2013-06-12June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June
12, 2013, Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow
and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
There being no changes, the agenda was accepted as presented
Ms. Mallek commented that the Glenmore modification (Item 8.1 on the consent agenda) is not a
public hearing, but attendees wishing to address that issue can do so during “Matters from the Public.”
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Mr. Rooker provided Board members a copy of a letter that had been sent to VDOT in March
2013, by Skanska, the company that has the contract to construct and design the Western Bypass. He
said that the letter mentions a number of issues that have come up regarding the northern terminus. The
letter states that to design around the problems and present some different alternatives will cost
approximately $560,000. The letter also includes a recommended design firm to do the work. Mr. Rooker
stated that the second page of the Skanska letter lists a number of issues they see, including “VDOT’s
apparent plan is to add to the inside of existing US 29 northbound and create a dangerous merge
condition prior to the signalized intersection and the interim intersection configuration, based on comments
received.” The letter also states that “VDOT commented that the existing right turn lane into Ashwood
must be maintained; however SBJV is unable to locate language in the RFP that requires this.” Mr.
Rooker stated that, in effect, the current design eliminates the right-hand turn lane into Ashwood, and
according to Skanska, VDOT’s alternative creates dangerous weave situations. Skanska further
comments that “the weave condition for US29 to Ashwood must be modeled and analyzed; we are unable
to locate RFP language…” The letter further suggests that Skanska can extend the project beyond
Ashwood which means the bypass would come into Route 29 north of Ashwood. That means that people
living in that area would have to make a U-turn and come back around.
Mr. Rooker said his point is that there are a lot of issues with the northern terminus, and as
indicated in this letter, they are being discussed back and forth with VDOT. Mr. Rooker said he would ask
that the Board support sending a letter to VDOT asking for a citizens’ information meeting on the northern
terminus, as was done with the southern terminus. The purpose of the meeting would be to ask VDOT to
present whatever alternatives are being considered for the northern terminus so that the public can
provide input and see what is being suggested.
Ms. Mallek said it seems that there should be an informational meeting held.
Mr. Boyd said that he already had a conversation with Mr. Hal Jones at VDOT and requested such
a meeting. Mr. Jones is meeting with the acting resident engineer on Monday and supposed to be getting
back with him after that meeting.
Mr. Rooker asked if he would support sending a letter to request a citizens’ information meeting.
Mr. Boyd responded that he would if they turn down his request, adding that he is considering the meeting
to be a town hall meeting for residents of that district.
Mr. Rooker said that when VDOT did the southern terminus meeting, it was generally advertised
as a meeting for the public. The northern terminus is an issue of interest to the community beyond just
the neighborhood. He said that he thinks this Board should go on record asking for a public information
meeting on the current status of the northern terminus so that people can look at what VDOT is
considering and provide input.
Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Boyd already had these details and if VDOT provided them to him. Mr.
Boyd responded that he has not seen the information, but pointed out that he does not have a battery of
lawyers asking for FOIAs every day for every single piece of literature that goes back and forth from
VDOT.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that it is a public letter.
Mr. Boyd said that there are groups that ask weekly for these FOIAs. He does not have time to
spend on this kind of information. This is not final design work nor is it a final proposal that VDOT is
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
doing. VDOT is negotiating the best way to build this road. He added that he is not opposed to sending
this letter, nor does he think that VDOT is trying to hide something from the County. Mr. Boyd reiterated
that he has no problem sending the letter asking for a meeting on the northern terminus.
Mr. Rooker responded that he did not say that VDOT was trying to hide something. There is
obviously a design for the northern interchange. This letter points out that the design has a number of
problems, and it seems to be wise to have the public look at the current proposals and weigh in. He
added that he is happy to hear that Mr. Boyd supports sending a letter asking for a public information
meeting on the northern terminus.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that he spoke with a VDOT Deputy Commissioner earlier that day and
asked if there was any new information to be shared on the bypass, and that official stated that there is a
meeting in a few weeks on the cemetery.
Mr. Rooker said that he is attending that meeting, because the cemetery is located in his district.
Mr. Thomas said he was informed that there is currently no other pertinent information going on at
this time.
Mr. Rooker said that he just recently received a copy of the letter and wanted to share it with the
Board. He reiterated that the letter “says what it says”.
Mr. Boyd stated that there is nothing final about these discussions and asserted that Mr. Rooker
has been studying the letter along with the Southern Environmental Law Center, who seems their sole
purpose in life these days is to stop this road from getting built. He added that at first appearance, the
letter seems to be discussions going on between engineers. He said that he still is not going to sit here
and think that VDOT is going to build an unsafe interchange there.
Mr. Rooker said he hopes not. He added that he thinks the public should have the opportunity to
weigh in on what VDOT intends to build there, especially since a letter has been sent by their designer/
contractor, saying that what they are asking for does not work and that significant changes will have to be
made. He added that the design work alone is estimated at $560,000. He said that his concern is that the
road be functional and work, if it gets built. Mr. Rooker said that he is not in favor of the bypass, as it
creates “carnage” in his district, but he wants to ensure that if the road goes ahead, it is a road where the
northern and southern terminus work s and a road that minimizes the impacts along the way. VDOT
should put out to the public what they are considering while it is at an early stage.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that this is also a reassurance of the various factors that the Board
originally supported, such as the third lane on Route 29. She said that she thinks it is important to have
this hearing.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not have a problem with holding a public meeting, but he does have a
problem with forcing VDOT to come up with preliminary engineering designs and leave the public with the
impression that these things are final. It is obvious from this letter that these are ongoing discussions.
Mr. Rooker stated that the letter lays out at least three alternatives for “curing the problems” at the
northern terminus, and some of them have “rather severe impacts” on how the road works and how it is
accessed.
Mr. Boyd reiterated that he is not opposed to the meeting,. His conversation with VDOT earlier
that day indicated that they are not going to do any final design work on the road until they get through the
Federal Highway environmental assessment. Although it may be premature, he said that he is willing to
ask for preliminary data and to allow the community at large to be able to help design this.
Mr. Rooker said the purpose is to have input.
Mr. Boyd asked if he thought the input is going to be anything other than to make it a safe and
good working road. Mr. Rooker said that if Mr. Boyd reads the letter in detail, he will see that there are
problems.
Mr. Snow stated that Board members are all basically on the same page. He said that everyone
wants a safe road. The Board should go ahead and send a letter asking to see the design when they
have one ready to present, to provide the opportunity to weigh in as was done with the southern terminus.
Ms. Mallek commented that the design may not be immediately available, but when it is a design
ready they would like to see it.
Mr. Rooker said that there is a design; the one Skanska proposed to build pursuant to their
contract.
Mr. Snow stated that there are many projects that start out with a design but for whatever reason
it does not work and revisions are made. He reiterated support for sending the letter.
Ms. Mallek agreed to circulate a draft letter among Board members.
Mr. Foley asked for clarification as to whether Ms. Mallek would craft the letter.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Rooker said that what the Board is looking for is a public information meeting on the northern
terminus.
Mr. Foley stated that he could work with Mr. David Benish and Planning staff to develop a draft for
circulation.
Board members concurred.
_____
Ms. Mallek said that she has clarified with VDOT that they will send notification of highway
spraying for weeds and brush to the County Executive. The County Executive will then notify Board
members so they can contact constituents on their right to opt out.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions. There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Nancy Carpenter said that next month there will be a Board agenda item that is very important
to her concerning the continued County financial support of rental vouchers at the Crossings. She
requested that the Board reach a unanimous decision once again to continue this support. There are
victories that have been as varied as the residents that live at the Crossings; however they would not have
been possible without the stability afforded by having a home. She said that she would like to keep these
victories moving forward and continue the mission of supportive housing for the most vulnerable County
citizens.
_____
Dr. Charles Battig, a County resident, said he is continuing his discussion from the previous Board
meeting. There seems to be a lot more discussion about deer illness than the health of school children,
and suggested that the Board reconsider its emphasis of concern. He posed the question as to how the
Albemarle County School Board decided that WiFi was not a health concern for K-12 children. Dr. Battig
said that the FDA provides no guidance as to the safety of these devices. The FCC’s primary jurisdiction
does not lie in the area of health and safety, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for
guidance.
He stated that the standards set in 1996 were based on a healthy, approximately 20-year-old,
200-pound adult male and have no assurances related to chronic low-level exposures to younger or older
people, and eye or brain tissues. Dr. Battig said that the FCC states that their safe exposure guidelines do
not apply to “chronic, non-thermal exposure”, “all possible mechanisms”, etc.
The FCC finally recognized the problems and has two separate formal dockets as of March 2013.
Dr. Battig added that he spoke to an individual at the FCC yesterday. As part of its dockets, the FCC’s
existing guidelines “do not reach the issue of whether our exposure limits are appropriate”. He then
referenced a study from Sweden that showed a four-fold incidence of brain cancer in those who have
been using cell phones since before age 20, for a duration of about 10 years.
