred by the County relating to
the contract between the Sheriff’s Department and the Town. The expenses have been billed to the Town
and the revenue has been recognized.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $4,572.75, as
detailed on Appropriation #20043.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
NUMBER 20043
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE POLICE EXPENSES FOR JULY 2000.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****************************************************************************************
1 1000 31021 110000WAGES $4,247.80
1 1000 31021 210000FICA 324.95
TOTAL $4,572.75
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****************************************************************************************
2 1000 16000 160308RECOVERED COST $4,572.75
TOTAL $4,572.75
__________
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Education, $194,676.92 (Form #20044).
At its meeting on November 9, 2000, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
Grant – State Department of Education: Albemarle County Schools received a grant from the
State Department of Education in the amount of $4,695.43. This grant is to be used to pay for postage
for schools to mail School Performance Report Cards.
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Donation – Monticello High School: Monticello High School received a donation in the
amount of $1,200.00 from the Monticello High School Athletic Boosters Club, Inc. This donation will be
used to purchase a wrestling mat for the school.
Donation – Greer Elementary School: Greer Elementary School received a donation in the
amount of $516.00 from SUNCOM. This donation is to help with bus expenses for a field trip to
th
Williamsburg for the 4 grade class.
Donation – Stone Robinson Elementary School: Stone Robinson Elementary School
received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from NICHD: Study of Early Child Care and Youth
Development. This donation will be used to purchase instructional/recreational materials for the school.
Donation – Broadus Wood Elementary School: Broadus Wood Elementary School received
a donation in the amount of $2,250.00 from the Broadus Wood PTO. This donation is to be used to pay
the salary of the Spanish teacher at Broadus Wood Elementary School.
Textbook Fund: The textbook fund has collected $905.49 from the school for textbooks, which
were lost, damaged or sold. It is requested this money be appropriated for the 2000-01 fiscal year to
purchase replacement textbooks.
Award – Virginia Standards of Learning Training Initiative Fund: Albemarle County Public
Schools has received an award of $185,010.00 from the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) Training
Initiative Fund for fiscal year 00-01. The funds have been allocated to school divisions via the Standards
of Learning Training Initiative for the implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive teacher training
program to be conducted within the school division in the core content areas and leadership training for
administrative staffing implementing the SOL. SOL Training Initiative funds will be used to support the
following activities: graduate level courses for staff to support the division literacy recommendations;
stipends for teacher training to support professional development efforts in the SOL's; consultant
services in support of SOL training efforts; and educational materials and printing cost in support of the
SOL training.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $194,676.92,
as detailed on Appropriation #20044.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
NUMBER: 20044
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CONTRIBUTIONS AND SOL AWARD.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**************************************************************************************************
1 2201 61411 520100Postal Services $ 164.34
1 2202 61411 520100Postal Services117.38
1 2203 61411 520100Postal Services131.47
1 2204 61411 520100Postal Services178.42
1 2205 61411 520100Postal Services230.07
1 2206 61411 520100Postal Services183.12
1 2207 61411 520100Postal Services 75.12
1 2209 61411 520100Postal Services 70.43
1 2210 61411 520100Postal Services187.82
1 2211 61411 520100Postal Services112.69
1 2212 61411 520100Postal Services173.73
1 2213 61411 520100Postal Services 56.35
1 2214 61411 520100Postal Services206.59
1 2215 61411 520100Postal Services 89.21
1 2216 61411 520100Postal Services211.29
1 2251 61411 520100Postal Services173.73
1 2252 61411 520100Postal Services230.08
1 2253 61411 520100Postal Services211.29
1 2254 61411 520100Postal Services230.08
1 2255 61411 520100Postal Services248.86
1 2301 61411 520100Postal Services610.43
1 2302 61411 520100Postal Services370.94
1 2303 61411 520100Postal Services 28.18
1 2304 61411 520100Postal Services403.81
1 2304 61105 601300Ed/Rec Supplies 1, 200.00
1 2204 61101 420100Field Trip516.00
1 2210 61101 601300Ed/Rec Supplies100.00
1 2201 61101 132100P-T Wages -Teacher 2,077.87
1 2201 61101 210000FICA172.13
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
1 2114 61101 602000Textbooks905.49
1 3139 60607 152100P-T Wages-Substitues 5,000.00
210000FICA382.50
312500Consultants 101,969.50
580100Dues 6,000.00
580500Staff Dev 60,000.00
601300Ed/Rec Supplies 11,658.00
TOTAL $194,676.92
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**************************************************************************************************
2 2000 24000 240351State Grant-SOL Postage $ 4,695.43
2 2000 18100 181109Donation 1,200.00
2 2000 18100 181109Donation516.00
2 2000 18100 181109Donation100.00
2 2000 18100 181109Donation 2,250.00
2 2000 19000 190214Textbook Fund905.49
2 3139 24000 240354VA SOL's 185,010.00
TOTAL $194,676.92
__________
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Education, $62,955 (Form #20045).
At its meeting on November 30, 2000, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
Donation - Meriwether Lewis Elementary School: Meriwether Lewis Elementary School
received a donation from the Meriwether Lewis PTO in the amount of $3,500.00. This donation is to
support the reading specialist working extra hours during the school year.
Grant – Virginia Commission for the Arts: The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made
grant awards to three Albemarle County Schools. Artist-in-Education Residency Program Grants were
made to Crozet Elementary in the amount of $3,000.00 and Stony Point Elementary in the amount of
$2,660.00. The Commission also awarded a Touring Assistance Grant to Broadus Wood Elementary in
the amount of $495.00. These programs will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning
experience for students with performing, visual, and musical arts.
Grant – Technology Literacy Challenge Grant: The Virginia Department of Education
awarded Albemarle County Public Schools Technology Literacy Challenge Grant in the amount of
$53,300.00. This award represents the fourth winning proposal submitted to the Department of
Education. The project specified in this grant will allow for the implementation of a course designed by
Albemarle County Schools, The University of Virginia's School for Continuing and Professional Studies,
and The Curry Center for Technology and Teacher Education. The course will be offered for three
graduate credits to seven teams of select teachers and other instructional personnel, and is designed to
provide them with the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective technology instructors of teachers
and administrators.
Participants who successfully complete the three-credit course will deliver a series of one-credit
technology courses through the UVA School of Continuing and Professional Studies. These courses will
be available to Albemarle County educators as well as educators from neighboring public and private
schools. These one credit mini-courses, designed to prepare teachers to demonstrate mastery of the
Virginia Department of Education's Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel, will be conducted
at schools throughout the County. Tuition for both the one and three credit courses will be provided by
the grant.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $62,955.00, as
detailed on Appropriation #20045.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
NUMBER: 20045
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**************************************************************************************************
1 2206 61101 152100Sub-Wages Teacher $3,237.50
1 2206 61101 210000FICA 262.50
1 3104 60203 312700Prof. Serv. Inst 3,000.00
1 3104 60211 312700Prof. Serv. Inst 2,660.00
1 3104 60201 601300Instructional Supplies 495.00
1 3131 61311 312500Prof. Serv. Inst 48,500.00
1 3131 61311 580000Misc. Expenses 4,800.00
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
TOTAL $62,955.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**************************************************************************************************
2 2000 18100 181109Donation $3,500.00
2 3104 24000 240300Comm. Grant-Crozet 3,000.00
2 3104 24000 240355Comm.Grant-S-Point 2,660.00
2 3104 24000 240365Comm.Grant-B-Wood 495.00
2 3131 24000 240312Tech. Challenge Grant 53,300.00
TOTAL $62,955.00
__________
Item No. 5.4. Resolution concurring with the Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Harrisonburg to assist Virginia Public Television Stations.
