2001-02-14February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February
14, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7:08 p.m.), Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.,
Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m., by the Chairman,
Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Martin, to approve Items 5.1 (with the recommended additions) and 5.2 and to accept 5.3 as information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 5.1. Route 29 South Corridor Study Endorsement.
The executive summary states that VDOT is in the process of conducting the Route 29 South
Corridor Study. On January 18, 2001, VDOT held a public information meeting at Red Hill
Elementary School.
Staff has developed the following comments/recommendations regarding the Rt. 29 South
Corridor Study:
·
The area along the Rt. 29 South Corridor is NOT in the County's Development area. Data developed by
the consultant and verified by the County does NOT project significant development in this area of the
County through the study period. Therefore, the County does NOT believe controlled access through
elimination of all individual access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized
intersections should be assumed as necessary for Albemarle County. The County DOES support the
coordination of land use planning and transportation system planning through specifically incorporating
the access management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study into the planning for the Route
29 South corridor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Albemarle County believes that access
management planning is a logical and viable recommendation for the Route 29 corridor south of
Charlottesville. Through proper planning that balances land use and transportation priorities in the
particular sections of the corridor in the County, appropriate access management measures can be
identified and pursued.
·
Use the "Parkway" design cross-section in Albemarle County, WITHOUT service roads and limited
access which should NOT be used in Albemarle County. Under NO scenario should the "Freeway"
design concept be used in Albemarle County. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that signalization of
intersections will be necessary in Albemarle County, but in NO case is reservation for interchanges at any
Albemarle County intersections necessary.
·
Remove the term "to extent practical " from any Comprehensive Plan references in the guidelines for
developing alternatives.
·
Double-track the rail line in the corridor to provide increased capacity for freight and passenger service.
·
Support one additional AMTRAK train per day along the entire corridor as well as the new Trans-
Dominion Express service between Charlottesville and Lynchburg. Make sure that references to the
Trans-Dominion Express reflect its current status.
·
Include a park and ride facility at the intersection of Routes 29 and 6 to the list of recommended facilities.
This would replace the current informal parking that is occurring at this location.
·
Emphasize that transit and pedestrian improvements need to be coordinated and connected to make
these alternatives successful in the corridor.
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
·
Include transit with ride-share for internet match systems.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse the comments/recommendations
above concerning the Rt. 29 South Corridor Study and forward them to VDOT in the form of a
resolution.
Ms. Humphris said this item is listed as the Route 29 South Corridor Study Endorsement, but she
(
does not know if the Board intends to endorse the Study as it is currently proposed. The staff’s work was
very well done, but she suggested that consideration be given to adding two other comments. The first
should note that neither through traffic data nor identifiable safety concerns justify the huge expense of the
proposal. Secondly, she suggested that the cost for Albemarle County should be shown, so the cost
benefit can be known. She pointed out that the cost is not broken down by different areas.
Mr. Dorrier recalled that this item was recently discussed by the Board members, and he wondered
if it was coming back to them again. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Board will have one more chance to
talk about the matter. This discussion is just to get comments after the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that if this resolution is not sent to VDoT, the comment VDoT made
indicating that its plans would fit in nicely with the County’s Comprehensive Plan would probably be
retained. She said the comment was in error as far as this Board is concerned. Mr. Cilimberg concurred
that a statement should be made at this time about the matter.
Ms. Humphris referred to VDoT representatives’ remarks that they had requested information from
Albemarle County and had received none. She found this very hard to believe since Mr. Cilimberg and Ms.
Thomas have been so involved with the issue.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) recently held public information
workshops on the Route 29 Corridor Development Study (Project: 6029-963-F01, PE-100, From I-64 To:
North Carolina State Line) which includes the counties of Amherst, Nelson, Albemarle, Pittsylvania and
Campbell; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of these workshops was to provide citizens an opportunity to informally
review and discuss with VDOT representatives draft recommendations for the Route 29 Corridor Study, to
include areas of concern, and current and future modes of transportation; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the County of Albemarle had an opportunity to review and
discuss the Route 29 South Corridor with VDOT representatives;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby provide the following comments and/or recommendations regarding the Route 29
South Corridor Study:
·
The area along the Route 29 South Corridor is not in the County's Development area. Data developed by
the consultant and verified by the County does not project significant development in this area of the
County through the study period. Therefore, the County does not believe controlled access through
elimination of all individual access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized
intersections should be assumed as necessary for either Albemarle County or VDOT. The County does
support the coordination of land use planning and transportation system planning through specifically
incorporating the access management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study into the planning
for the Route 29 South corridor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Albemarle County believes
that access management planning is a logical and viable recommendation for the Route 29 corridor
south of Charlottesville. Through proper planning that balances land use and transportation priorities in
the particular sections of the corridor in the County, appropriate access management measures can be
identified and pursued.
·
Use the "Parkway" design cross-section in Albemarle County, without service roads and limited access
which should not be used in Albemarle County. Under no scenario should the "Freeway" design concept
be used in Albemarle County. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that signalization of intersections will be
necessary in Albemarle County, but in no case is reservation for interchanges at any Albemarle County
intersections necessary.
·
Remove the term "to extent practical " from any Comprehensive Plan references in the guidelines for
developing alternatives.
·
Double-track the rail line in the corridor to provide increased capacity for freight and passenger service.
·
Support one additional AMTRAK train per day along the entire corridor as well as the new Trans-
Dominion Express service between Charlottesville and Lynchburg. Make sure that references to the
Trans-Dominion Express reflect its current status.
·
Include a park and ride facility at the intersection of Routes 29 and 6 to the list of recommended facilities.
This would replace the current informal parking that is occurring at this location.