Dr. Battig mentioned that a career Microsoft executive has recently come out and said they
“should have used caution,” especially with children and WiFi. He said that Mr. Steve Koleszar, of the
School Board, responded him in a letter by stating that he has referred the issue to the Health Advisory
Committee and indicated that “they have discussed it and determined that WiFi is not a threat to our
students’ health.” Dr. Battig expressed concern that that was all it took by the School Board to make a
problem disappear, adding that the FCC has not determined that it is safe.
_____
Mr. Chuck Boldt said that he stood before the Board the previous month and asked that it get
involved with the New Hope Church project. He said that he has made that request six times since last
September. He said that in May he was frustrated by the Board’s unwillingness to address the substantial
changes that have taken place and documented since the original approval of the project. Mr. Boldt
stated that several Board members have privately expressed the opinion that their hands are tied and that
nothing else could be done, but that is not the case.
He said that five days after the May 8 Board meeting, the County Engineer issued a memo that
vastly changed the entrance that was discussed and approved. On May 16, Community Development
issued an initial site plan approval that incorporated the County Engineer’s memo along with other
conditions of approval. Mr. Boldt said that he has filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals an appeal of that
action, as it is beyond the agent’s authority and not in compliance with the applicable Code requirements.
He stated that the new information indicates that the project will now disturb 19 times the critical slopes
along the east side of the project, approved in the Board’s initial waiver. The critical slopes now shown
are part of a continuous system of critical slopes that extend beyond the eastern boundary of the site and
continue to the southern boundary. Mr. Boldt said that he did the calculations because Community
Development did not feel it was necessary to update the information used to make the Board’s decision
last July. He emphasized that disturbing almost 4/10 of an acre of critical slopes is a long way from
disturbing the 2/100 of an acre that Mr. Benish told the Board last July might not even be needed. Mr.
Boldt said that only the Board of Supervisors can waive disturbance of critical slopes in the rural area, and
that includes staff’s attempt to define the entrances and accessways as a way to work around the Board’s
approval.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Boldt said the church should not get a pass on the County Code requirements with an assist
from Community Development. The BZA will address this issue in August. Mr. Boldt stated that the
Board is still responsible for the actions it has delegated to its’ agents. The Board’s agents have not acted
in an appropriate matter and should be held accountable. He expressed concern with how many other
projects or citizens have given up when faced with what he and his neighbors have had to deal with over
the last year. The residents care about what goes on in the rural areas of the County because they live
there. He asked that the Board members show that they care.
_____
Mr. Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental County, said that the PEC is opposed to the bypass
because it is a very bad idea. He said that politics is driving the bypass, not traffic modeling or good
engineering. Mr. Werner stated that residents keep hearing from bypass proponents, “just trust VDOT,”
but they do not trust VDOT and there is a good reason why. He stated that Mr. Jim Rich was fired by the
Governor from the Commonwealth Transportation Board because of his opposition to the bypass, and Mr.
Rich’s comments regarding what is going on with VDOT, the CTB and in the administration are Richmond
are very clear.
Mr. Werner said that the Piedmont Environmental Council has not FOIA’d a single document; the
SELC may have as has Charlottesville Tomorrow. He said it is curious that any Board member would be
upset and so concerned about FOIAs. If this bypass is such a great idea, it should be able to survive the
public’s scrutiny.
Mr. Boyd clarified that he does not object to the FOIA process as it is a very good part of
government for anyone who wants to get information. He said his comment was to clarify that he does not
have the time to FOIA and read through every piece of correspondence.
_____
Mr. Richard W agaman a resident of Glenmore, said he was present to address Item 8.1relating to
a change to some property in the development. He said that this has been a difficult situation that affects
lots 24-27 and 29, with lot 28 disappearing somehow. Mr. W agaman said that ZMA-2012-00127 allows
emergency access to Glenmore for fire and rescue vehicles to be used for other purposes. He said that
this is a very dangerous thing to allow happen. The other emergency access to Glenmore has not been
allowed for any other uses. He urged the Board to consider who would be responsible if the road is used
for something other than emergency access and cars end up blocking the road in the event of an
emergency.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Mr. Boyd offered motion to approve Item 8.1 on the
Consent Agenda and to accept Item 8.2 as information. (Note: Discussion on Item 8.1 is included with
that item.) Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
ABSENT: None.
_____
Item No. 8.1. Glenmore Leake K2 (ZMA-2012-0016) Lots 24-27 & 29, SUB-2012-00127
Variation.
The executive summary states that ZMA-2006-0016 (Leake) was rezoned to PRD-Planned
Residential Development, with an associated application plan and proffers, on November 14, 2007
(ZMA2006-0016). A proposed subdivision for a section of this development will require a variation from the
approved Application Plan. This variation is necessary before the final site plan can be approved by staff.
The applicant is requesting the following variations from the approved rezoning plan:
Request to upgrade a section of an existing emergency access to a private road and
allow two driveways to access the upgraded road (and maintain only an emergency
access to Running Deer as originally approved).
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
The variation request has been reviewed for Zoning and Planning aspects of the regulations. Section
8.5.5.3(a) authorizes the Director of Planning to grant variations from the approved application plat and/ or
code of development. However, due to a recent State Supreme Court decision, these variations must now
be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 33.9
VARIATION - Upgrade a section of an existing emergency access to a private road and allow two
driveways to access this upgraded road:
The applicant submitted the following: The applicant request to upgrade the existing 15’ wide gravel
emergency access between the existing paved Farringdon Road and the existing Running Deer Drive to a
proposed 20’ wide gravel private road meeting current VDOT standards. Please note the applicant
proposes to install a fence and gate around the existing cul-de-sac on Running and along proposed lot 29
(this has already been installed). The proposed variation will allow the applicant to install a driveway for
lots 25 and 29. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
The proposed change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. The change provides for safe and convenient access to two lots.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity o f
development.
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of
any other development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved
rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application. There is no
change to the lot layout for these two lots from that approved in the application plan,
Driveway locations were not shown on the application plan. The original emergency
access function for the existing road remains in place and there is no public or private
road connection being made to Running Deer Drive for vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The
proposed private road provides access to lots 25 and 29 only from Farringdon Road.
VARIATION #1 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request, with the following conditions:
1. Private Road serves only lots 25 and 29 (and emergency access function).
2. Install and maintain a fence and gate around (or equivalent barrier) between Running Deer
Lane cul-de-sac and new private road.
_____
(Discussion: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, noted that there were some non-substantive
changes in one of the conditions, and he referenced the revised copies given to the Board.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be a driveway now off of the emergency road, as Mr. Wagaman
mentioned. Mr. Benish responded that the application plan had a lot that always had frontage shown on
the access road, and it was never clear where the driveway was going to be. He said that the proposal is
to make clear that the lot could have access to the access road, and to give Lot 24 the option to have
access to the emergency access or to Farrington Drive.
Mr. Benish stated that staff received an email today from Dennis Odenoff, of the Rivanna Citizens
Advisory Council, who met with the applicant, and is comfortable with the proposed change. Mr. Benish
noted that the barricade referenced in the condition has already been constructed, and nothing in the
variation is to allow for interconnection to Running Deer Drive. Staff does not believe that the issue is a
significant one or inconsistent with the intent of the application plan.
Ms. Mallek asked the location of the emergency access. Mr. Benish said that Carroll Creek Road
is the emergency access. W hen the two driveways are constructed, the owners are requesting that the
road be upgraded to private road standards since it will provide access to two lots. He reiterated that
there is still no access proposed to Running Deer Drive.
Ms. Mallek commented that this is giving access to another lot. Mr. Benish said that the
application plan always depicted the northernmost lot having frontage on the access road. It does not
have access to any other proposed road in the Leake development; it was a somewhat isolated lot and
was shown fronting on the access road. The other option could have been a joint driveway through
another property. He stated that the application plan, while it said “emergency access only”, clearly
showed one lot having no other public or private road access. It was deemed not to be a significant
difference to the intent of the application plan.
Mr. Rooker commented that Carroll Creek Road was always going to be there, and it was going to
be blocked so that it did not go into Running Deer, and that is still the case. Mr. Benish said that is correct
and it is still blocked. In addition, the barricade, as mentioned in condition #2, is already built and in place.
Staff is ensuring that it is a condition of the variation that stays there.
Ms. Mallek asked what parking restrictions are customary for a road like this. Mr. Benish
responded that this type road would typically be 20 feet wide. It is unlikely that given two large lots of over
an acre that there would be significant parking on it. Usually drivers park on the shoulder part of the
driveway. He said that it is a reasonable issue that Mr. W agaman raised, but that is a normal design on
any private road to allow public emergency vehicle access.
Ms. Mallek asked if the road will remain private, not public. Mr. Benish responded that all the
roads in Glenmore are private roads and this road will become part of that system.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the variation request as recommended by
staff subject to two conditions:
1. Private Road serves only lots 25 and 29 (and emergency access function).
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
2. The applicant will install and maintain a fence and gate (or equivalent barrier) between Running
Deer Lane cul-de-sac and the emergency access/new private road and lot 29.
_____
Item No. 8.2. 2012 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals, was received for
information.