A letter dated December 15, 2000 was received from Mr. Michael W. Graff, Jr., McGuireWoods,
stating that he spoke briefly with Larry Davis about the IDA of Harrisonburg assisting Virginia's Public
Television Stations with a financing for equipment required for the Federal Communications Commission's
mandated conversion to a digital broadcast standard. Under the IDA statute, the governing body of each
locality in which this equipment will be located must concur in the Harrisonburg IDA's inducement resolution
for financing. Some of this new equipment will be used by WHTJ at the transmitter and tower located on
Carter's Mountain in Albemarle County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "Governing Body")
has been asked by the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Harrisonburg, Virginia (the
"Harrisonburg Authority") to concur with a resolution of inducement adopted by the Harrisonburg Authority
at its meeting held on December 12, 2000 for the benefit of the Virginia Public Broadcasting Board (the
"VPBB") to assist in financing the acquisition of certain equipment for the conversion of Virginia's public
television stations to the Federal Communications Commission's new digital standard (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-4905 of the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49,
Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Act"), provides that if a locality has created an
industrial development authority, no industrial development authority created by a another locality may
finance a facility located in the first locality unless the governing body of such first locality concurs with the
inducement resolution adopted by such industrial development authority; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the equipment constituting the Project will be located in the County of
Albemarle, Virginia and operated by the Virginia public television station or stations serving the Albemarle
County area and the Governing Body constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1.The Governing Body concurs with the resolution adopted by the Harrisonburg Authority and
approves the loan by the Harrisonburg Authority for the benefit of the VPBB, as required by Section 15.2-
4905 of the Act.
2.This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item No. 5.5. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for December 12, 2000, was
received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2000-44. Moyer (Triton PCS CVR 361A) (Sign #59). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow communication fac including 74'' high wood pole communication tower,
flush mount antenna & ground equip on 30' by 30' leased area of a 8.982 ac parcel w/access road on 9.25
ac adj parcel (TM 92, P 56B1), in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 92, P 56B3. Located at
1863 Thomas Jefferson Pkwy (St Rt 53) between Gobblers Ridge & Mountain Brook Dr. Znd RA & is w/in
ECOD. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on December 25, 2000 and January 1, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report relating to SP-2000-44, Moyer (Triton PCS CVR 361A).
This is a proposal to construct a communication tower on a lease area within an approximate nine acre
parcel. The facility would consist of a wooden pole and ground equipment cabinets, two directional flush
mounted antennas and a two-foot high lightning rod which would be attached to the pole. He said one
additional flush mounted antenna labeled “future antenna” has also been requested. An existing driveway
on an adjacent property under the same ownership would serve as an entrance into the property, and a
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
new driveway along the Virginia Power easement would provide access to the site. The parcel contains a
single-family residence and is heavily wooded with primarily deciduous trees. He stated that Virginia Power
transmission lines are located between the proposed site and State Route 53. The Architectural Review
Board (ARB) approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for this proposal subject to conditions. A balloon
was flown at the site, and it could not be seen at any vantage point along Route 53, which is an entrance
corridor. The trees surrounding the site provide substantial screening of the equipment at the base of the
tower from adjacent properties and from the nearby roads, and a condition of approval would require a
200-foot tree protection buffer. The proposed 80-foot height of the wooden pole is based on a 73-foot tall
Chestnut Oak tree located within 25 feet of the pole. He remarked that the top of the 80-foot tower would
be at 530.5 feet Above Sea Level (ASL), and the top of the 73-foot tall tree would be 525 feet ASL. The
proposed pole would be five and one-half feet above the top of the tallest tree. The applicant has
requested that the pole be maintained at seven feet above the top of the tree, as measured ASL, and this
height has been recommended by the Planning Commission. He added that since the facility is virtually
hidden by surrounding trees, staff believes the request will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
properties.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) has advised staff of a concern
regarding safe egress from the site, since the existing narrow driveway does not allow right turns without the
vehicle crossing over the center lane, into oncoming traffic. A condition of approval has been offered
requiring the applicant to make driveway improvements to allow safe egress.
Regarding the County’s Wireless Facilities Policy, Mr. Cilimberg noted that the proposed tower
would be located at a height that would limit the visibility from adjoining properties as well as nearby roads.
With its natural brown and black colors and texture, the proposed wooden tower would be unobtrusive. The
equipment cabinets would also be painted dark brown to blend with their surrounding environment. The
staff has recommended approval of the request.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 12, 2000, recommend
approval of the request subject to the eleven staff conditions, although the Commission did slightly modified
conditions #1 and #3. This is indicated in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting as well as the
action letter.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the modifications of the two conditions. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that in condition #1, the Commission members put their emphasis on the height ASL at the top
of the pole and at the top of the tallest tree. They did not make reference to any base elevations, so their
condition states that: “The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL) shall never exceed seven
(7) feet above the top of the tallest tree, as measured ASL, within twenty-five (25) feet of the pole.” He
added that the Commissioners removed language recommended by staff for condition #3(b) which
indicated that "the proposed facility shall be located not more than 25 feet from the existing access road",
since they did not feel this wording was necessary. The Commission did note that the location shall be
according to the plan submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the pole will have to be moved up in height every year. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that with all the poles there is an allowance for an increase in pole height because of tree growth.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he cannot recall seeing the word “never” included in condition #1 before.
Mr. Cilimberg said the word, “never" actually started being used within the last few months in some of the
wording of standard conditions.
There were no further questions from staff, so Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked
the applicant for comments.
Ms. Valerie W. Long, with McGuireWoods, LLP, announced that she was representing the
applicant, but she noted that representatives from Crown Communications are also present at this meeting.
She then pointed out two minor typographical errors to the approved conditions of the Commission. She
said in condition # 2(d) there is a reference to a "prior Alltel plan", but it should be replaced with a reference
to the "current plans Triton has submitted". She next called attention to condition # 4(a) and asked that the
letter “s” be deleted at the end of the word, “Farms.” She noted that Wentworth Farm is only one farm.