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
·
Emphasize that transit and pedestrian improvements need to be coordinated and connected to make
these alternatives successful in the corridor.
·
Include transit with ride-share for internet match systems.
·
Neither through-traffic data nor identifiable safety concerns justifies the huge expense of this
proposal.
·
The study should show the cost for Albemarle County's portion so that cost benefits can be
determined.
__________
Item No. 5.2. Resolution of Intent to initiate zoning map amendment to establish R-1 Residential
District on property (Tax Map 76A, Parcel J3) without zoning district.
The executive summary states that A special use permit application has been received that
proposes to replace an existing light standard at Klockner Stadium for a structure that would support the
joint County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia and C/A Airport Authority regional
800 MHz public-safety radio equipment. In processing this application, it was learned that the property is
not zoned. Owned by the University of Virginia, the 30.4-acre property contains Klockner Stadium, a track
field, a baseball field, the U-Hall building, and the Frank McCue building.
Staff proposes that a resolution of intent be approved for the County of Albemarle to establish an
R-1 Residential District on property currently not zoned. The basis for this recommendation is as follows;
1. The establishment of a zoning district would allow processing of a special use permit application for
one of six emergency communications towers;
2. The communication tower would not be used exclusively by the University of Virginia; therefore, a
zoning district designation is required;
3. The R-1 Residential District would be consistent with the R-1 zoning on other University property in
the immediate vicinity;
4. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan identifies this area as Development Area with a
Public/Semi-Public: U (University of Virginia) designation.
5. The University properties do not have a separate, exclusive zoning designation.
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Intent to initiate an R-1 Residential
District zone on Tax Map 76A Parcel J3 by the County of Albemarle.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, airspace superjacent to land owned by the Commonwealth's of Virginia or any other political
jurisdiction occupied by a nonpolitical entity or person is subject to the regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance that would apply if the land was owned by a private person; and
WHEREAS, a 30.4 acre tract of land (Tax Map 76A Parcel J3) containing Klockner Stadium, University Hall,
the Frank McCue Building, and the University of Virginia’s baseball field and track and field facilities
on the campus of the University of Virginia are not currently zoned, and no use of the tract may be
lawfully made by any person or entity which is subject to the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the County has received an application for a special use permit proposing to replace an
existing light standard at Klockner stadium with a structure that would support equipment for an 800
MHz public safety telecommunications system; and
WHEREAS, although the proposed telecommunications system will be owned and used by the County of
Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia, the County subjects its own
projects and the projects of other political subdivisions to the applicable regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the zoning map by zoning the 30.4 acre tract of land to the R-1,
Residential District, which is the zoning district on other University of Virginia land in the vicinity, is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and would allow the above-referenced application to be
processed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend the zoning map and zone the above-referenced tract of land to R-1,
Residential District or another appropriate zoning district; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this resolution
of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
__________
Item No. 5.3. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for November 28 (revised), and December
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
12, 2000; January 9 (revised), January 16 (revised) January 23 (draft) and January 30 (draft), 2001, were
received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2000-58. Northside Community Fellowship Church of the Nazarene
(Sign #77). PUBLIC HEARING on a request for an 11,200 sq ft church bldg, to be constructed in 3 phases
on a 9.92 ac P. A waiver from the critical slopes requirements, as set forth in §18.4.2 of the Zoning Ord,
has also been requested. Znd RA. TM 21, P 11A. Located on Dickerson Rd (St Rt 606), W of St Rt 29, &
S of border w/Greene County. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on January 29 and
February 5, 2001.)
(Mr. Bowerman arrived at 7:08 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg said this request would allow for the first of
three phases of development for the Northside Community Fellowship Church of the Nazarene. This
phase would be for slightly over an 11,000 square foot building, 101 parking spaces and outdoor
recreational areas. He stated that it is in a mixed rural agricultural and residential area with unimproved
wooded parcels. There is also another church close by as well as the G. E. Fanuc facility. In an effort to
keep some of the natural characteristics of the property, church representatives are agreeing to retain trees
and plantings that are located on the north, west and south property lines in a natural wooded state. He
said an existing driveway on the north side of the property would be closed and replaced by an entrance on
the southern portion of the property. The applicant has agreed to install additional landscaping along the
driveway and the parking lot to mitigate any tree removal along State Route 606.
Mr. Cilimberg said VDoT representatives have commented that they have determined State Route
606 to be a non-tolerable gravel road, and a condition of approval requires a 25-foot right-of-way dedication
along the Route 606 frontage in the event of detour improvements. The anticipated result of this additional
traffic on Route 606 would be increased rutting and dust on the unpaved road, so another condition of
approval requires that the applicant surface the roadway from just beyond the proposed church entrance
southward to the end of the existing asphalt surface. There is also a condition of approval limiting the size
of the congregation to 200 people which is the number that can be accommodated with the number of
seats proposed with this application.
Mr. Cilimberg said the request originally went to the Planning Commission on December 12, 2000,
and the Commission deferred the item until January 9, 2001 in order to provide an opportunity for the
applicant and staff to discuss unresolved issues. Staff and the applicant met and resolved the issues
related to the project and certain conditions were recommended. On January 9, 2001, the Commission
recommended approval of the proposal with the 12 conditions that are set out in the Executive Summary
provided for this meeting. He pointed out that the Commission also directed the staff to finalize language
for condition #5 before this Board’s review. The language has been finalized by the Planning and Zoning
staff members and reflects the intent of the Commission. He then noted that condition #2, relating to the
length of time for which the church can begin construction as well as meeting Health Department
requirements, is awkwardly worded and probably doesn’t fit the intent. In talking to the Zoning staff
members, they have indicated that the condition could probably be removed because it will happen anyway
as part of the normal requirement of special use permits. At this time, Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the
recommended condition #2 be removed. Although, the staff can provide rewording of the condition, if the
Board would like for it to be included.