In a memorandum from Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, it states that State Code
Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full public record of its
proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body. The full 2012 annual report is
attached (on file in the Clerk’s office) for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance, special use permits for
certain sign types, and appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or her designee. These
appeals can include determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals received in 2012 decreased by 1, from 4 received in 2011 for a total of 3
appeal cases. The Zoning Administrator’s decision was affirmed in two cases and one was withdrawn
prior to public hearing.
While the number of variance applications increased from the prior year, only 3 variance
applications were heard. Staff works with applicants to find options that do not involve a variance. Of the
three, two cases were approved with conditions and one case was denied. Three cases were withdrawn
prior to public hearing and two applications were voided.
The number of special use permits for off-site signs decreased by 1, from 3 in 2011 to 2 in 2012.
One case was approved with conditions and one was denied.
The following Circuit Court case is still pending:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Appeal of use
determination.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2013-00007. Cingular Wireless/Pace Property
Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility (Sign #75).
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a 118 foot tall monopole with 3 antennas and associated
ground equipment with fencing within a 1,600 sq. ft. leasing areas as well as construction of a new
access road to the site.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor – Overlay to
protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access; FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and
protection from flooding. Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District; and Scenic By-ways Overlay.
SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 2 -preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 3376 Stony Point Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04700-00-00-03000.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 2013.)
Ms. Sarah Baldwin, Planner, said that this is a special use permit for a Tier III tower on Tax Map
47, Parcel 30, located on Stony Point Road and containing approximately 115 acres. She reported that
the property contains a dwelling and several outbuildings, is located in the Rivanna District, and is zoned
RA and EC. Ms. Baldwin said that the surrounding area contains single-family residential, wooded and
open areas. She stated that the request is for installation of 118-foot tall monopole structure with three
antennae and ground equipment within a 1,600 square foot lease area. She said that the reference tree is
a 98-foot white oak. The facility will be 20 feet taller than the reference tree, with the surrounding woods
and topography mitigating the view in most places. Ms. Baldwin noted that the applicant conducted
balloon tests on April 9, May 20 and this past Tuesday, where they were able to view the tower from
neighboring property. Ms. Baldwin said the tower is visible onsite and from a few of the neighboring
properties. She presented photos from the first balloon test, looking north through a windshield and south
of the site on Route 20 facing northwest. Ms. Baldwin also referenced the applicant’s photo simulations
provided from the first balloon test.
Ms. Baldwin reported that staff found the following factors favorable: 1) The proposal will provide
improved 3G and 4G wireless service for the surrounding area; 2) The Architectural Review Board staff
has recommended approval of the proposed monopole and associated ground equipment stating that the
location is expected to sufficiently minimize its visibility; and 3) The proposal meets the necessary
requirements of 5.1.40. There were no unfavorable factors.
Ms. Baldwin said that staff recommends approval of the personal wireless facility with the
conditions as presented.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
The Chairman opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Preston Lloyd, an Attorney at Williams Mullen, representing AT&T, in this application,
addressed the Board. Mr. Lloyd presented a photograph of the regional location of the proposed facility
on Stony Point, just adjacent to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District as well as a scenic byway,
which is one of the factors triggering a Tier III review and requiring a special use permit. He presented a
view of the tax map parcel and two adjacent parcels also owned by Mr. and Mrs. Pace, owners of the
subject property and who will be leasing the proposed facility area to AT&T. Mr. Lloyd also provided a
satellite photo of the site, noting that it is heavily forested along the Route 20 corridor with a number of
bends in the road heading north of Charlottesville. He said that in each of their three balloon tests, the
applicant determined that those factors substantially mitigate the visual impacts of the facility. Mr. Lloyd
stated that when a Tier III proposal is considered by the Board, the Board has the ability to modify certain
conditions, i.e., requirements that help to preserve and mitigate the visual impacts of any wireless facility.
When the applicant flew the balloon at 10 feet above the reference tree and then increased the height to
20 feet, there was no material change in the visual impacts within the surrounding area.
He then provided a propagation map showing signal coverage along the Route 20 corridor, which
will be enhanced after the new facility is constructed, and with the additional 10 feet in monopole height
above the standard provision in the ordinance. Mr. Lloyd emphasized that the applicant is asking for 20
feet based on the fact that there is no additional material adverse impact on adjacent properties, but there
is an increase in coverage. He reiterated that as stated in the W ireless Policy, visibility is the critical factor
for the Board’s consideration. He then referenced the photos provided by staff of the balloon tests and
described the locations.
Mr. Lloyd stated that at the Planning Commission public hearing, it was pointed out by a neighbor
that there is a little bit of visibility from a few private properties located about one-half mile from the facility,
including one on Hawk’s Hill Lane.
Ms. Mallek said that in one of the images he presented, it looks like it is sticking up 30 or 40 feet
above the trees. Mr. Lloyd responded that this is a graphic approximation of a less than perfect
simulation.
Mr. Snow said in response to Ms. Mallek, the tower is clearly visible above the trees and it looks
like 20 feet. Mr. Lloyd confirmed that it is 20 feet above the trees and is visible from the location as are a
number of other towers that are also visible in the distance, none of which would have been sited pursuant
to the W ireless Ordinance. He added that the ordinance requires the Board to consider adverse visual
impacts, so there would be a bit of a sliding scale depending on where they are looking. He added that the
ordinance does not require invisibility. Mr. Lloyd said that the applicant balloon tested the visibility from a
third residence and there was no visibility from that residence.
Mr. Ron Kerber addressed the Board and referenced written information that he had already
submitted to the Board. He stated that he has three requests: 1) to move the tower back from the
property line, to make the tower only 10 feet above the trees, and 3) to make the tower look like a tree.
Mr. Kerber said that he does not oppose the tower, but he has four lots directly across the road from the
subject property assessed at $1,615,000 and it does not include the lot his house is located. He stated
that all of the lots are closer than Mrs. Clark’s house where they showed the one-half mile visibility, so he
is very impacted by the tower if the Board raises it the additional 10 feet that he does not think it needs to.
Mr. Kerber said his most important request is that the Board does not need to give the applicant the extra
10 feet and it could help his property values. The Board should allow the normal 10 feet above the
reference tree, and it becomes a win- win situation. If the Board gives the applicant the 20 feet, it
becomes a win-lose. If the 20 feet is given, the applicant gets the tall tower and he loses property value
and visibility.
Ms. Jane Clarke addressed the Board, thanking Mr. Boyd and Mr. Snow for coming to the balloon
test and thanking Mr. Lloyd for arranging it and inviting her to attend. Ms. Clark said that she and her
husband live on the east side of Stony Point Road in the house that is one-half mile from the site, in the
Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. She said they have a panoramic view of the Blue Ridge
Mountains that is visible from most windows in their house. They planned the house this way and enjoy it
very much. Their house is only about three football fields away from the subject site. Ms. Clark stated
that because their house is at an elevation of about 600 feet, the cell tower will be plainly visible above the
treetops. She said that the cell tower will be 34 inches in diameter at the base, tapering to 18 inches at
the top, and the balloon diameter was about 36 inches so the top of the cell tower will be about one-half
the size of the balloon. Ms. Clark added that for their neighbors down the hill, the tower is much more
noticeable because the tower will rise above the mountain ridge and be silhouetted against the sky.
Mountain views are one of the reasons that Albemarle County is such a special place to live, and it is why
she and husband decided to move there. She asked the Board to deny the request to waive the
requirement for a taller height, as 10 feet will give the applicant what they need without obstructing their
view.
Mr. Lloyd thanked Mr. Kerber and Ms. Clarke to take the time to evaluate the visual impacts in
person, adding that it can be challenging to visually represent what is seen with the naked eye. He said
that the tower is not skylit, but shows up just briefly in front of Hollymead Town Center. Mr. Lloyd stated
that visual circumstances may change when a property owner does not own all of the property
surrounding a parcel. He emphasized that at this distance, it is not sufficient to be considered an adverse
visual impact according to the ordinance. He said that the applicant did drive down the length of Route 20
in front of Mr. Kerber’s property, and because you are looking up a hill through a number of trees, the
photo simulations attest that the tower site will be heavily screened by the grove of trees along Route 20,
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
which is property owned by the Paces. The ordinance requires the Paces to get approval to remove the
grove of trees that provides the screening. Mr. Lloyd said this is a good site and it was carefully chosen by
AT&T in order to meet the requirements of the ordinance.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Snow commented that Ms. Clarke indicated she had the mountain to silhouette the view, but
Mr. Kerber indicated that he had an open view against the sky. Mr. Lloyd said that is correct.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that whether there is sky or mountains in the 50-mile distance, the effect is
the same because the tower is there by itself. That is very visible.
Ms. Mallek said that she was not clear on the setback from the property line for the tower location.
Someone had suggested moving the tower back from the property line. It is a concern when an applicant
is basing their buffer on someone else’s property. Mr. Lloyd responded that the distance is 302.9 feet.
Mr. Boyd said that he recalled reading in the Planning Commission minutes an explanation why
the applicant could not move the tower back further. Mr. Lloyd explained that the location was chosen
because it provided screening all the way around, and as it is moved further back it moves down in
topography so the tower would have to be higher to provide the same coverage objective. There was not
a reference tree that would have allowed for that. He said that the visibility is minimized by its location,
and moving it back would not mitigate the visibility any greater than where it is currently.