Ms. Long said this application is fully consistent with the County’s adopted Wireless Plan for these
type of facilities. The facility will be a wooden pole, in a natural wooden color, and all the ground
equipment, cables, brackets and antenna panels will be painted dark brown to match the color of the
wooden pole. The property is heavily forested as well as the two properties on either side of it which are
under the same ownership. The visibility of the facility from Route 53 and adjacent properties is quite
minimal, and numerous balloon tests have been conducted from this location. At least one balloon test
was conducted with staff members present, and one was conducted with a Commissioner present, as well
as a number of the adjacent neighbors. She noted that there is one location where the balloon was visible.
She said she would distribute photographs of this location, although there are copies in the files. The
balloon was visible from the driveway of Gobbler’s Ridge which is directly across from the site. Other than
that location, the balloon was hardly visible from anywhere else during any of the balloon tests which should
make this a very strong application for that reason. She also noted that the balloon was very minimally
visible from one of the neighbor’s yards, but there are some existing evergreen trees which provide
screening throughout the year. The last balloon test was done in mid-September, so the deciduous trees
also had leaves. The Commissioner who was present, at the test, noted that the trees in the sight line were
evergreen trees. She said she would not speak for him, but it was discussed with him that day.
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
As far as the height of the tower, the Planning Commission approved a height seven feet above the
top of the tallest tree within 25 feet when the differences in ground elevation are considered. She said tree
removal was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, and there is at least one tree that will possibly
have to be removed. She explained that it is close to the base of the pole, but the applicant will do
everything possible to retain it. In the interest of full disclosure, the applicant wanted to point out this
possibility, given some of the power lines, etc., that will need to go underground. The applicant will utilize
the standard procedure of tree protection defenses and other protection of the trees. There is an existing
power line easement that is clear and works very well for an access road. The entrance to the property has
been relocated several times, but the way it is shown in the current plan now is in agreement with the
landowner and has been approved by VDoT subject to the applicant’s agreement to widen the driveway on
the right hand side to address safety concerns. She pointed out that at one time the landowner’s request
had shown the relocation of the entrance to the property directly off of Route 53, and it would have involved
a new curve cut. She explained that it would have been slightly to the east toward Fluvanna County, but
VDoT did not approve it because of sight distance problems. In addition some of the neighbors directly
across the road had strong concerns. She stated that these were two good reasons the applicant chose to
move the driveway and make use of the Moyer’s existing driveway by extending it slightly. She emphasized
that this application fully complies with the County’s standards, the Planning Commission was unanimous in
its support, and the visibility of the pole is quite minimal. Ms. Long said she would be happy to answer
additional questions, and she would appreciate having a few minutes to make remarks following public
comments.
Ms. Thomas then asked the members of the public, who had indicated an interest in speaking, to
come forward.
Mr. Oscar Forsberg stated that the pole will be located across the road from his house, and he
referred to Ms. Long’s remarks that the balloon was hardly visible. The wind was blowing when the test was
done, but when the wind laid and the balloon stood up straight, it could be seen very well from his house. In
the winter time the pole will be even more visible, although he probably won’t be able to see anything but
the top of it in the summer. He is concerned about the radiation from the antenna. He noted that his wife
has had cancer, and he doesn’t want to take any chances of anything causing it to come back. He recalled
that there have been two deaths with people talking on cell phones from cars recently, and he thinks
something should be done about that situation. He emphasized that he is opposed to the tower being
located on this site.
Mr. Earl Scruggs remarked that he is opposed to the proposed pole because of the location of the
driveway, and he wondered if the state has approved the entrance. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the site
will be utilizing the existing Moyer driveway off of Route 53, and VDoT has approved this location with the
widening of the driveway to allow for safe entrance. Mr. Scruggs noted that the proposed location of the
entrance is directly across from his driveway, the traffic really moves fast, and there is a blind spot there.
He said whoever goes into the entrance will have to make a u-turn to go to the site, and he thinks it will
cause some accidents. He is not in favor of the tower. He added that when the balloon was flying, it could
be seen from Mr. Forsberg’s house.
No one else came forward to speak, so the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas stated that Ms. Long would be allowed to make comments at this time, and she
reminded Ms. Long that she had indicated she had photographs for the Board members. Ms. Thomas also
reported that she was present for one of the balloon tests.
Ms. Long said Mr. Scruggs is the neighbor she was referencing. She added that Mr. Scruggs had
pointed out that the first location of the entrance did not allow enough sight distance, and he was right, since
VDoT came to the same conclusion. She emphasized that the entrance to which Mr. Scruggs is referring is
not the one currently being proposed. The first entrance was straight from Route 53 onto the site where the
pole is to be located.
Ms. Thomas wanted to be sure the applicant is not proposing to use the entrance location across
the road from Mr. Scruggs’ property, and that the Moyer’s driveway is going to be used with some widening
at the entrance. Ms. Long responded affirmatively. She pointed to a small map behind the Supervisors
which showed the existing driveway and the point where it will be extended. She reiterated that originally the
entrance had been proposed to come straight off of Route 53, which was at the landowner’s request. The
landowner did not want his driveway extended, and he did not want the maintenance truck, which will come
to the site once a month, using his driveway. The applicant agreed to move the entrance, but VDoT pointed
out that there is a hill and not enough sight distance under the state’s sight distance requirement there. The
landowners agreed to let the applicant use their driveway so long as it is widened on the right hand side so
there will be a safer egress from the site.
Ms. Thomas inquired as to how much traffic this type of pole will create once it is built. Ms. Long
responded that, at the most, there will be a maintenance truck coming to the site once a month. However,
she was told that it usually happens only four times per year. The only exceptions are in cases of
emergency such as severe weather which may cause the cables to go out, and the trucks will have to come
to the site to maintain the pole. She stated that someone will come to check the equipment after heavy
storms, etc., but most of the time it is only one time per month for routine maintenance checks. Other than
that, Ms. Long assured the Board that there would be no additional traffic generated there at all. She went
on to say there will not be any noise or odor relating to the site. She also mentioned that she has talked
and corresponded with the Forsbergs, since she was aware of their concerns about the health issues. She
has provided them with some information about the health risks and the standards all wireless carriers are
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
required to comply with in terms of their licenses. The federal government, in licensing these facilities,
requires that all carriers comply with a federally determined health and safety standard for emissions. She
remarked that Triton has to stay within the level the federal government has determined as safe. She has
been told by Triton’s engineers that Triton and all other wireless carriers of such facilities have an emission
level of one tenth of one percent of the allowed level of emissions, so it is a very small level.
Mr. Dorrier inquired if there has been any showing of correlation between the utility pole’s signal
and cancer. Ms. Long answered that this has not been reflected in any of the research she has done. She
has been looking at research which was put out by the federal government, as well as groups such as the
National Cancer Institute, but there are some reports on the internet showing such links. She then called
attention to the Federal Communications Commission’s website which has a summary of the issues on
health concerns. She said it explains the federal safety threshold, how it was arrived at, and the percentage
an average wireless facility emits. This is how she arrived at the percentage figure she reported. She
referred to a FCC bulletin which actually states that by the time the emissions from an average wireless
facility reach a person standing directly below the tower, the risks of any emissions are already eliminated.