Ms. Humphris said she did not quite understand condition #2, since the two things mentioned do
not necessarily fit together. She wondered, though, if the two ideas should be left intact. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that he can provide wording to clarify the condition. He reiterated that the things mentioned in the
condition happen as part of the special use permit, and usually this type of condition is not listed. Normally
there is a reference to the number of years only if it is something different from the special use permit
requirement.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg if he would state the new language. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that condition #2 should read, “The length of time within which the church may begin construction shall be
two years from the date of approval of this special use permit. All Health Department requirements shall be
satisfied at the time of issuance of the building permit.”
Ms. Humphris suggested including condition #2 with the new language.
Ms. Thomas referred to condition #5 relating to after dark use of the play area. She asked if after
dark use is different than before dark use. She read the condition several times and could not make sense
of it, and she inquired if there was other wording that could help the intent of the condition. Ms. Humphris
wondered if the words, “after dark,” could be eliminated. Mr. Cilimberg concurred that these words could
be removed. The condition would then state, “Use of the play area designated temporary playground (on
plan from Gloeckner Engineering, revised date October 27, 2000) shall be permitted until no later than
10:00 p.m.” He went on to say the condition had to do with the lighting issue.
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would like to address the Board.
Mr. Ray Stark, Pastor of the Northside Community Fellowship Church, stated that the intent of
condition #5 only meant that there should not be any use of the playground after 10:00 p.m. He said he
appreciated the clarification. He added that he would also like to clarify condition # 1 relating to the
limitation on the seating capacity of the church of 200 people. There are plans to expand the church in the
future, and church representatives will go through this process again for any future expansion. The
application is straightforward, and he is agreeable to all the conditions. He added that it would be helpful if
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
the application could get final approval administratively to speed up the process.
Ms. Thomas explained that unless the Planning Commission requests something else, final
approval is usually handled administratively. There have been no such requests from the Commission. Mr.
Cilimberg concurred.
Next, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Ms. Thomas
closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris referred to Reverend Stark’s comment about future expansion. She added that she
wanted to make sure church representatives understand the reason for the 200 seating capacity limitation
now and the fact that the issue will have to come back to County officials if there is an expansion of the
church. She explained that, in the meantime, there could be a change in the adequacy of the road or the
water and sewage situation. All of these things need to be considered if there is going to be more than a
200 persons seating capacity.
At this time, Mr. Perkins offered a motion for approval of SP-2000-58 Northside Community
Fellowship Church with the twelve conditions as amended. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.Church development shall be limited to the Phase I improvements, as shown on the Site Plan
dated September 18, 2000, and labeled Northside Comm. Fellowship Church. The number of
seats shall be limited to two hundred (200). Any future expansions of the facility or of the seating
shall require an amendment to the special use permit;
2.The length of time within which the church may begin construction shall be two (2) years from the
date of approval of this special use permit. All Health Department requirements shall be satisfied
at the time of the issuance of building permits;
3.Commercial setback standards (50 feet for rear and sides), as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the
Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, for side and rear setbacks adjacent to rural areas shall be
maintained;
4.All exterior light fixtures, regardless of lumens, shall be fully shielded and arranged or directed to
reflect light away from adjoining rural area property and away from adjacent streets. A fully
shielded fixture means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal.
The applicant should be mindful of the County’s intent to have multiple, shorter light poles used on
this site as opposed to fewer, taller poles;
5.Use of the play area designated temporary playground (on plan from Gloeckner Engineering,
revised date October 27, 2000) shall be permitted until no later than 10:00 p.m.;
6.Subject to the approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall surface the roadway from just beyond the proposed
church entrance southward to the end of the existing asphalt surface. The length of the roadway
surfacing would be approximately six hundred (600) feet;
7.Clearing of trees for the parking area, driveway, play areas and church shall be kept at the
minimum required for the improvements. Tree protection measures shall be employed in order to
minimize damage to tree roots;
8.Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment;
9.Trees and plant material shall not be disturbed within twenty-five (25) feet of the west, north, and
south property line buffers;
10. A required landscape plan shall include soil erosion mitigation measures within the critical slope
that includes the installation of trees, shrubs and groundcovers;
11. An additional twenty-five (25) percent landscaping materials above the minimum required
landscaping materials shall be installed within the parking area, to offset removal of trees and plant
material along State Route 606 and the interior of the site. The additional landscaping shall consist
of a mixture of evergreen and deciduous plant materials; and
12. A twenty-five (25) foot dedication for right-of-way shall be required along the State Route 606
property frontage.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2000-61. Chapman Grove Baptist Church Foyer Addition
(Sign #82). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow changes & additions to the church entry, including a
ramp & a handicapped accessible restroom. TM 62 P 67, contains 0.82 acs. Located on Stony Point Rd
(Rt 20) approx 0.1 mls from Rt 769. Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on January
29 and February 5, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said SP-2000-61 is a proposal to add a vestibule and handicapped-access ramp to
an existing church building. He pointed out an illustration of the addition which was located on a wall behind
the Board members. The property is located on Route 20 approximately one-tenth of a mile north of the
intersection with Route 769, St. Vincennes Road. There will be no significant impacts on adjacent
properties, since the existing church is an established structure in the community. The rural character of
the area will not change because of the proposal, and the special use permit for the church will not change
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
the historic level of use on the site as far as creating new impacts of health, safety or welfare. The staff and
Planning Commission have both recommended approval of SP-2000-61. However, condition #1 should be
revised as it was for SP-2000-58 to reflect the change to the two sentences to note the period of time the
church must begin construction and the requirement to satisfy Health Department regulations for issuance
of the building permit.