Mr. Snow asked what the propagation would look like if it were lowered 10 feet. Mr. Lloyd
explained that he has spoken with AT&T about that, and while he does not have a graphical
representation they will proceed with 10 feet above the reference tree instead of 20. He said that they
believe the effectiveness would be greater and the public better served by 20 feet.
Ms. Mallek asked if the applicant would consider doing the “brushy look,” similar to what other
applicants have done such as that at the Department of Forestry. Mr. Lloyd responded that they have
considered it, but the cost is significant and the visibility would be greater if it were a mono-pine structure
rather than a monopole. He said that they believe that the Planning Commission adopted the wireless
policy in 2000 with the monopole stipulation because it provides the greatest amount of blending in with
the trees during all four seasons. The mono-pine becomes much more visible and could possibly have
the opposite effect to what the neighbors anticipate.
Mr. Boyd said that was his recollection as well.
Mr. Rooker agreed that there is often worse visibility with the fake pine trees. He does not think
the fake trees look real, and they do not blend in.
Mr. Boyd said that he thinks it is a reasonable compromise to drop the tower down to 10 feet
above the tree-line. He said that he thinks that would help the neighbors view of it and that would be my
recommendation.”
Mr. Rooker said he would also support that, as he does not see justification for 20 feet.
Mr. Boyd said that he and Mr. Snow went out and looked at the tower and it is visible. If that
recommendation is also agreeable by the applicant, he will support the 10 feet.
Mr. Boyd then moved to approve SP-2003-0007 with the two conditions presented and a third
condition that “the proposed tower shall not be more than 10 feet taller than the reference tree.” Mr. Snow
seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis stated that if the tower were limited to 10 feet above the reference tree, a special use
permit would not be needed, it becomes a Tier II tower, and could be approved by right.
Ms. Mallek said that it is located in the Southwest Mountains Historic District. Mr. Davis said it is
adjacent to it, but not in it.
Mr. Lloyd stated that the property is located on a scenic byway, Route 20.
Ms. Baldwin said that the tower would not be within 200 feet of the road, so that would negate the
requirement.
Mr. Benish stated that the safest approach would be to act on the special permit with the 10 feet.
The special permit may become moot because it would then be a Tier II, but it would make clear the
Board’s action and intent on the proposal.
Mr. Boyd asked if his motion needed to be amended. Mr. Davis suggested that the third condition
state: “The proposed tower will not be more than ten (10) feet taller than the reference tree.” Mr. Boyd so
moved. Mr. Snow seconded. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
ABSENT: None.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Mallek said that she would be happy to participate in future balloon tests but she did not know
about this one. Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Lloyd asked him to attend based on the location of the tower in his
district.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site plans, entitled “CV372, Parcel 47-30” with a final zoning drawing submittal date of
05/06/13 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator.
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation
before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
3. The proposed tower will not be more than ten (10) feet taller than the reference tree.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2013-00008. Cingular Wireless/Greenmont
Farm (Sign #74).
PROPOSED: Special use permit request for a personal wireless service facility including a 129-
foot steel monopole (20 feet above the height of the reference tree) with two (2) flush-mount
antennae, each consisting of three (3) panel antennas. The proposed ground equipment will be
located on a 40X40 foot leased compound area. An 8’ tall wooden privacy fence is also proposed
to surround the base of the 40X40 compound. Access to the site is proposed through an access
road off Route 627 (Fry’s Path).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO.
HISTORIC DISTRICT: YES.
LOCATION: To the west of Fry’s Path (Route 627), approximately one-half mile from the
intersection with Scottsville Road (Route 20).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 11200-00-00-01600.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 2013.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that this is a proposal for a special use permit for a
personal wireless facility, a 129-foot steel monopole, which is 20 feet above the reference tree, with two
flush-mounted antennae. He said that there is also a proposed ground equipment lease area on the site
that is 40 feet by 40 feet. The property is located west of Fry’s Path – Route 672 – approximately one-half
mile from its intersection with Scottsville Road.
Mr. Benish presented a view of Fry’s Path to show the character of the road as a seldom used,
not high volume roadway. He presented a picture of the tower location in the leased area, noting the
location of a person standing on the site. Mr. Benish showed another image of the same location on Fry’s
Path, looking at the balloon test toward the leased area. He presented a close-up of the leased area
location, with the flags tagged to delineate the trees by number. Mr. Benish also provided a view from
Secretary’s Sand Road at approximately 4,000 feet from the tower, and noted that the photo is a normal
shot and not zoomed. He then referenced a site plan showing the two array 20 feet above the reference
tree, pointing out the ground equipment area. The facility will be located in a wooded area approximately
130 feet from Fry’s Path and is out of view from the entrance corridor of Route 20.
Mr. Benish said that the proposed facility is located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest
dwelling. At the Planning Commission meeting a question was raised about the fall zone area that falls
slightly over the Fry’s Path roadway by about 8 to 10 feet. He said that the Commission asked staff to
contact VDOT regarding any issues about the fall zone. VDOT staff did not consider the overlap to be of
concern from its perspective. Mr. Benish stated that the applicant’s engineer pointed out that that given
the relative topography of the site and since the tower is below grade, even if the entire length of the tower
fell intact, it would not reach the road. The tower’s contact with the trees would contribute to tower
crumpling, break-up and limit the amount/length of the tower to reach the ground, if it fell.
He stated that staff has identified the proposed tower’s limited visibility from the Virginia Byway
and nearby roads as a favorable factor. Staff found no unfavorable factors. Mr. Benish said that staff
recommends approval of the special permit with the conditions as outlined in his report, with a height at 20
feet above the reference tree and a condition that VDOT will approval the final entrance for the access
road to the site. Mr. Benish also noted that the facility is 130 feet away from the nearest property line, so it
has a reasonable buffer area with the drop fitting within the entire property except for the roadway.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Ms. Mallek asked if timbering would be precluded between the road and the base of the tower.
Mr. Benish replied “yes,” within that 100 foot buffer.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that Lion’s Watch is an easement property, and asked if there was any
concern about the tower’s proximity to that property. Mr. Benish responded that no concern was
expressed.
Mr. Rooker asked if the property owners were notified. Mr. Benish responded “yes;” it is his
understanding is that the owners were notified.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Preston Lloyd addressed the Board, representing AT&T. Mr. Lloyd presented slides showing
the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District along Route 20. The proposed tower facility continues to
enhance AT&T’s coverage objective. He showed a schematic of the site elevation. The applicant is
asking for 20 feet above the reference tree in this location because it falls into the category of being close
in proximity to two facilities that were approved by the Board for a deviation above the 10-foot by-right
height, because the location provides such adequate screening due to the topography and heavily wooded
nature of the area. Mr. Lloyd said that there was only one location where the tower was visible, close to a
mile away, and they had to drive around for a while to find a place where it could be spotted. He stated
that due to the topography and the forested nature of the area, the applicant feels the screening is
adequate to mitigate any adverse visual impacts and allow for the deviation from the 10-foot limit.
Mr. Lloyd then presented an aerial view of the site, pointing out the heavily wooded portion of the
site and commenting on the substantial screening it provides. He also presented a propagation map
showing the signal coverage before and after siting the proposed tower, specifically its’ coverage along the
Route 20 corridor.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a photo simulation available for the long view. Mr. Lloyd responded
that there was not, because it was such a distance it was difficult to graphically represent how small the
facility would be. The only way the balloon was visible was when staff zoomed in and enhanced the
picture.
Ms. Mallek commented that a brown pole is different than a light-colored balloon, and said that it
is pretty significant in that view.
Since there was no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the
matter before the Board.
Mr. Benish presented a photo of the area in question, stating that it is the best depiction they have
from that perspective.
Ms. Mallek said that this seemed to be another case where the top 20 feet of reference trees is
very, very thin, so the tower looks larger. That is a pretty startling view when you think you are going to fill
in that whole space with a big brown pole, and it will have a significant impact.
Mr. Rooker asked where that view was from. Mr. Benish noted on a map the location from
Secretary’s Sand Road. Mr. Lloyd confirmed that it is the location, adding that it is about one mile from the
site.
Ms. Mallek asked if people in that location had been notified. Mr. Benish responded that at that
distance, staff would not have notified that far.
Mr. Lloyd stated that the applicant notified all of the neighbors in the vicinity and received one
inquiry from a neighbor to the south of the proposed location. That neighbor indicated, based on a
description of the project and its location they had no issues.
Ms. Mallek again asked if anyone on Secretary’s Sand was notified. Mr. Lloyd said that they do
not typically notify people who are at that significant of a distance.
Ms. Mallek stated that there is no intervening topography, and that is what makes this site
different.
Mr. Rooker asked about the distance from the road. Mr. Benish replied that it is a little over 4,000
feet. He added that the photo shows the edge of Secretary’s Sand Road and the location where the fields
open up near the roadway.
Ms. Mallek reiterated that it is pretty much an unobstructed view because it is not forested. Mr.
Benish responded that this is the case for the first 2,000 feet, but after that it is woodlands.