The emissions start at a very low level and then dissipate rapidly.
There were no further questions for Ms. Long, so Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas then asked for clarification of Mr. Cilimberg’s comment about a future antenna. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that he mentioned that the applicant had labeled a future antenna on the pole in the plan
which would be one additional flush mounted antenna at a later time. Ms. Thomas wondered if the future
antenna would be at tree top level. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the mounting of the antenna would have to
abide by the conditions of the special use permit.
Mr. Davis referred to the emissions question. The Federal Telecommunications Act has pre-
empted local government from using that as a basis to deny tower applications based on the findings the
federal government has made about the safety of radio transmission waves.
Mr. Dorrier inquired if the County's policy involves health issues. Mr. Cilimberg replied, “no.” He
explained that, as Mr. Davis mentioned, it is not considered under the Telecommunications Act as a reason
for denying an application. Mr. Davis reiterated that the County is pre-empted from considering health
issues as they relate to these type of towers. Mr. Dorrier asked if, in light of these findings, it should not be
considered a real problem. Mr. Davis answered that the federal government does not believe it is a
problem. Ms. Humphris stated that whether or not there is a health issue, the Board of Supervisors is not
allowed to deal with it. Ms. Thomas remarked that concern should probably be given to the radiation
children get when holding a cell phone to their heads. However, local government is not allowed to take
that into consideration either.
Mr. Dorrier stated that considering the fact the applicant has complied with all of the staff
requirements, he would like to offer a motion to approve SP-2000-44 (Triton PCS CVR 361A) with the 11
conditions developed by the staff and as amended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that condition #2(d) does not refer to the correct site. He suggested that
Mr. Dorrier include in his motion a reference to the applicant’s plan for the "Moyer property, Wentworth
Farm". Mr. Dorrier agreed for this information to be included in his motion.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above
the top of the tallest tree, as measured ASL, within twenty-five (25) feet of the pole. No antennas or
equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole.
2.The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The pole shall be a wooden pole, dark brown in color;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached
plan entitled “Moyer Property/Wentworth Farm;”
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not
to exceed one (1)-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
g.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
feet above ground and also measured ASL;
h.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located in accordance with the plan submitted by the applicants, dated November
7, 2000. The facility and the new access road shall be located according to the plan submitted by
the applicant, entitled "Moyer Property/Wentworth Farm,” dated November 7, 2000;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “Moyer
Property/Wentworth Farm;”
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole;
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying
tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site
both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of
Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with
the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall
be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized
by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing
trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200)-foot buffer,
after the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the
pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are
steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminare shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminare. For purposes of this condition, a luminare
is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to
distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
10.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted; and
11. The applicant shall enlarge the access driveway entrance on the right side (exiting) to provide a
safe access for vehicles turning right onto State Route 53. The finished overall width of the
driveway entrance shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet and include extensions of drainage, as
appropriate. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval of the
driveway improvement plans from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-00-01. UREF Research Park, Inc. - Signs in Public Rights-of-Way.
PUBLIC HEARING on an Ord to amend Chapter 18, Zoning of The Albemarle County Code, Sec 4.15.05,
By special use permit; Sec 4.15.06, Prohibited signs, Sec 4.15.07.4, Setback; Sec 4.15.12.1, Residential &
agricultural districts (RA, VR, R-1 & R-2); Sec 4.15.12.2 Residential districts (R-4 & R-6); Sec 4.15.12.3,
Residential (R-10 and R-15) & planned residential development (PRD) districts; Sec 4.15.12.4, Planned
unit development (PUD) district; Sec 4.15.12.5, Commercial districts (C-1 & CO); Sec 4.15.12.6,
Commercial (HC) & mixed commercial (PD-SC & PD-MC) districts; & Sec 4.15.12.7, Industrial (HI & LI) &
mixed industrial (PD-IP) districts; to authorize certain privately owned signs to be installed in or over public
rights-of-way by special use permit, to establish the method for measuring the setback for a sign in or over
a public right-of-way, to make corresponding changes in related sections, & to update terminology.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on December 25, 2000 and January 1, 2001.)
Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration, stated that ZTA-00-01 was initiated by the
University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) Research Park. The goal is to have a sign to identify the North
Fork Research Park on the median within the state road there as constructed. Signs in public rights-of-way
are currently totally prohibited, and a variance could not be requested, so this is the only avenue to get a
sign in the right-of-way. Staff has reviewed the situation and found that signs in rights-of-way can be
acceptable under certain circumstances, and by requiring special permits for them, they can be controlled.
The staff recommends approval of UREF’s request, and the recommendation has been expanded to
include certain other circumstances where VDoT owns an accessible right-of-way in front of property. She
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
noted that when UREF’s request was received, the County had already received two other requests from
churches with the same circumstances involving very wide VDoT rights-of-way. The recommendation has
been expanded with this public interest in mind. Since that time, one of the churches has established a sign
at the best place it could find and is now happy with it. She stated that just recently the other church,
Emmanuel Episcopal, has finally convinced VDoT to sell the property at a reasonable price. The church
will now purchase the property and will be able to put the sign where it wishes without the need for this ZTA.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Planning Commission’s action meets UREF’s needs. It appears the
action does not meet the needs that might come up from private business owners. Ms. Sprinkle answered
that the Planning Commission recommended approving the UREF request, but also recommended that it
not be expanded to include the two churches. At the time she was not aware that the Emmanuel Episcopal
Church no longer had an interest. However, now that the church is purchasing land from VDoT and no
longer needs the ZTA, she is not sure the expansion is necessary.
Ms. Humphris asked for verification that if the Board approves the ZTA as the Planning
Commission recommended, it would be providing what UREF needs. However, nothing would be
expanded beyond that, and at present the staff knows of no need to do so. Ms. Sprinkle answered that this
is correct.
Ms. Thomas referred to the Planning Commission’s removal of VDoT’s request for approval of
signs. Ms. Sprinkle stated that VDoT requested approval of signs before the County’s approval, but this
request was only included because of the cases involving the churches. She explained that in the UREF
case, VDoT already has a permit in process for any non-commercial type signage. She said VDoT will
allow a subdivision sign which will include the Research Park. She stated that this process is already
established, but in the case of the church, which is a commercial entity with an excessive right-of-way, there
is no permitting process. This is the reason VDoT wanted to examine the situations on a case-by-case
basis before the County considered them.
Ms. Thomas wondered if there is any value, from the staff’s point of view, in having this clause
added to the conditions, even though it is not necessary to UREF’s situation. Ms. Sprinkle answered that
she does not believe the clause is necessary.
Since there were no further questions for staff members, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing UREF, endorsed the Planning Commission’s recommended version
of the ZTA. Although, UREF initiated the request, and it could have generic applications for other similar
planned projects. The purpose of the sign is to identify the project and not to advertise any particular
business or use, but to announce the entrance of the project and make a statement about the quality and
contents of the project. He said he would be happy to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked how this request differs from the signs in the right-of-way advertising how to get
to the University of Virginia athletic facilities. Mr. Blaine answered that he was thinking about the same thing
recently when he was driving on Route 29. There must be an exemption that pertains only to state or city
facilities.