There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board, so Ms. Thomas opened the public
hearing and asked if the applicant would like to make comments.
Ms. Molly Feggans, a Trustee at Chapman Grove Baptist Church, stated that the foyer needs to be
enlarged because it is too small to get caskets in and out of the church when funerals are taking place.
She noted that a handicapped accessible bathroom is also desired.
At this time, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing, since no one else came forward to speak.
Mr. Martin then moved approval of SP-2000-61, subject to conditions #2 and #3. He
recommended deletion of condition #1 since it is already required. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through an amendment to this permit; and
2.The number of seats permitted within the area of assembly shall not increase, unless by an
amendment to this special permit.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2000-62. Millstone Preschool Expansion (Sign #88, 89). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow expansion of an existing daycare center. TM 58, Ps 37 & 37C2, contains
approx 5.086 acs. Located on Morgantown Rd (St Rt 738) next to Murray Elementary School. Znd RA.
Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg distributed the action letter for SP-2000-62 which outlines all of the conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The proposal would allow the construction of a 3,400 square
foot building to expand an existing preschool. The expansion would add 50 additional children to the
current enrollment of 40 children who are accommodated in the existing building. The expansion would be
located on an adjoining vacant parcel in a building that would be similar in construction to the existing
facility, and the expansion will employ six staff members in addition to one kitchen worker and one office
worker. The Murray Elementary School is located adjacent to the property on the east side, and the
property is located on the north side of Morgantown Road (State Route 738) where there are rural area
properties. The site is bound along the south and west side by properties zoned for Light Industrial use.
The property is located within an area which was formerly designated as the growth area for Ivy Village, so
services may be warranted in order to support the level of residential development that has already taken
place. Currently Millstone of Ivy is the only facility within the Ivy area offering daycare services, and it is the
staff’s opinion that the proposed expansion would not be inconsistent with the public elementary school
located next to the existing preschool. Although this is a more intensive use than those recom-mended for
the rural areas, the staff recognizes that agricultural uses on a property the size of the subject parcel would
be restricted greatly. The fact that the property is bounded by institutional and industrial uses along the
sides and rear makes the property less desirable for residential use as well.
Mr. Cilimberg next discussed three favorable factors to the proposal as well as two unfavorable
factors, and he stated that staff and Planning Commission recommended approval with five conditions. He
called attention to condition #1 and noted that the word “and” after the words “Health Department”
should be replaced with the word, “or.” In the second sentence of condition #1, the word, “additional,”
should be included before the word, “children.”
There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board, so Ms. Thomas asked the applicant if
he would like to make comments.
Mr. James Willis stated that he and his wife Sue own the subject property, and she is the Director of
Millstone Preschool. He remarked that the staff has done a thorough job of summarizing the proposed
project. He would be happy to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas next asked if anyone from the public had comments to make. No one came forward,
so Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that this proposal is located in her district, and she is very worried about
the additional traffic on Morgantown Road. She said Ms. Willis has shared with her a letter relating to traffic
problems that she sent out to residents in the area. Ms. Thomas commented that she believes the Willis’
and Murray Elementary School representatives will have to do more of this type of thing in the future. She
remarked that it is a small community, and it will be greatly impacted by the extra traffic. She said, though,
this seems to be a good location for the use, since it has already had such a use previously. She would
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
entertain a favorable motion from one of the Supervisors.
Ms. Humphris then made a motion to approve SP-2000-62 Millstone Preschool Expansion with the
five conditions as recommended by the staff and Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion with the modifications suggested by Mr. Cilimberg to condition
#1
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.Enrollment shall be limited to the lesser of the number of students as approved by the Health
Department or the Department of Social Services. In any event, the maximum number of
additional children shall not exceed fifty (50);
2.The daycare center shall be constructed with the appearance of a dwelling unit;
3.Virginia Department of Health approval of adequate septic and drainfield facilities;
4.The applicant shall comply with the provisions set forth in Section 5.1.06 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a
child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the
Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify
the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three
(3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at
his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; and
c.These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to
preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal
agency.
5.Administrative approval of the site plan.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2000-64 David Weber (Triton PCS) (Sign #66). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow a communication fac which includes a 94' high steel monopole, ground equipment, &
flush-mounted antenna on a 900 sq ft lease area. A site plan waiver has been requested, as well as, a
setback waiver from the property line bordering Rt 708. TM 73, P 31D, contains 10.31 acs. Located on Dry
Bridge Rd (Rt 708) between I-64 & Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637). Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in
The Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg called attention to a posted illustration showing the location of the proposal relating to
SP-2000-64. The request is to allow the construction of a communication facility consisting of a 94-foot
high steel monopole, ground equipment, and flush mounted antenna on a 900 square foot lease area of a
10.31 acre parcel. The parcel is located off of State Route 708 (Malvern Farm Drive). He added that a
mixture of residential, forestal and agricultural land uses characterize the area, and the lease area is
located approximately 45 feet from the entrance gate. There are two trees, 84 feet high and 78 feet high,
that are in the 25-foot radius of the pole. The proposed height is based on the 84-foot tall tree, and both the
tree and pole are located at a base elevation of 697 feet Above Sea Level (ASL). He added that there are
two previous tower approvals on this property. The first was an approval for an existing CFW wooden pole
tower not to exceed five feet above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower. The second was
for Alltel, SP-2000-31, which allowed a 90 foot high wooden pole to extend ten feet above the tallest tree
within 25 feet of the tower. He stated that unlike the proposed facility with its proximity and clear
unobstructed view from Route 708, the two approved sites are buffered from the road by a row of trees and
shrubbery. He explained that in this particular location, the facility will not benefit from three types of
mitigation measures found in the Wireless Policy -- camouflage, concealment and disguise. The applicant
has suggested that additional planting along the most visible portion of State Route 708 and at the base of
the lease area would be an appropriate mitigation measure. However, the staff’s opinion is that the site is
located in clear view from the driveway, and the downhill slope of the property along the road will not
provide adequate landscape coverage for the pole or the ground equipment. He remarked that the staff did
not recommend approval of the request.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission initially had a motion to deny the proposal, but it did
not pass. A second motion to approve the request with conditions amended from the staff’s
recommendation received approval by a four to two vote. The Planning Commission changed the ten foot
height above the top of the tallest tree measurement to not to exceed seven feet and also added some
specific requirements for screening trees in the lease area including 12 foot cedars, 12 foot pines, and four
foot rhododendrons.