Mr. Lloyd said that the reason it is visible from that location is because you have to get that far
away in order to move away from the base of the hill. If they had the ability to present what the naked eye
could see they had to squint pretty hard to be able to make out even a bright red balloon. He added that
by the time they put in a java brown pole, it will be less visible.
Mr. Thomas asked if you would have to have binoculars to see it. Mr. Lloyd responded that
binoculars would help a great deal.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Thomas commented that would be the case at 2,000 feet, not just 4,000 feet.
Ms. Mallek said that it is the same distance from her house to the road, and she could see it, but
perhaps she is the only one with concerns.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that he is generally very concerned about visibility issues with towers, and
that is well-known. He stated that a lot of people along Route 20 in that area have expressed interest in
receiving better service. If there were neighbors who were concerned about the visibility present at the
meeting, he probably would not support the additional height. There is no one at the meeting objecting to
this, and it is a long way from Route 20, and he does not think it can be seen from that main road. Mr.
Rooker said that the Board has approved several towers in this area that have had a similar backdrop,
and he would support the proposal. He stated that both staff and the Planning Commission made the
finding that “there really was no adverse visibility impact from this tower.”
Mr. Snow then moved to approve SP-2013-00008 subject to the conditions as presented. Mr.
Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
ABSENT: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “CV428” prepared
by O. Warren Williams, and dated 4/25/13 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual
Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation
before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: To receive public comment on the proposed
Secondary Six-Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2013/14 through 2018/19 in Albemarle County, and on the
Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2013/14.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 2013.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
The purpose of this public hearing is to receive input on the proposed Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP), FY 14-19 (Attachment A). The Board held a
work session on the SSYP and the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements on May 1,
2013 (Click here for May 1, 2013 Executive Summary). The Board agreed to the priority list with one
change, moving Gillums Ridge Road to the top of the priority list for unpaved roads (on the Rural Rustic
Road paving list). Three other public requests for road improvements will be further evaluated by VDOT
for possible inclusion in next year’s SSYP. VDOT staff has provided a draft of the SSYP (Attachment A)
that is based on the direction provided by the Board at its May 1 work session.
Funding for the SSYP for the next six years is projected to increase significantly from the prior
year’s projections of $350,000 per year. The more significant increases in funding are projected in years 4
through 6. Most of the funding increases are allocated for paving unpaved roads. Since last year,
changes have occurred to State funding sources for paving unpaved roads.
There are two funding sources for paving unpaved roads. The Secondary Unpaved Road Fund is
construction funding generated by a formula. Funds from this category may be used for other types of
projects, but the County’s future allocations for unpaved roads through this funding source would be
reduced based on a formula adjustment. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Unpaved
Road Fund, created by State transportation funding legislation adopted this year, is funding that can only
be used to pave gravel roads that have greater than 200 vehicle trips per day (VPD).
VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County:
Table 1. Projected Funding Allocations for Albemarle County
FISCAL
YEAR
SECONDARY
UN-PAVED
ROAD FUND1
CTB UNPAVED
ROAD FUND 2
REG. STATE
FUNDS (teletax
fee)
SECONDARY
FORMULA
FUNDS
TOTAL
FUNDS
2013-14 $0 $71,588 $295,492 $0 $367,080
2014-15 $0 $584,942 $308,284 $0 $893,226
2015-16 $0 $881,454 $308,284 $0 $1,189,738
2016-17 $137,955 $997,207 $308,284 $137,955 $1,443,446
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
2017-18 $170,249 $997,207 $308,284 $170,249 $2,043,491
2018-19 $204,172 $997,207 $308,284 $204,172 $2,190,541
Totals $512,376 4,529,605 $1,587,578 $512,376 $8,587,578
Total unpaved road funds $5,041,981
1- Roads must carry 50 VPD or greater. 2- Roads must carry 200 VPD or greater.
Attachment A is the proposed Secondary System Six Year Construction Program, FY 14-19,
which applies the above noted projected funding to the County’s Priority List as agreed to by the Board on
May 1, 2013. Highlights from this program include:
Projects in the current SSYP:
Dry Bridge Road (Rt. 708) bridge replacement – advertised on 5/14/2013
Broomley Road bridge replacement – estimated advertisement date (EAD) 12/30/2014
Dick Woods Road bridge replacement – EAD 12/30/2014
Dickerson Road bridge replacement over the N. Fork Rivanna River – EAD is beyond the
six years of this SSYP
Pocket Lane Rural Rustic Road (RRR) paving project – EAD is beyond the six years of
this SSYP
Remove Bear Creek Road (Rt.774) RRR paving project due to high cost, construction
constraints, and low traffic count.
New road paving projects added in order to utilize the two categories of available unpaved road
funds:
Gillums Ridge Road (Rt. 787) RRR paving project, from paved section to Dry Bridge Road
–Midway Road (Rt. 688) RRR paving project, from Rt. 824 to Rt. 635
Keswick Drive (Rt. 731) RRR paving project, from Rt. 744 to Rt. 22
Rio Mills Road paving project, from paved section to US 29.
Doctors Crossing (Rt. 784), from Rt. 600 to Rrt. 640.
Regarding the Gillums Ridge Road paving project, the Board requested that the project be
constructed as soon as possible so paving would likely be completed when the Dry Bridge Road
bridge is closed for replacement. Additional traffic is anticipated on Gillums Ridge Road as a
detour route during the Dry Bridge Road closure. VDOT is hopeful that paving will take place no
later than July 2013. Due to the rapid turn-around for this project, the Board should be aware that
staff will not be able to provide the project notification and comment process normally used with
RRR projects. In order to expedite the project, the Board will need to adopt the attached resolution
designating Gillums Ridge Road as a Rural Rustic Road (Attachment D).
The SSYP process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT
secondary road construction funds and does not impact County funding.
The draft VDOT SSYP (Attachment A) is consistent with the County’s priorities for secondary road
improvements agreed to by the Board at its May 1, 2013 work session (Attachment B) and with the
projected amount and timing of available funding. After the public hearing, staff recommends that the
Board:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) approving the VDOT FY14-19 Secondary
Six Year Plan and the FY14 Construction Priority List and authorize the County Executive
to sign the SSYP; and
2. Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) designating Gillums Ridge, from Rt. 682 to
Rt. 708, as a Rural Rustic Road.
If further information is needed prior to an action, staff requests that the Board provide direction to
staff on the additional information it desires.
_____
Mr. Benish said Mr. Greg Banks and Mr. Joel DeNunzio, from VDOT, are also present to help with
the presentation and respond to questions. This is a public hearing on VDOT’s Six-Year Secondary Road
Plan (SSYP), to receive public comment on the proposed road improvements and to approve the plan. He
stated that the Board annually reviews a County Priority List for secondary road improvements, which is
attached to report. The County’s Priority List is used as the basis for the projects that enter into the VDOT
SSYP. Mr. Benish said that with the Board’s review of the County Plan in May, there were no major
changes proposed. The Board and staff discussed taking a more comprehensive review in re-examining
the priorities after the update of the Comprehensive Plan and the MPO’s LRTP. He stated that VDOT’s
draft SSYP is consistent with the priorities identified in the current plan.
Mr. Benish stated that one of the highlights in the plan this year is additional funding projected for
out-years of the SSYP and primarily set aside for unpaved roads. He said that there are two sources of
those funds, with each having different requirements as to how they are used. Mr. Benish presented a
table showing the total funds available for the six years, totaling $8.5 million, with $5 million for unpaved
roads. He said that staff has identified which projects are using which funding sources, and that is
included in their report. For example, in FY 2013-14, Midway Road paving will use a portion of the CTB
unpaved road funds.
Mr. Rooker noted that $2 million is being allocated for Dickerson Road, and asked if that included
the bridges. He said that he recalls the project to be about $10 million. Mr. Benish responded that the $2
million is for the bridge over the North Fork Rivanna River. The road paving project is a much more
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
expensive project. He said that for now, the bridge is entering into the plan. The short span over Jacob’s
Run was upgraded and is acceptable for now.
Ms. Mallek asked if what is currently there being replicated because it crosses a long stretch of
wetlands. Mr. Benish said VDOT needs to respond to that question. He said that he thinks the process is
too early because it only receives funding in the fifth and sixth year. He added that he thinks some
preliminary assessment has been done, but they are not at a design stage.
Mr. Benish then identified the projects for funding in VDOT’s SSYP. The first five projects are
bridge projects (Black Cat Road, Dry Bridge Road, Broomley Road and Dickerson), and one paving
project (Pocket Lane). Mr. Benish pointed out that all of those were in prior six-year plans and are
carryovers that are continuing to be funded. He stated that the new projects added this year are those
recommended by the Board and staff at the work session to utilize the available unpaved road funds
(Gillums Ridge Road, Rio Mills Road, Doctor’s Crossing, Midway Road and Keswick Drive). Mr. Benish
noted that Bear Creek Road was recommended for removal due to issues with a construction difficulty
and cost-benefit analysis.