There was no one else in the audience who wished to speak to this matter, so Ms. Thomas closed
the public hearing.
At this time, Mr. Martin recommended adoption of ZTA-00-01, UREF Research Park, Inc.,
with a draft date of January 4, 2001, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Humphris
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 01-18(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.05By special use permit.
Sec. 4.15.06Prohibited signs.
Sec. 4.15.07.4 Setback.
Sec. 4.15.12.1 Residential and agricultural districts (RA, VR, R-1 AND R-2).
Sec. 4.15.12.2 Residential districts (R-4 and R-6).
Sec. 4.15.12.3 Residential (R-10 and R-15) and planned residential development (PRD) districts.
Sec. 4.15.12.4 Planned unit development (PUD) district.
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Sec. 4.15.12.5Commercial districts (C-1 and CO).
Sec. 4.15.12.6Commercial (HC) and mixed commercial (PD-SC and PD-MC) districts.
Sec. 4.15.12.7Industrial (HI and LI) and mixed industrial (PD-IP) districts.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.05By special use permit.
The authority to administer signs by special use permit is hereby granted to the board of zoning
appeals. The following signs shall be permitted by special use permit within any underlying district:
a.Off-site advertising signs.
b.Electric message signs.
c.Signs in public rights-of-way; provided: (1) the subdivision or planned development to which
the sign pertains abuts the public right-of-way; (2) the sign is either a subdivision sign or a sign identifying a
planned development authorized by sections 19.0, 20.0, 25.0, 25A, and 29.0; (3) the freestanding sign
regulations, other than setback regulations, applicable to the lot with the use to which the sign pertains shall
apply; and (4) if the sign is located within an entrance corridor overlay district, a certificate of
appropriateness is issued by the architectural review board. (Added 1-10-01)
Sec. 4.15.06 Prohibited signs.
Signs with any of the following characteristics are prohibited within Albemarle County. This
includes any sign:
a.Which violates any provisions of the law of Virginia relating to outdoor advertising, including
sections 33.1-351 to 33.1-381, inclusive, and section 46.2-831 of the Code of Virginia.
b.Which violates federal law related to the control of outdoor advertising, including but not
limited to 23 U.S.C. § 131, or which violates federal or state law concerning Virginia byways. (Amended 1-
10-01)
c.Which obstructs free or clear vision, or otherwise causes hazards for vehicular, bicycle, or
pedestrian traffic by reason of location, shape, illumination or color.
d.Which casts glare or light, directly or indirectly, on any public roadway, or on any adjacent
property within a residential district.
e.Which imitates an official traffic sign or signal, or conflicts with traffic safety needs due to
location, color, movement, shape or illumination.
f.Which is located or illuminated in such a manner as to cause a traffic hazard.
g.Which outlines any building, sign or part thereof with neon or other light.
h.Which uses exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination.
i.Which contains or consists of a searchlight, beacon or strobe light, or the like, unless by an
authorized government activity.
j.Which contains or consists of pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers or other similar
moving devices. These devices, when not part of any sign, are similarly prohibited.
k.Which is an advertising vehicle.
l.Which contains or consists of strings of light bulbs, not part of a decorative display but used
as a means of attracting attention.
m.Which is a billboard.
n.Which moves, flashes, blinks or changes color except as otherwise specifically listed.
o.Which are moored balloons or other tethered floating signs.
p.Which are banners, except as a permitted temporary event sign.
q. Which is any sign, except those so placed by a duly authorized government agency, or as a
no hunting, fishing, or trespassing sign, which is nailed, tacked, painted or in any other manner attached to
any tree, cliff, fence, utility pole or support, utility tower, rack, curbstone, sidewalk, lamp post, hydrant,
bridge or public property of any description.
r.Which is any sound-producing sign intended to attract attention regardless of whether or
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
not the sign has a written message content.
s.Which is a roof sign.
t.Which is erected in or over a public right-of-way unless the sign is authorized under section
4.15.05(c). (Amended 1-10-01)
u.Which is prohibited along state scenic highways.
Sec. 4.15.07.4 Setback.
The setback shall be measured from the property line or, in the case of an access easement, from
the edge of the easement, to the closest point of the sign. The setback for a sign within a public right-of-
way shall be measured from the edge of the travelway to the closest point of the sign. The setback for a
pole sign shall be measured from the edge of the sign or the pole, whichever is closest to the property line.
(Amended 1-10-01)
Sec. 4.15.12.1 Residential and agricultural districts (RA, VR, R-1 and R-2).
The following are permitted within these districts as further regulated below:
AreaHeightSetback# Allowed
Sign TypeOther
(Maximum)(Maximum)(Minimum)(Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
One sign is allowed
1 per highwayfor each lot with 100
Freestanding24sq ft10 ft10 ftright-of-wayfeet of continuous
frontagehighway right-of-way
frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory24 sq ft6 ft10 ft1
Maximum
height 20 ft
Same as
Wall20 sq ftbelow top ofN/A
building
fascia or
mansard
32 sq ft
aggregate
Subdivision6 ft10 ft2 per entrance
per
entrance
1 per lot per
Temporary32 sq ft10 ft10 fthigh-way right-See section 4.15.11
of-way frontage
Signs by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs;
c)Signs in public right-of-way. (Added 1-10-01)
All signage except subdivision signs refer to nonresidential uses only. Nonresidential uses including but not
limited to: agricultural uses, church, fire/rescue squad, civic clubs, schools, daycare centers and retirement
centers may be permitted. Forty (40) square feet in Rural Areas District (WALL SIGN ONLY).
*See section 4.15.12.d. (Adopted 7-8-92)
Sec. 4.15.12.2 Residential districts (R-4 and R-6).
The following are permitted within these districts as further regulated below:
AreaHeightSetback# Allowed
Sign TypeOther
(Maximum)(Maximum)(Minimum)(Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
One sign is allowed
1 per highwayfor each lot with 100
Freestanding24 sq ft10 ft10 ftright-of-wayfeet of continuous
frontagehighway right-of-way
frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory24 sq ft6 ft10 ft
Maximum
height 20 ft
same as
Wall20 sq ftbelow top ofN/A
building
fascia or
Mansard
32 sq ft
aggregate
Subdivision6 ft10 ft2 per entrance
per
entrance
1 per lot per4 per year for 60
Temporary32 sq ft10 ft10 fthighway right-of-days See section
way frontage4.15.11
Signs by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs;
c)Signs in public right-of-way. (Added 1-10-01)
All signage except subdivision signs refer to nonresidential uses only.
Nonresidential uses including but not limited to: agricultural uses, church, fire/rescue squad, civic clubs, schools
and daycare centers may be permitted.