There were no questions for staff from Board members. At this time, Ms. Thomas invited the
applicant to come forward for comments.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, pointed out that there were other people present who
would be available for questions if necessary. She then introduced Harold Timmeny, representing Crown
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Communications, a consultant to Triton as well as a landscape consultant, David Rosene, from Van Yahres
Tree Company. This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission several
weeks ago, and the Commission also approved a Site Plan Waiver. She explained that a steel pole had
been requested which would have been painted brown, but the Commission approved a wooden pole,
instead. She is agreeable to this condition, although the steel pole is better for a number of reasons. She
recognizes that with the other facilities there, it probably makes sense to use the same materials. The
antenna panels will be flush mounted, and will not extend above the top of the pole. She remarked that all
the ground equipment will be painted the same dark brown color to match the pole, whatever its material.
Ms. Long said there are a lot of benefits to this property for a wireless facility because the location
chosen is very close to the access road and will not require the removal of any trees. There are rows of
trees along the western edge of the property providing very good screening both from the Interstate and
from State Route 708. There was some disagreement on this point by staff members, but the applicant felt
very strongly that the balloon test verified this point. The staff actually supported the applicant’s view that
while the balloon was visible through the bare tree limbs, it would still be consistent with the County’s Policy.
She commented that a red balloon stands out more than a dark brown pole when it is in a grove of trees,
especially if there are no leaves on the trees. She believes the Board members have copies of the
photographs, but she has extra copies if they are needed. She stated that a few of the photographs the
staff took of the balloon test were used to make photo simulations, and she also has extras of these. She
added that some of them were helpful in being able to focus on the appearance of the pole instead of the
red balloon which can sometimes be a bit distracting. She remarked that obviously during the months of
the year when the leaves are on the trees, the pole will be less visible.
Ms. Long said in response to some of the comments from staff and the Commission regarding
visibility of the ground equipment from Route 708, some landscaping has been proposed by the applicant.
This was discussed in the Commission meeting, and if the Board does not have access to this information,
she would be happy to provide it. There is a standard metal gate on the property, and the landowner has
agreed to allow the applicant to replace this gate with a wooden one that would be opaque and would help
break up the visibility at the base of the pole. She indicated that several six foot tall Virginia cedars are
being proposed by the landscaper to be planted along the fence row. Also recommended is a number of
white pines to further screen the view of cars traveling on State Route 708. The landscape consultant has
informed her that white pines are not shade tolerant and that is why they are recommended in a certain
area. She added that cedars are shade tolerant and are very hearty for the area in which they will be
planted. In addition, landscaping is being proposed around the base of the pole in the lease area. This is
not something the landscaper suggested, but the applicant wanted to add it for additional screening. She
went on to say the applicant had originally proposed some rhododendrons which had been pointed out as
being shade tolerant by other people. However, Mr. Rosene has clarified that they are not very appropriate
because they are not as shade tolerant, so he has recommended other plants which would work better in
this location. The applicant is open to other suggestions the Board members may feel are appropriate.
Ms. Long commented that one of the attributes of this property is that there will not be any tree
removal required, and there will be very little grading if any. The existing gravel road is close to being ready,
and there will be very little clearing necessary, which will have a minimum impact on the property. Visibility
from the Interstate is quite limited, although the staff has recognized that it is visible to an extent. A
member of the ARB staff was present for the balloon test, and she concurred that the visibility from the
Interstate was limited. Ms. Long said she read a portion of the ARB staff member’s report into the record at
the Commission meeting since it conflicted somewhat with the Planning staff’s views of the visibility from the
Interstate.
She remarked that she understands there are some concerns by Board members about multiple
poles on the same property, but this property was not identified for the facility intentionally because there
were other facilities nearby. The applicant worked very hard to try to find an alternate location that would
achieve all of the objectives for coverage, service and minimum visibility to the extent possible as well as the
other objectives favored by the County, such as not clearing a large number of trees, considerable grading
and putting in new roads. When all of the properties were considered that were anywhere within the search
area, the Weber property was the only one to meet all the criteria. As an example, Ms. Long pointed out
that one property would have provided the proper amount of coverage but it would have necessitated a 200
foot road to be cut into the side of Gillums Mountain, and the applicant knew this would not be looked on as
a favorable factor. She commented that another proposed property was close to some residential homes.
The applicant’s representatives met with the neighbors in this area to get their thoughts and input and
explain to them that it was not a tall tower, but there were a number of objections from the neighbors. She
stated that a third site was examined, but it did not meet the coverage objectives. She indicated that the
applicant came back to the Weber property about six or eight months later after looking at all the options
and weighing all the factors.