He reported that the Board requested that VDOT construct the Gillums Ridge Road project as
soon as possible in order to time the paving with the closure of Dry Bridge Road for the bridge repairs
which is coming up in the near future. Mr. Benish said that VDOT is striving to get the road paved by the
end of July. One of the steps to expedite that process is a resolution designating Gillums Ridge Road as
a rural rustic road. He stated that due to that effort, it may be difficult for the County to do the normal
notification process for an unpaved road project which usually takes a month or two. He added that staff
has heard no opposition to paving that section of Gillums Ridge Road.
Ms. Mallek said that there were 15 or 20 people attending the Board’s last meeting on this item,
and they presented a petition.
Mr. Snow said that he continues to get emails and phone calls on the project.
Mr. Benish said that it might be a reasonable risk to take with this particular project to circumvent
the usual notification process.
Mr. Benish said the action being requested by the Board is to adopt the proposed resolution
approving the VDOT FY14-19 SSYP and to adopt the resolution designating Gillums Ridge Road as a
Rural Rustic Road.
Mr. Boyd asked why Gillums Ridge Road is on the list twice. Mr. Benish responded that it is a
typo. W hen the Board directed staff to do the project first, it was moved up but the lower priority listing
was never deleted.
Ms. Mallek asked about the status of Blufton Road. Mr. Benish stated that at the time of the
Board’s work session, there were still repairs that needed to be made. Staff felt that it needed to leave it
on the list until those were taken care of.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio said that Blufton Road is substantially complete. It was resurfaced about two
weeks earlier.
Mr. Boyd noted that the Gillums Ridge Road item said “unfunded” and has no amount next to it.
Mr. Benish explained that the list will be updated to reflect action taken by the Board tonight.
Mr. DeNunzio mentioned that Gillums Ridge Road is shown in VDOT’s proposed plan as fully
funded from previous funding left over from other projects.
Mr. Rooker said that at the Board’s last meeting about the road plan, the Board asked how all the
money got allocated to unpaved roads with almost nothing to the regular secondary program - $4.5 million
for unpaved versus $1.5 for secondary. He stated that Mr. DeNunzio had agreed to provide Board
members with a copy of the statute that specifically allocated the funds to unpaved as opposed to the
general secondary program.
Mr. DeNunzio said that he thought he had emailed that information, and would make sure to send
it if they have not received it.
Mr. Benish said that his understanding is that the intent is to address higher-volume unpaved
roads, and that was a priority for the CTB and part of the legislation that came out of the General
Assembly this year.
Ms. Mallek commented that there are apparently many counties that have the great predominance
of their roads being gravel.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that it seems that secondary road funds are quite meager by comparison.
Mr. Boyd said that there was some discrepancy with Doctors Crossing as to whether it all needs to
be done as one project, or whether some parts have already been done. Mr. Benish responded that it is
listed as 2.1 miles, based on a $350,000-$400,000 per mile cost estimate received a number of years
ago, with the assumption that all of VDOT’s work will be done by contract work. He said that VDOT now
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
has the opportunity to construct these in a more cost-efficient way, so the next step will be to revise the
cost estimate now that it has entered the plan.
Mr. Rooker noted that there is money allocated in the fourth and fifth years.
Mr. Boyd commented that it is difficult reading the plan and understanding that, so the public
certainly does, and they need to figure out an easier way to provide the information.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ronald Hahn said that he lives on White Mountain Road, Route 736, the worst road in
Albemarle County. He said that he has been in his home for 38 years and was told at that time they were
on the Six Year Plan to get it fixed. Mr. Hahn stated that VDOT has done some spot paving but that made
it worse, and everything seems to settle right in front of his driveway. It is just a terrible road. Mr. Hahn
said that for five years he has brought letters from the first and second responders from the Fire
Department indicating that it is impossible to get a fire truck up the road. He stated that everybody lives
off the road up their driveways, and the road is so narrow the fire trucks cannot turn to get up to the
houses. Mr. Hahn said that VDOT has spent twice the $5 million estimate he has heard for patching the
road over the last 38 years, and he would really like to see something done about the road. In February
he called VDOT and asked that they clean his drain so the debris could drain through the pipe instead of
washing out into the road. There have been numerous accidents on the road. Every turn is on a hill.
During the winter school buses have been stranded on the road. Some of these other unpaved roads on
the list look like interstate roads when compared to White Mountain Road.
Mr. Snow asked if Mr. Hahn had called him about the road. Mr. Hahn said that Mr. Snow visited
the road with him three or four years prior.
Mr. Snow asked him to call him again, and said he would come back. He added that he worked
with Mr. DeNunzio on getting the first part of the road paved, but it seems they didn’t pave far enough. Mr.
Hahn explained that the paving comes from his neighbor’s house, but VDOT stopped where the gravel
washes over his field, skipping that for about 40 feet, and then paved again.
Mr. Snow mentioned that there is a neighbor lady who is completely against the paving project.
Mr. Hahn stated that she gripes against it and wants grass to be planted in the road, but all the
other neighbors are in favor of the paving. He added that he would at least like for VDOT to go to the top
of the hill with the paving so everything doesn’t wash down onto his driveway, and that would only be
another 50-60 feet of paving.
Mr. Rooker said that could be a maintenance project, like the first paving done.
Mr. Snow explained that there were a lot of phone calls from two or three residents of that area
saying that they did not want the road improved, so Mr. DeNunzio documented why the repair was needed
and that’ i how it got done in the first place.
Mr. Hahn said that there are a few people against it, but everyone else wants it.
Ms. Jennifer Vidovich said that she lives on Doctors Crossing and is happy to see that it is on the
list for improvements. Ms. Vidovich said that it has been difficult finding information about the road, and
while Mr. Boyd has been helpful in pointing her in directions to try. Contacting VDOT is not as user-
friendly as she would like it to be. She stated that the road has degraded severely, and there are spots
that have rock outcroppings showing up so it is difficult to even grade it. Ms. Vidovich stated that she is
here in support of some kind of improvement, and offered her assistance as a community member . She
noted that the residents have their own website and could disseminate information. She said that the
maintenance on the road has not been good, and after storms the residents have to call to get it re-
graveled. Ms. Vidovich asked that they continue to be on the improvement list, stating that other residents
have told her that it was on the list but then moved down.
Mr. Rooker explained that the road has never been funded before. There was very little money to
allocate, but now they have more unpaved road funds available and it is identified for funding. He said
that the money comes from the state, and the State has been virtually eliminating transportation funds for
a number of years.
Mr. Boyd said that this road has been high on his priority list and they were keeping an eye on it.
He encouraged Ms. Vidovich to take some pictures after storms and share them with the Board.
Ms. Paula Brown Steedly said that she is also a resident of Doctors Crossing. W hen she moved
there 32 years ago she was told they had been on the list for 30 years. Ms. Steedly said that in 1986-88
she did a petition and gave the Board a second copy of it in 2005 when VDOT did the rural rustic roads.
The intent has always been for health and public safety. They have also been on the school list since
1986 when there was a two-bus incident that got her on the petition. She said that at that time there were
41 homes on the road, and paving was done for five-tenths of a mile, taking it down to 1.6 miles that
needs to be paved. Ms. Steedly said that in 2000, they had a 280 vehicle trip per day count on the road; in
2005 and 2010 they had five drainpipes put in that have not been taken off of the list for cost. She said
that in 2010 VDOT put in horse and tractor signs, as there are also people worried about the speed on the
road. Ms. Steedly said that in 2011, VDOT replaced the bridge so the school buses now meet weight
requirements and that price has also not come off of the bid. She stated that today they have more than
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
87 homes on that road, and the amount of traffic makes it impossible to maintain the road. Ms. Steedly
stated that the school bus has had to be pulled up the hill three times that she’s aware of, and has also hit
a stump and blown a tire with children on the bus. The road is not safe and it needs to be maintained
better. They are asking for immediate action. There have been repeated accidents, and indeed one of
their neighbors who is a nurse for Pegasus flipped his vehicle last month. She encouraged the Board to
fund this road faster, because being put on a list puts them where they have always been, on the bottom.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there is a significant difference” between the status of the road now
and where it was before, because up to now there were not funds to allocate. He said that the State
provides the money, and the Board has to take it and divide it up. The Board had virtually no money to
divide up over the last few years.
Ms. Steedly responded that she understood this, but in 2005 they were dropped off rural rustic
and told that their road was too bad and too dangerous to ever repair. She said that it took her until 2007
to get the documents from VDOT as to why the bridge was bid at $1.8 million, which threw the road off the
list. Ms. Steedly stated that the bid ended up at $933,000, and in 2009 she was told that the drainpipes
had not been put in. She said that five items she mentioned to Mr. DeNunzio have not been done, such
as trimming back the trees and bushes along the road so that vehicles have better visibility.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that there have been concerns about speed, and that will probably increase
once the paving is done.
Ms. Steedly said that from the bridge east to Gilbert’s Station Road there is no opposition to the
paving, but there is some concern about speed and she would like to see it dropped even further than the
35-mph level Delegates Toscano and Bell were able to get. The road is not posted with any speed limit
signs.
Mr. Boyd reiterated that there has not been money available to address these conditions, and now
there is some so the Board will work very hard on the improvements. He added that it will be important to
get an updated cost estimate from VDOT because of the improvements that have been done already.