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
*See section 4.15.12.d. (Adopted 7-8-92)
Sec. 4.15.12.3 Residential (R-10 and R-15) and planned residential development (PRD) districts.
The following are permitted within these districts as further regulated below:
AreaHeightSetback# Allowed
Sign TypeOther
(Maximum)(Maximum)(Minimum)(Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
One sign is allowed
1 per highwayfor each lot with 100
Freestanding24 sq ft10 ft5 ftright-of-wayfeet of continuous
frontagehighway right-of-way
frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory24 sq ft6 ft5 ft
Maximum
height 20 ft
same as1 sq ft per 1 linier ft
Wall32 sq ftbelow top ofN/A
buildingof building frontage
fascia or
Mansard
32 sq ft
aggregate
Subdivision6 ft5 ft2 per entrance
per
entrance
1 per lot per4 per year for 60
Temporary32 sq ft10 ft5 fthighway right-of-days See section
way frontage4.15.11
Signs by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs;
c) Signs in public right-of-way. (Added 1-10-01)
All signage except subdivision signs refer to nonresidential uses only.
*See section 4.15.12.d. (Adopted 7-8-92)
Sec. 4.15.12.4 Planned unit development (PUD) districts.
The following are permitted within this district as further regulated below:
AreaHeightSetback# Allowed
Sign TypeOther
(Maximum)(Maximum)(Minimum)(Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
One sign is allowed
1 per highwayfor each lot with 100
Freestanding24 sq ft12 ft5 ftright-of-wayfeet of continuous
frontagehighway right-of-way
frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory24 sq ft6 ft5 ft
Maximum
height 20 ft
1 sq ft per 1 linear ft
Wall32 sq ftbelow top ofN/A
of building frontage
fascia or
mansard
32 sq ft
aggregate
Subdivision6 ft5 ft2 per entrance
per
entrance
1 per lot per4 per year for 60
Temporary32 sq ft10 ft5 fthighway right-of-days See section
way frontage4.15.11
Signs by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs;
c) Signs in public right-of-way. (Added 1-10-01)
All signage except subdivision signs refer to nonresidential uses only. Projecting signs, however, shall only
be allowed when wall or freestanding signs are impractical; except as provided in section 4.15.4.
*See section 4.15.12.d. (Adopted 7-8-92)
Sec. 4.15.12.5 Commercial districts (C-1 and CO).
The following are permitted within these districts as further regulated below:
AreaHeightSetback# Allowed
Sign TypeOther
(Maximum)(Maximum)(Minimum)(Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
One sign is allowed
1 per highwayfor each lot with 100
Freestanding32 sq ft12 ft5 ftright-of-wayfeet of continuous
frontagehighway right-of-way
frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
1 per
Directory24 sq ft6 ft5 ft
intersection
Maximum height
1 per highway
20 ft below top of
Projecting32 sq ftright-of-way
fascia or
frontage
Mansard
100 sq ftMaximum heightPer establishment, 1
WallN/A
maximum20 ft below top ofsq ft per 1 linear ft of
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
fascia orbuilding frontage
Mansard
2 per lot per4 per year for 60
Temporary32 sq ft10 ft5 fthighway right-of-days See section
way frontage4.15.11
Signs by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs;
c) Signs in public right-of-way. (Added 1-10-01)
Each establishment shall be limited to a choice of one (1) of the following:
wall or projecting.
*See section 4.15.12.d. (Adopted 7-8-92)
Sec. 4.15.12.6 Commercial (HC) and mixed commercial (PD-SC and PD-MC) districts.
The following are permitted within these districts as further regulated below:
AreaHeightSetback# Allowed
Sign TypeOther
(Maximum)(Maximum)(Minimum)(Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
One sign is allowed
1 per highwayfor each lot with 100
Freestanding32 sq ft12 ft5 ftright-of-wayfeet of continuous
frontagehighway right-of-way
frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
1 per
Directory24 sq ft10 ft5 ft
intersection
Maximum height
1 per highway
20 ft below top
Projecting32 sq ftright-of-way
of fascia or
frontage
mansard
Maximum height
Per estabishment,
200 sq ft20 ft below top
WallN/A1.5 sq ft per 1 linear
maximumof fascia or
ft of building frontage
mansard
2 per lot per4 per year for 60
Temporary32 sq ft10 ft5 fthighway right-of-days See section
way frontage4.15.11
Signs by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs;
c) Signs in public right-of-way. (Added 1-10-01)
Each establishment shall be limited to a choice of one (1) of the following: Projecting or wall.
*See section 4.15.12.d. (Adopted 7-8-92)
Sec. 4.15.12.7 Industrial (HI and LI) and mixed industrial (PD-IP) districts.
The following are permitted within these districts as further regulated below:
AreaHeightSetback# Allowed
Sign TypeOther
(Maximum)(Maximum)(Minimum)(Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
One sign is allowed
1 per highwayfor each lot with 100
Freestanding32 sq ft12 ft5 ftright-of-wayfeet of continuous
frontagehighway right-of-way
frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
1 per
Directory24 sq ft10 ft5 ft
intersection
Maximum
height 20 ft1 per highway
Projecting32 sq ftbelow top ofright-of-way
fascia orfrontage
mansard
Maximum
height 20 ftPer establishment,
200 sq ft
Wallbelow top ofN/A1.5 sq ft per 1 linear
maximum
fascia orft of building frontage
mansard
2 per lot per4 per year for 60
Temporary32 sq ft10 ft5 fthighway right-of-days See section
way frontage4.15.11
Signs by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electronic message signs;
c) Signs in public right-of-way. (Added 1-10-01)
Each establishment shall be limited to a choice of one (1) of the following: Wall or freestanding.
*See section 4.15.12.d. (Adopted 7-8-92)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Appointments.
Ms. Thomas stated that there is no rush to make the ACE appointment. She said if people would
like to get a formal application for the third person and consider it, there is no task for the committee
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
members to do right away. She indicated that the Equalization Board is gearing up, and there are two
appointments to make.
Ms. Humphris then offered a motion to reappoint George R. Larie to the Equalization Board,
representing the Jack Jouett Magisterial District, with said term to expire on December 31, 2001. Mr. Martin
seconded the motion.
Mr. Dorrier made a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to reappoint James E. Clark, Jr. to the
Equalization Board, from the Scottsville District, with said term to expire on December 31, 2001.
Roll was called, and the motions carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Tucker called attention to the draft letter relating to the Meadow Creek Parkway to Blake
Caravati, Mayor of Charlottesville, from Ms. Thomas, the Chair of the Board of Supervisors. This was given
to the Board members for their review to see if there were any changes they would like to make.
Ms. Thomas reminded Board members that they had asked the staff to draw up such a draft, and
she asked if there were any comments.