Ms. Long next mentioned that the Commission approved a pole height of seven feet above the
tallest tree instead of the requested ten feet, and she respectfully requested that the Board of Supervisors
restore the height the applicant requested which appears to be consistent with the height for which the other
two facilities had been approved. She would be happy to answer specific questions from Board members,
and she requested time to respond to comments from the public if necessary.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the other poles have generally appeared shorter than this one in
some of the simulations. She asked if Ms. Long is indicating that they are the same height as the one she is
requesting. Ms. Long answered that they are not necessarily the same height because poles are approved
at heights above the tallest tree. The CFW pole was approved at a height of seven feet above the top of
the tallest tree, but allowance was also made for three feet of additional antenna. The Alltel facility was
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
approved at a height of ten feet above the top of the tallest tree, not counting the antenna.
Ms. Thomas noted that this site is approximately five feet higher than the base elevation. Ms. Long
concurred. Her reference to height pertained to the distance above the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet.
She added that the surveyor indicates that the existing CFW monopole is 90 feet with a base elevation of
700.5, and the base elevation of the Triton facility is 696.5. She verified that this puts the difference in base
elevation at four feet.
Next, Ms. Thomas inquired about the total height in feet being requested by Triton. Ms. Long
responded that the Triton pole would be 94 feet tall if the request is approved.
Ms. Thomas noted that this could be an unfair question to ask Ms. Long, but she wondered if Ms.
Long had any idea of the number of other companies in this district that are installing cell towers. Ms. Long
answered that she has been told there are seven licensed carriers in the Charlottesville basic trading area,
although she is unsure if they are actively working in the area at this time. Her experience has been limited
to Triton, but the three active carriers working to build up their networks, of which she is aware, are CFW,
Alltel and Triton. There are other carriers in the area who may be more active now such as US Cellular
and Sprint. She understands that Sprint is not putting up its own network, but it will be providing its
customers the use of the CFW network, since Sprint and CFW have such an agreement. She went on to
say the carriers trade their licenses and sell them, and there are lots of mergers and standard activity
among corporations.
Board members had no further questions for Ms. Long.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. No one came forward, so the public hearing
was closed.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that this request is located in her magisterial district, and she is favorably
inclined toward the staff report. She has been to the site, and the balloon tests are not completely accurate
through no fault of the applicant. It looks as though there are going to be two towers at this location, but the
second tower has already been approved, so there will be a total of three towers, if this request is approved.
She was impressed with how much more visible two towers are at the Bellair site, for example, and she
wonders how many more requests the Board will get for the subject site. It was a marginal site from the
visual point of view in the beginning, but the first pole and its base equipment was installed in an area that
already had cedar trees in front of it which shielded it nicely. The top of this pole can be slightly seen from
State Route 708 as well as the Interstate. She said then the second pole was approved, and it was very
close to the first one. However, it has not been installed yet, so there is no way a real representation of the
site can be shown at this time. She has a feeling accepting three poles on this site will be a mistake. She is
appreciative of the applicant’s comments about how difficult it was to find another site, but it makes her
worry more about how many tower requests there will be for this site. She emphasized that she is not
enthusiastic about this proposal, although she believes the applicant is putting forth a very good faith effort
to put in a lot of shielding at the base of the tower.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the consultant’s report indicated that initially carriers were trying to
get coverage and then later they would worry about capacity. It also indicated that as capacity was added,
the poles would be shorter and closer together. He wondered if the Board had allowed a larger pole with
collocation if there could have been one pole at the site much higher with three carriers on it. He is trying to
weigh the visibility from Route 708 as far as this tower is concerned compared to the other two. He
remarked that apparently there are some restrictions about where a pole can be located at the site to get
the proper coverage. He said two carriers have also chosen the same site so it is obviously a good one. He
doesn’t have an answer, and since he did not visit the site, he would appreciate Ms. Thomas responding to
his comments.
Ms. Thomas answered that if this request is approved, it will mean that another pole will be added
to a marginal site. The County’s goal is not to have tall towers, but to reduce the visible impact of the ones
approved. There will be an increasing number of small poles, and some day there will probably be smaller
poles between the ones that are already installed in order to get increasing capacity.
Mr. Bowerman next inquired if Ms. Thomas thinks the site is unique or is it a combination of the
placement of the tower as well as the willingness of the landowner to allow the tower to be put there. Ms.
Thomas replied that she is unsure about the availability of other sites. She noted, though, that this site is a
good location for Interstate 64.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that the site is the highest point between Ivy Creek and Mechums River on
the Interstate, and this is the reason it was chosen by so many carriers. It makes sense to him to cluster the
poles because if it is not put here, there will be another request for another location. He added that it will
disturb another piece of property with perhaps a 200 foot road, etc. The landscaping will solve the visibility
problem. He next emphasized that it would be dangerous for people to look at cell towers when driving
Route 708. It is a very narrow, blacktop road with no shoulders, and there are banks on both sides. He
doubts the pole is very visible from the Interstate, and probably people would have to be looking for it to see
it.
Mr. Dorrier stated that it is interesting that the staff disapproved the proposal, but the Planning
Commission unanimously approved it. Ms. Thomas noted that the Planning Commission approved it by a
four to two vote. She explained that there was a misprint on the February 5, 2001 letter to Ms. Long.
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Dorrier said the Planning Commission approved the request, and the Architectural Review
Board approved the site. It is not unusual to see a group of towers on one site, and although it may not be
the best idea, all of the carriers want their towers located at the highest point.
Ms. Thomas said the County’s Policy was made to try to avoid this type of visual impact, and there
is not a good illustration to show the appearance of the site with three towers on it. She referred to the
picture showing the front end of a white truck, and she suggested that Board members try to picture utility
type of equipment in the grove of trees, as well as to the right of the white truck. This cannot be seen in the
picture, but it will be there, if the tower is approved. She stated that it is hard to maintain an agricultural
character in such a setting.