Mr. James Jackson, Jr., said that he has lived at 3214 Doctors Crossing for 23 years. He said
that one of the drainpipes VDOT put in dumps gravel and silt on his driveway, which has backed up his
drain and runs across his field. Mr. Jackson said all of the residents on the road are subject to the dust,
and the gravel is full of carcinogenics, and school children who have to stand there will pay the price in 20
years or so. They must do something to protect the children and their safety on the road. He stated that
there is no gravel there, and as soon as VDOT grades it, it rains and turns to mud. Mr. Jackson appealed
to the Board’s better nature to help the resdients out as soon as some funding is available.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt the proposed resolution approving the VDOT FY14-19 Secondary Six
Year Plan and the FY14 Construction Priority List and to authorize the County Executive to sign the SSYP,
as presented at this hearing. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
ABSENT: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-23.4 provides the opportunity for each county to work with the
Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Secondary Six-Year Road Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board has previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this Plan, in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation policies and procedures, and participated in a
public hearing on the proposed Plan (FY 14-19) as well as the Construction Priority List (FY14) on June
12, 2013, after duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said
hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed Plan and Priority List;
and
WHEREAS, Joel Denunzio, the Resident Administrator of the Virginia Department of
Transportation, appeared before the Board and recommended approval of the Six -Year Plan for
Secondary Roads (FY14-19) and the Construction Priority List (FY14) for the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Secondary Six Year Plan (FY14-19) and the Construction Priority List (FY14), as
presented at the June 12, 2013 public hearing, are in the best interest of the County and of the citizens of
the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby approves the Secondary Six-Year
Plan (FY14-19) and the Construction Priority List (FY14) as presented at the June 12, 2013 public hearing,
and authorizes the County Executive to sign the Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the clerk of the Board shall forward a certified copy of this
resolution to the District Administrator of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
_____
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Snow then moved to adopt the proposed resolution designating Gillums Ridge, from Route
682 to Route 708, as a Rural Rustic Road. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
ABSENT: None.
RESOLUTION
Rural Rustic Road Designation, Portion of Gillums Ridge Road
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-70.1 permits the improvement and hard surfacing of certain
unpaved roads deemed to qualify for designation as a Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, any such road must be located in a low-density development area and have no more
than 1500 vehicle trips per day; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (“Board”) desires to consider
whether Route 787, Gillums Ridge Road, from Route 682 to Route 708, should be designated a Rural
Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, the Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the
existing traffic on this road; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that this road should be designated as a Rural Rustic Road due
to its qualifying characteristics; and
WHEREAS, this road is in the Board’s six-year plan for improvements to the secondary system
of state highways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby designates Gillums Ridge Road
from Route 682 to Route 708 as a Rural Rustic Road, and requests that the District Administrator of the
Virginia Department of Transportation concur in this designation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board requests that Gillums Ridge Road from Route 682
to Route 708 be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right of
way and ditch-lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural
rustic character along the road in their current state.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board shall forward a certified copy of this
Resolution to the District Administrator of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
_____
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to add White Mountain Road to the list.
Mr. Benish pointed out that White Mountain Road is already on the regular road paving list. It is
the sixth highest priority, and because it is on this list it means that it has been determined not to be
eligible for rural rustic road funding which may be a complication to getting the work done. He suggested
that staff work with VDOT to reassess the road and see about its eligibility. In the interim, Mr. DeNunzio
can determine if any additional maintenance improvements can be done. Mr. Benish clarified that one
section of the road does not have the traffic count necessary to meet the VDOT requirements for paving,
but other sections have up to 230 vehicle trips on them.
Mr. Snow said that for White Mountain Road, the idea is to extend the paving to the top of the one
hill mentioned by the speaker. He explained that the area one-third of the way down the hill got paved the
previous fall.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that another section down another grade towards the curve was done a few
years earlier also. VDOT can look at the erosion to see what it can do on that other section.
Mr. Snow said that VDOT paved up to Mr. Hahn’s driveway, but once you get past the driveway it
is not much further to the top of that hill. Mr. DeNunzio responded that it has been a while since he’s been
out there, but will check it out again. He added that it is very difficult to establish ditches on a road that
does not have already ditches and they have a narrow road to work with. He also added that unpaved
road funds are not just rural rustic roads, such as the case with Rio Mills Road. The road may not qualify
for the rural rustic program but it still applies to unpaved road funds.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Benish commented that it is a lot more expensive, typically.
Mr. Benish said that Rio Mills is the top priority on the unpaved roads list. Staff can continue to
work with VDOT on other options for White Mountain Road.
Mr. Boyd asked if there will be funding for Doctors Crossing in this round. Mr. DeNunzio said that
it has funding allocated to it.
Mr. Boyd said that there are people who have been “on the list” for 60+ years.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Mallek asked if being second on the list means the road will get the improvements this year or
next year, etc. Mr. Benish said that Doctors Crossing is shown in FY18-19 to begin receiving funding, and
they have to use the secondary unpaved road funds because the traffic volume is lower than 200 trips per
day.
Mr. Boyd said that he finds it hard to believe there are less than 200 trips per day, with 89 homes
on the road. He asked when the traffic count was done. Mr. Benish responded that staff will check the
data for the traffic counts, but as of now the secondary unpaved road funds will not be received until FY
2016-17.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there is not much received when the County gets the funds anyway,
about $150,000 a year total for all roads in that category.
Mr. Boyd also mentioned that the schools have also requested improvements for that road, as it
has been identified as a dangerous road for school buses.
Ms. Mallek expressed confusion about the timing, because she thought the rural rustic money
was starting in July. Mr. Benish explained that the CTB funds require at least 200 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Rooker said that what Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mallek are saying is that it seems impossible to have
less than 200 vehicle trips per day on that road based on the number of houses. Mr. DeNunzio responded
that VDOT is still showing 130 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Rooker commented that they need to get a traffic counter on the road to see if it qualifies for
the rural rustic category.
Ms. Mallek said that is probably the case with many of the roads on the list. She said that she
hopes they can update the numbers in general so the Board can make some good decisions based upon
real facts. Mr. DeNunzio explained that typically, secondary roads are counted at least every three years
and projected for the two years they are not counted. VDOT needs to look specifically at the data, when
the count was done previously.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. DeNunzio to get back to him on that data.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. DeNunzio to share any new information on other roads with Board
members as well.
Mr. Benish noted that the information is updated annually and incorporates any new information.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is any emergency type funding available, given the situation with school
buses. It sounds like something the Board needs to deal with sooner than later. Mr. DeNunzio said that
he will look into it.
Mr. Benish said another option is to move it ahead of Pocket Lane, which was prioritized ahead of
Doctors Crossing.
Mr. Snow asked about the comments that the estimate was inaccurate. Mr. Benish replied that
the estimate is based on a multiplier number and not based on the scoped project.
Mr. DeNunzio said that the numbers on the County priority plan are based on mileage. The rural
rustic portion no longer includes the bridge; the $900,000 is based on the length of the road. It is his
understanding that about one-half mile of the steep section to the north has paving on it, which will be
accounted for in VDOT’s scoping. He explained that the Board prioritize the rural rustic projects, as they
are now, and VDOT will fund them from the top down. As they go from year to year, he said, they will take
any balance and roll it over to move projects to make the list go faster. VDOT’s plan is to continue to do
that. As they get four roads out of the way next year and completed, VDOT will look at leftover balances,
and shift those to the County’s next priorities.
Mr. Snow asked what VDOT is currently spending on Doctors Crossing yearly. Mr. DeNunzio said
he does not currently have a maintenance estimate on Doctors Crossing. He added that gravel roads are
very high maintenance. He mentioned that about 200 miles out of Albemarle’s 800 secondary roads are
still unpaved, which accounts for some of the allocation.
Ms. Mallek comm ented that she is reluctant to spend $500,000 on Rio Mills Road since it is right
in the path of a lot of possible construction when the Board could do other projects with that money. For
the second year, it is hogging the top of the list.
Mr. Thomas said that he has been trying for two years now to get the trucks from the quarry to go
back to Route 29, so he would like to keep Rio Mills where it is on the list.
Ms. Mallek said that the trucks are using it very effectively now and once it is paved, they will
break it up. She said that she sees them using the road because she travels it on a regular basis.
Mr. Thomas said trucks are hardly ever using it.
Ms. Mallek said that Rio Mills is on the list for four years and will be eating up most of the funding
during that time.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Boyd emphasized that it is very important that the Board get one single source of documents
that show true allocations and funding, as the charts can be very confusing.
Mr. Benish said that the chart that shows funding is the Six-Year Plan that the Board just adopted.
The other list is the Board’s priority list. The reason the list looks so complicated is because over the
years the Board has asked for information about cost estimates, sources of funding, etc. He stated that
over the summer, staff intends to create a new priority list for both primary and secondary road plans as
just one list for all priorities for road projects, so it is simpler to understand what the most important
projects are given limited funding. Mr. Benish said that might address some of the complications, and
what gets confusing to the public is that Albemarle has a much larger priority list than most other localities
have, as they simply use VDOT’s Six-Year Plan as their priority list. Albemarle has a list that has 50 years
of road improvements on it. Staff recognizes the complications with the list and the amount of information
included. Staff hopes to come back to the Board around September with a new form that creates a
master priority list for projects.