Ms. Humphris remarked that she thinks it is very well done and characterizes the feelings of this
Board.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board adopt the January 8, 2001 letter to the
Honorable Blake Caravati, Mayor of Charlottesville, from the Honorable Sally H. Thomas, Chair of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, and forward it to Mayor Caravati and City Council. Mr. Martin
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The letter is set out in full below:)
January 8, 2001
The Honorable Blake Caravati, Mayor
City of Charlottesville
P. O. Box 911
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Meadow Creek Parkway
Dear Blake:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has reviewed your letter of December 13, 2000 and
appreciates the sharing of your correspondence with the Virginia Department of Transportation
regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway. It is important that you know the Board of Supervisors
continues to support the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway under the guidelines that City
Council proposed in Mayor Daugherty’s letter of July 19, 1999. As part of that agreement, we hired
a consultant at a cost of $124,000 to ensure that the design of that portion of the parkway within the
County follows the same design principles of the City’s portion of the parkway as proposed in 1999.
In regard to your suggestions concerning a new transportation network, we share your interest in
continuing to work to solve “increasingly complex transportation challenges.” Under TEA-21, we are
required to work together to create long range plans that support economic vitality, safety and security,
accessibility and mobility, and that protect the environment, conserve energy, increase “intermodalism,”
promote efficiency, and preserve the usefulness of existing transportation systems. Within two months,
City Council and the Board of Supervisors should have appointed a group of citizens and given them
an assignment to create a new regional transportation network plan, just as your letter suggests. The
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors suggests that specific concerns, such as neighborhood
protection, be given to that group and its staff, with an expected intermediate plan by the end of this
year and a twenty-year plan within some months after that. This is the legal, staffed, and funded
method of making regional transportation network plans.
More immediately, we suggest that City Council and the Board of Supervisors members participate in
th
the February 8 (at Westminster Canterbury, 7:00 p.m.) Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Initiative
worksession regarding land use and transportation north and east of the City. That is a $500,000 study
that is developing plans and alternatives in exactly the area mentioned in your cover letter with its report
expected by June of this year. Consultants and staff are willing to meet explicitly with the Council and
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Board, and/or the Planning Commissions if that is preferred. There are alternative transportation
networks being tested, with a City/County consensus the desired outcome. Finally, our MPO
representatives meet monthly with yours and this seems a logical group to carry on the conversation
that you suggest.
With regard to your suggestions concerning the parkland to accompany the parkway, we continue to
support efforts to make this a true park with attractive and useable land. Our consultants, even in their
most preliminary report, are making us aware of what an important amenity this will be for our joint
communities. Until their report is finished, we won’t know what number of acres to recommend, but
the 50-acre figure may turn out to be reasonable. We do not want to pre-judge their recommendation
at this time. We will point out that last year we joined in the efforts, especially Meredith Richards’s, to
get legislative action on acquiring additional right-of-way for the parkland.
The Board of Supervisors fully understands the difficulty that City Council has been confronted with as
it relates to the ultimate design of the parkway and its related intersections. However, it is vitally
important that we move forward on this project. As our consultant completes its work and provides
additional recommendations on the design of this parkway and related issues such as parkland, etc.,
we are requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to move forward because the traffic
conditions existing on Rio Road and Park Street cannot withstand any additional traffic until
improvements are in place.
We look forward to our continued working relationship on this and other matters facing our community
and believe that it is time to finalize this segment of our transportation network. Should you or other
members of Council have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me
or other Board members.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Sally H. Thomas
Chair
_______________
Mr. Tucker announced that he has asked Mr. Cilimberg to discuss with the Supervisors a matter
that came up at the Planning Commission meeting last night regarding the application from Home Depot.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that he has conveyed to the Planning Commission the Supervisors’
intent that the staff work with the applicant, Home Depot, to address several issues that were identified in
deferring this matter to the Board of Supervisors’ meeting in February. He also informed the Commission
members of this Board’s intent that the Commission have a chance to review the work which will be
undertaken by staff with the applicant before the matter is returned to the Board of Supervisors for its
action. The Commission expressed an interest and actually made a request that after they have had a
chance to see how the issues have been addressed that they be able to meet with the Board of Supervisors
jointly to discuss the plan.
Mr. Martin remarked that he thought the Supervisors had purposely said they would not send
anything back to the Planning Commission and that they were going to keep it at the Board level and vote
on it in February. Mr. Davis recalled that the Board did not refer it back to the Planning Commission, but
requested that the Commissioners have an opportunity to comment on the conditions the staff might
develop. Mr. Cilimberg said it was based on this request that the Planning Commission asked for a joint
meeting after it has had a chance to review the conditions.
Ms. Humphris inquired if legal issues could be discussed at the same time in a closed session with
the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis replied that as a matter of probable litigation, this can be done, to get
legal advice.
Ms. Thomas stated that she was thinking the Board would need to have a joint meeting with the
Planning Commission at some point on DISC recommendations, but she did not realize the Commissioners
wanted a joint meeting concerning just Home Depot.
Mr. Bowerman said such a meeting would be unprecedented, to his knowledge, and he does not
want to start a precedent.
Mr. Tucker mentioned his concern that it might confuse the review process for Home Depot. If the
Planning Commission members want to explain their concerns and issues, this could be done separately.
He did not know if it was appropriate for the Board to have a discussion on the matter, because he thinks it
will confuse and complicate the matter somewhat to talk in general about issues. Commissioners also
mentioned something about the Northern Elementary School. This is a policy issue, and he can see that
type of discussion going on with the Commission and Board, but this one item to talk about Home Depot
could create some confusion.
Ms. Thomas stated that she can see the Commissioners’ frustration if the Board members appear
to be on the path of reversing their decision. She is not sure there should be a joint meeting held on this
one issue, and they might be just as frustrated because they have not been able to talk about other things
with the Board. She ha thought there could be a joint meeting when the DISC recommendations are
available. She has not discussed this with staff or Board members, and she asked if they would like to
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
make comments about it now.
Mr. Dorrier remarked that he would be in favor of having a joint meeting on general issues, unless
the Commissioners have a special concern with the Home Depot conditions that staff can’t convey. He
wondered why a joint meeting was necessary, and he asked why they could not convey their ideas and
opinions with the help of staff members.
Mr. Martin said the Commissioners did this with their Planning Commission minutes. Mr.
Bowerman said they also did it with him personally.
Mr. Davis mentioned that one point of concern they expressed related to the standard of review the
Board of Supervisors was giving to their decision. He said legally there is no standard of review that has to
be given to the decision. There seems to be some confusion about this by the Planning Commission as to
what standards the Supervisors have to apply to modify a decision the Commissioners may make. He
noted that he is meeting with the new Chair of the Planning Commission on Tuesday to discuss this issue,
and he hopes to clarify it at that time.
Ms. Humphris commented that the Supervisors work hard to figure out their direction, and with
great difficulty they arrived at the process to use for this particular issue of Home Depot. She thinks the
Supervisors should stick with this process. There are many issues needing to be discussed with the
Planning Commission, not the least of which is how the Supervisors handle situations such as this, but it
should be done after the Home Depot issue is finished. She said then discussions can relate to how the
issue was handled as well as other things such as how to deal with critical slopes, etc. She added that she
understands the Commissioners’ frustrations.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the fact there is a disagreement between the Planning Commission and
Board does not mean both parties are not doing their jobs. The Commissioners should be assured that the
Supervisors are fully supportive of the way they do their job.