Mr. Perkins inquired if Ms. Thomas is referring to the ground equipment rather than the tower itself.
Ms. Thomas answered affirmatively.
Mr. Perkins then asked if the Board has ever required that the equipment be put underground. Ms.
Humphris and Ms. Thomas indicated that this had been done in one other location.
Ms. Thomas said it may kill the trees to put the equipment underground, but she recalled that there
is pasture space available, and the equipment would not have to be in the same place as the tower. She
went on to say that there is a lot of appeal in this idea, particularly if this is going to be the third of four or five
towers. The ground equipment is much more noticeable from Route 708, although the top of the tower is
more noticeable from the Interstate. She said, though, the tower is not nearly as obtrusive from the
Interstate as the ground equipment is from Route 708. She asked if this matter could be deferred long
enough for County officials to have some discussion about putting the equipment underground.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if there could be collocation of ground equipment at one site. He is unsure
about the engineering requirements in proximity to the actual poles, but it would minimize the total effect if
there could be a joint type of ground facility even though there would be three different types of equipment
involved.
Ms. Thomas stated that even a small shed would fit in better in an agricultural setting than the utility
equipment on the ground. She noted that Alltel has approval for the second tower, but ground has not
been broken for it, yet.
Mr. Martin inquired if Ms. Thomas is suggesting a deferral so discussions can be held to explore
such possibilities as collocation of ground equipment, putting the equipment underground or constructing a
rural looking building. The building sounds more interesting to him. Ms. Thomas indicated that this was her
suggestion.
At this time Mr. Martin made a motion to defer SP-2000-64, David Weber (Triton PCS), until
collocation of ground equipment, undergrounding the equipment or storing the equipment in a rural-type
building can be explored. Ms. Humphis seconded the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg said the motion should require a specific date for the deferral. He is unsure how
much time the applicant will need, but perhaps an update on the matter could be brought back to the March
7, 2001 day meeting.
Mr. Davis stated that he thinks the deferral is appropriate considering the issues that have been
raised.
Ms. Long was agreeable to the March 7, 2001 date, and indicated that she could give the Board
feedback on some of the ideas at that time. The shed to house the ground equipment which would be
more architecturally compatible with its surroundings would be the most appropriate alternative. She said
very often carriers use a building they refer to as a shelter. She added that Triton is proposing just a base
radio cabinet, open and exposed, with an ice bridge. The carriers actually prefer a shelter, which is a very
sturdy brick building since it is more protective of the ground equipment. She stated that it keeps children
and animals away from the equipment. She noted, though, Albemarle County had indicated a desire not to
use these types of shelters because they disturb a larger base area. She said perhaps there is something
in between such as a sturdy smaller shelter that would be more architecturally compatible with the area
than the buildings carriers usually construct.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Long’s ideas about collocation of the equipment. Ms. Long said she is
not certain, and she will check into the matter. She added, though, that the two poles already approved are
a distance away from the fence. One option would be to have a longer ice bridge that would extend from
Triton’s ground equipment to the CFW cabinet.
Mr. Bowerman asked for an explanation of an ice bridge. Ms. Long replied that an ice bridge is a
structure that provides support underneath the cables, and prevents them from being weighted down with
height. This would probably be more visible than the current proposal. She does not know if the cables
can be put underground, but she will look into the matter. She noted that if the radio equipment is more
than 20 feet away from the tower, there is a significant negative impact on the signal’s strength.
Ms. Thomas suggested that Ms. Long examine the possibilities of the structure and collocating the
ground equipment with Alltel as well as anything else that can be done to minimize the visual impact. She
reminded Ms. Long that this is an agricultural rural area, so it has a different type of impact. She stated that
minimizing the impact in a residential area might mean one thing, but minimizing the impact in a rural area
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
means something else.
Mr. Perkins inquired as to how close poles can be together. Ms. Long responded that it depends
on the way the panel antennas are oriented. At the subject property, when Triton representatives realized
this was their best option, they had the radio frequency (RF) engineer come out to the site. The landowner
was also present to identify the portions of the property that the landowner will let them use. The landowner
had some concerns, because he wanted to keep the towers in the same area. She had pointed out the
area that would be most screened by the trees, but the RF engineer noted that the signals cannot run into
each other horizontally. However, they can be in front of each other. She pointed out on an illustration
where the Alltel facility will be located and how the antenna panels will be placed. The CFW facility will be
in front of it, and the signals will be running parallel to each other. The Triton tower cannot be placed right
next to the Alltel facility or the CFW facility, so the Triton’s location was in front of them and to the right so
the signals would continue to run in the same parallel direction. She said everybody’s coverage objective is
the same from the Interstate, so the signals factor into the location, which limits the area where the tower
can be placed.
Mr. Perkins noted that the arrangement of the poles has to be considered. Ms. Long concurred.
Mr. Dorrier wondered about the possibility of collocating with another carrier on one of the existing
poles. Ms. Long replied that this would require a higher height for the pole.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the signals could be split. She added that Sprint and CFW have
made some type of arrangement that uses the panels. Ms. Long stated that this is something Sprint has
worked out with CFW. However, the terms of Triton’s license, and all of the other carriers as well, require
that they provide a particular percentage of coverage in their entire basic trading area. They are required to
provide 75 percent coverage with their own signals by a certain year, and she believes Triton’s time
requirement is 2002 or 2003. She emphasized that these carriers have to have their own network built by
that time. She explained that this is part of the competition between the carriers, because if they all share
signals, there will be less coverage. There is also the capacity issue, and the carriers already are beginning
to suffer from the need for capacity.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2000-66. Philip Marshall (Charlottesville Cellular) (Signs # 78&79).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow the collocation of a whip antenna on an existing monopole
structure. TM 36, P 19, contains approx 121.216 acs. Located off of Vineyard Rd (St Rt 777) on
Goodloe Mountain, approx 2.5 miles S of the Orange County line. Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in
The Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 2001.)