Mr. Rooker said the advantage of this list is that it includes a lot of information. He has always
found the list to be helpful because it gives a lot of history.
Mr. Boyd said that he likes the history and the fact they show people where they are on the priority
list, but when the information is outdated it does not become very much help.
Mr. Rooker said that the traffic counts are done every three years, with two years of estimates.
He said that this is simply the best information they have, and it is not egregiously outdated.
Mr. Benish reiterated that staff is working to simplify the format, which will help the Board, public
and staff.
(The approved VDOT FY14-19 Secondary Six Year Plan is set out below:)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
(The approved FY14 Construction Priority List is set out below:)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
Agenda Item No. 12. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Snow asked if the extra funding for additional police officers would begin the first of July,
stating that he received an email from Chief Sellers that he was really under the gun with not having
enough officers. Mr. Foley responded, “yes”. He added that the Chief is having trouble filling some
positions currently. There are new officers approved in the budget. That is a continuing effort staff plans
to talk to the Board in terms of level of funding. He noted that staff will discuss this further at the Board’s
strategic retreat this summer, including the geo-policing effort and how to sustain funding.
Mr. Rooker stated that Chief Sellers has not filled all of the positions because of other issues, so
he is more “under the gun” because he is down some officers, not because he is underfunded.
Mr. Snow said that he is just seeking some clarification to determine if there is a way for the Board
to help him.
Mr. Foley mentioned that he and Chief Sellers have discussed the possibility of doing some “over-
hire” of police officers, as they have done with Fire and Rescue. They are working to assist the Chief so
that he is not always down some officers. A higher staffing level will probably give him some more
flexibility, but they will talk about it at the retreat.
_____
Mr. Snow said that he was aware of the possibility of another derecho, and said that his
constituents have asked what the County is doing to get prepared.
Mr. Foley explained that every public safety agency and everyone involved in emergency
management have been put on alert for this. They are a few steps ahead of the Board because they are
getting some direct contact from the State. There is sort of a high level of alert on that because the
conditions do not look good.
Mr. Snow asked what high level of alert means. Mr. Foley responded that it means that the
Emergency Management Coordinator, Kirby Felts, is informing all public safety agencies that they need to
put their staff on alert to be prepared in the event of an incident. It is not a lot more than a state of
readiness and a notice to all public safety folks to be prepared for that. Mr. Foley noted that the power
companies have been sending emails out as well.
Mr. Snow said that he has received an email from Larry Jackson at AEP also.
_____
Ms. Mallek asked for the Board’s feedback on the wi-fi issue, and the fact that the schools is not
taking the issue as seriously as some might. She stated that several years ago the schools were reluctant
to make changes to the Safer Chemical Policy until the Board stepped up and said it was important to
constituents, at which time, they made changes.
Mr. Rooker said that he would be interested in getting more information about it and perhaps
meeting with the School Board, having them bring in one or more representative from their Health
Advisory Committee. He stated that he has no expertise in this area, but from what he has seen the
radiation received from a cell phone to your ear is generally a lot greater than being in a room that has wi-
fi available, yet most parents are buying their children cell phones. Mr. Rooker said that there is wi-fi field
when you walk on the Downtown Mall, wireless in the County building, etc. It is a huge, broad issue, and it
might be a good idea to meet with the School Board to get an explanation of what they did, get their
findings and why they came to the conclusion they did.
Mr. Boyd suggested having the School Board’s Health Advisory Committee put on a Board
agenda to come in and explain it, rather than trying to coordinate with the whole School Board. Mr.
Rooker agreed with starting with that idea.
Mr. Snow likened it to the chloramines issue.
Ms. Mallek said that it is different when you have children with developing brains and all-day
exposure. She thinks that Mr. Boyd’s suggestion to have the committee come in is excellent. She added
that she does not want to just ignore the issue.
Mr. Thomas agreed to go ahead with the meeting, but he sits in a business with wi-fi all day long.
Mr. Rooker said that it is pervasive today and may be a health issue.
_____
Ms. Mallek asked if the County has the legal ability to set hours of operation for construction
projects, such as work in an existing neighborhood where new homes are being built. Mr. Davis
responded that the County does not, but it does have the ability to regulate noise. The County does not
have the ability to restrict construction activity that otherwise would be permitted there.
Ms. Mallek said that in Arlington, they say “no work on Sundays,” and mentioned that the infill in
Crozet is generating some of the concern. The problem is new construction being added on to an older
existing neighborhood.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Davis mentioned that in Arlington, all of the development is approved by special use permit,
which is how they impose those conditions. He stated that if it is a private development with covenants
through a homeowners association, they could certainly be enforced, but typically they would have to
anticipate the problems at the time the plats are recorded for the subdivision.
Mr. Thomas mentioned a situation whereby a developer was building 39 homes, and the residents
of Stonehenge were being awakened early in the morning. The developer volunteered not to start any
work until 7:00 a.m., but the County did not tell him he had to.
Mr. Davis said that under the noise ordinance, there are restrictions based on noise levels with
acceptable timeframes built in.
_____
Ms. Mallek said she would like to get some information on the change in the way Fire Marshals
are assessing fees for inspection of gas tanks and facilities. She said that she received calls from smaller
rural gas stations, who indicated they were told the changes were made five years ago. Ms. Mallek asked
if it might be possible to have a tiered fee depending on the number of pumps. She then asked for
clarification as to why station owners were being asked to pay ahead instead of after the inspection is
made.
_____
Ms. Mallek said there is just one neighborhood left to sign the petition for “no through trucks” on
Earlysville Road, with 15 neighborhoods having completed them.
_____
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Davis if the County now has the ability to change the decibel levels for
operation, or if that is specified by State law.
Mr. Davis responded that the noise levels are not specified by State law, and the 55/60 standard
is a pretty normal standard found in most ordinances. The issue can be reviewed and changed as a local
option.
_____
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Benish to add bicycle lane improvements on Garth Road to his list of items,
given the large number of commuters and recreational users on that road. She noted that it is probably
more of a Comp Plan item, but there is apparently outside funding for that type of improvement.
Mr. Snow said that he just went through this with Route 250, and they are putting the shrills in
from Ednam into Charlottesville, but Mr. DeNunzio has indicated that there needs to be a speed limit of 35
mph on the road.
Ms. Mallek said that Garth Road is a little bit different because of the lack of shoulders.
Mr. Rooker stated that he has raised this issue for years, and would love to see a much better
bike situation along Garth Road, as it is on the 1776 national bike map, and is a great ride to go toward
the mountains. But, the cost is extraordinary because they do not have the right of way. When driving
through that area, drivers are kind of on the road or in a ditch because of the lack of a shoulder. He said
that several years ago, he got VDOT to pave the shoulders when they repaved the roads so at least the
part down to the bridge at Ivy Creek would have something. Mr. Rooker stated that VDOT cannot call
anything a bike lane unless it meets all requirements, so there have been other efforts to get some type of
lane for bicycles. There are trees in areas right beside the road. He said that it would cost millions and
millions to put bike lanes on both sides of that road.
Mr. Davis noted that Garth Road is a prescriptive easement.
Mr. Benish said that Garth Road has been identified in the County’s bicycle plan as a road for
improvement to the extent feasible, but staff will make sure that it stays that way in the updated plan.
Ms. Mallek stated that Mr. Brent Sprinkle and the bike person at VDOT mentioned that they could
allocate end-of-year money to something like this for safety projects.
Mr. Rooker said they would probably have to look at segments that make sense, not the whole
road.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley reported that the Airport Authority met earlier today to review the rest of the information
from assessments of home damage. He received a report that he will be glad to share with Board
members. He stated that they were still waiting for information as to the effects of multiple blasting over
time. Mr. Foley reported that the evaluation that was done did not indicate that the reviewing experts felt
that the blasting had caused any structural or cosmetic damages. The report includes both summary and
back-up information.
He also said that the blasting of three to four times per week at the Airport is expected to be
completed by the end of June, and after that there will be lower level blasts one to two times per week.
June 12, 2013 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Foley stated that he shared the Board’s resolution with the Authority earlier that day, so
everyone is now aware that any future projects requiring blasting will necessitate a process that goes
through the Authority and to the Board, and City Council is considering a similar resolution.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was any ripple effect on the current project there, and whether it would
affect the insurance claims against the contractors, as this was an Airport assessment.
Mr. Foley clarified that the Airport hired the consultants to do this work, and there were some
questions raised about the independence of the consultants. He said that the Delta construction
consultants hired some other consultants to do the assessments, and they are two separate companies.
Mr. Foley noted that they had not been part of the project prior to that, and all of this information is
included in the report. He also stated that the process for handling claims is being outlined based upon
the contracts that exist by the attorney for the Airport Authority. He added that he will report on this in the
future.
_____
Mr. Davis noted that the Circuit Court entered the W rit of Election to order the special election for
the Scottsville District to be held on the general election date on November 5, so that matter is now
proceeding forward legally.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn.
At 8:44 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 08/14/2013
Initials: EWJ