Ms. Thomas noted that it seems the consensus of the Board members is that they will not meet
jointly with the Planning Commission on this matter, but another meeting will be arranged. The Board will
try to be specific about what the meeting will entail before the event, so people’s interests and needs can be
satisfied.
Ms. Humphris commented that the staff can be a big help in setting up the issues for that meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission will identify some of its issues, as well. Ms. Thomas suggested that it
would be very useful if the issues were given to the Commission and Board ahead of time.
Mr. Bowerman asked who the new Chair and Vice Chair are for the Planning Commission. Mr.
Davis responded that Dennis Rooker is the new Chair, and Will Rieley is the Vice-Chair of the Planning
Commission.
_______________
Mr. Cilimberg next reminded Board members that last week the County found out there was going
to be a meeting on the 29 South Corridor Study. He attended this meeting yesterday on behalf of the
County, since Ms. Thomas had a conflict and could not go. The public hearings on the project will begin
next week, and there will be one at the Red Hill Elementary School in Albemarle County on Thursday,
January 18, 2001 and another at the Tye River Elementary School in Nelson County on Wednesday,
January 17. Both hearings will be held from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Martin asked if these are the same plans that were presented to this Board approximately three
months ago. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the plans have been modified. He noted that following the public
hearings there will be another steering committee meeting in which the recommendations and comments
will be gathered from the public hearings and given to the steering committee. The steering committee will
be expecting comments from the County after the public hearings, and it will expect a formal resolution
from the County after the final steering committee meeting.
Ms. Thomas inquired if Mr. Cilimberg had the feeling that anything had changed from when the
presentation was made to this Board. Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively. He explained that he made a
comment as a followup that the design of the improvements in Albemarle County be of the parkway design
without interchanges and without service roads, but with an emphasis on access management such as the
northern study had recommended. He said VDoT representatives presented the parkway concept
yesterday for Albemarle County with at-grade, signalized intersections, at approximately ten locations with
service roads. He stated that even though he has noted the County’s plan, he feels further comment may
be necessary. VDoT representatives are essentially saying that between intersections there should be no
individual access points along the parkway. He indicated to them that this is not what Albemarle County
officials requested, and that they started with an upgrade that didn’t limit intersections but managed access
as well as possible. He commented that now all of a sudden there is a parkway with very controlled
accesses and only ten intersections. He informed VDoT that he does not believe they need to go that far,
and they should deal with how access is provided through a local development access management
program and not by just simply saying in the beginning there will be no access except at intersections and
service roads.
Ms. Thomas asked if they are proposing to improve some of the intersections. Mr. Cilimberg said
this will all be part of the improvements. He added that horizontal and vertical curvatures in the County will
also be proposed.
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Thomas concurred that some of these things need to be done, but parallel roads and ten traffic
lights in Albemarle County’s section of Route 29 is not what County officials had in mind.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that during discussions after the meeting, VDoT representatives were not as
insistent about the signalization. He said then they started talking about alternatives to what they had
recommended such as closing all the crossovers that are not at an intersection. However, there are 21
crossovers along the section of Route 29 between Nelson and I-64 that are not at an intersection of a state
road. Mr. Cilimberg noted that some of them do not have very good sight distance. VDoT representatives
may do some modification before next week, and he has put them on notice that he believes County
officials are going to want to see some modification of this recommendation in the final product of the study.
He explained that, according to the current plan, the parkway design in Albemarle County would actually
go all the way to Colleen in Nelson County. He said it would be a limited access parkway from Colleen to
the Tye River, and it becomes a freeway in Amherst and below.
Ms. Humphris inquired about the traffic projections for that section of highway. Mr. Cilimberg stated
that he had pointed out to VDoT yesterday that they had originally recommended rural principle arterial
upgrade in Albemarle County, and County officials were recommending the parkway as a better cross
section than a rural principle arterial upgrade. He explained to them that this was done because the traffic
increases in Albemarle County are very marginal, since land use in that area would not create a lot of
traffic. Ms. Humphris recalled that the forecast for traffic in that area was amazingly low.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the intersection in southern Albemarle County that goes across to the
Quarry is the most dangerous one on that section of highway. She explained that it is on a curve and can
be fixed without doing all of the things VDoT is recommending.
Ms. Humphris wondered why such a dramatic change from the original plan has occurred. She
thought VDoT understood about that section of the road. Mr. Bowerman commented that VDoT’s ideas
and Albemarle County’s ideas are a lot different south of Nelson. Ms. Humphris concurred, although,
VDoT had indicated that it would be acceptable to Albemarle County’s plan given Albemarle’s land use in
that area. She wondered why this changed since the last public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that he is
not sure why VDoT went to such an extent. He feels as though County officials suggested the parkway
instead of rural principle arterial and then recommended access management, but VDoT used that as an
opportunity to do a full access managed parkway.
Ms. Humphris asked if there was any reason given to Mr. Cilimberg as to why he and Ms. Thomas
had not received notice of this meeting. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he was not on VDoT’s mailing list,
but he has now had his name added. Ms. Thomas got notice through the County Office Building, and the
notice came during the holidays. He added that VDoT representatives said yesterday they did not intend for
service roads to be continuous in the County, and that they would be used in certain areas. He stated that
Albemarle County officials should have more precise involvement in this type of planning, since there are a
lot of ways to deal with access management.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the people who use Route 29 South have been notified of this hearing. Mr.
Cilimberg said he cannot answer that question.
________________
Ms. Humphris called attention to the letter the Board members received about real estate
assessments. She suggested that the Clerk’s Office get out the standard letter to let people know that the
Board, by law, cannot involve itself in the assessment process.
________________
Next, Ms. Humphris said she hopes people are paying attention to the excellent information VACo
sent out about what can be anticipated in reduction of state funding. She noticed on the front page of the
local paper today, that there was an article about how the General Assembly members were flushed with
money last March when they left Richmond. However, now they are going back for the short session, and
all of a sudden they are finding out that the localities are going to be hit very hard by shortages in state
funds with such things as unfunded teachers’ salaries and lack of funding for the Police 599 funds. She
remarked that the article said the increased profits from ABC stores are going to be designated as due to
increased deficiencies and will not flow to the localities but to the General Fund. She stated that there are
all kinds of ways in the article where the Governor has used language to take money that is supposed to
come to the localities for major needs, but it will not be coming.
________________
Ms. Humphris then mentioned a communication from the Commissioner of the Department of
Transportation about the Route 22/231 corridor. This can be discussed another time.
Mr. Tucker commented that he has asked staff to develop a recommendation based on the
alternatives VDoT has outlined. He stated that this will come back to the Board in the near future.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 7:55 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
January 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
County Board of
Supervisors
Date 02/21/2001
Initials LAB