(Mr. Bowerman left the room at 8:02 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant for SP-
2000-66 is proposing to attach a 21-foot whip antenna to an existing 89-foot tall metal monopole structure
allowed by a previously approved special use permit. All ground equipment would be contained in an
existing building that is currently located within the lease site for the existing wireless facility. He said
approval of the facility would enable Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation to monitor a natural gas
pipeline which passes over Goodlow Mountain. The site is located on a ridgeline near the peak of Goodlow
Mountain where the facility is set within the tree line along the southern side of the Columbia Gas pipeline
easement. The property is within an area identified as the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, and
property to the south is within an Agricultural/Forestal District. He added that there are no dwellings within
2000 feet of the facility, and the nearest public road is more than one mile away from the facility site. The
proposal does not necessitate any additional clearing because the antenna would be attached to an existing
monopole that has existing electrical utilities. He also remarked that vehicular access is already provided
from the existing gravel road which begins at State Route 777 and extends southeast to the facility site.
The proposal includes a request to allow the whip antenna to be attached to the mast with an arm
that would extend six feet out in order to allow it to transmit an omni-directional signal. He stated that staff
has determined that the existing monopole at treetop height is only slightly visible from Route 777 through
the clearing for the gas pipeline. He said limited visibility of the monopole and other equipment within the
facility is consistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy. Therefore, a whip antenna that is 2-3/4
inches in diameter and extends no higher than the top of the monopole would not increase the visual impact
of the monopole. Staff has determined that approval of this application would not be inconsistent with the
policies and guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for siting wireless facilities and protecting the
important resources in Albemarle County.
Mr. Cilimberg described the factors favorable to the request, and noted that the staff did not identify
any unfavorable factors. The staff recommended approval with four conditions. The Planning Commission
recommended approval but the Commissioners included a fifth condition that the bracket holding the whip
antenna shall not be taller than 69 feet above the base of the monopole, He then referred to condition # 4
where there is a reference to SDP-97-51. The “D” should be removed, and the reference should be to SP-
97-51 instead. The condition is referring to a special use permit and not a site plan.
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 8:05 p.m.) There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg.
Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to come forward if he would like to make comments.
Mr. Patrick Asplin, an attorney with LeClair Ryan, stated that he is representing the applicant. He
had nothing to add to the staff report, but would be happy to assist with any questions Board members may
have for him.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the applicant is agreeable to all the conditions. Mr. Asplin answered
affirmatively.
Ms. Thomas called attention to Condition # 1 where it indicates that the whip antenna shall extend
no more than six feet from the face. She wondered if it is expected that it might extend less than six feet.
Mr. Asplin responded that the plans submitted show a six-foot extension, and this is the minimum length
needed to monitor the gas pipeline. He would not expect it to be less than six feet.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is the LeClair Ryan organization’s first cellular application to come
before this Board. Mr. Asplin replied that the original special use permit approved in October, 1997, was for
Charlottesville Cellular, but he is not aware of any other such applications presently pending.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if LeClair Ryan offers a different type of service or is it a straight cellular
service. Mr. Asplin replied that Charlottesville Cellular offers a straight cellular service. He said it is actually
known as US Cellular, but in this area it does business as Charlottesville Cellular.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it is not a normal service provider making this request. He explained
that the antenna is for the gas pipeline company.
Ms. Thomas next opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Ms. Thomas
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin stated that the staff report indicates that there were no unfavorable conditions, and the
Planning Commission discussed at length the issue of the bracket. The Commissioners developed their
compromise language for condition # 5. He then moved approval of SP-2000-66 with the modification to
condition # 4 that it should refer to SP-97-51 as opposed to SDP-97-51. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Approval of this special use permit amends condition 4(a) of SP 97-051 which states:
“The
antennas shall be limited to 3 flush-mounted panel antennae not to exceed 6 feet in height and 1
with the following condition:
foot in width,”
The antennas shall be limited to three (3) flush-mounted antennae not to exceed six (6) feet in
height and one (1) foot in width, and one (1) whip antenna not to exceed three (3) inches in
diameter, extending no more than six (6) feet from the face, and no higher than the top of the
existing monopole structure;
2. The remaining portion of the original one hundred twenty (120) foot tall tower shall be removed
upon attachment of the whip antenna to the monopole;
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the metal monopole shall be painted a natural wood color
in compliance with condition 2a of SP-97-51 Goodlow Mountain, and verified through zoning
inspection;
4. The monopole shall be constructed and maintained to comply with all other conditions for the
approval of SP-97-51 Goodlow Mountain; and
5. The bracket that holds the whip antenna shall not be taller than sixty-nine (69) feet above the base
of the monopole.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-2000-08. Dunlora Phase 4B Rivercreek (Sign #50). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to rezone 5.279 acs from RA to R-4. TM 62, P 12. Located between Dunlora Dr &
Free St Rd approx 1/2 ml from the intersec of the railroad tracks & Free State Rd. (The Comp Plan
designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential for 3-6 du/ac in Neighborhood 2.) Rivanna
Dist. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg stated that ZMA-2000-08 is a proposal to rezone a parcel of land adjacent to the
Dunlora Subdivision from RA to R-4. He referred to the general vicinity map posted which indicated where
this particular area fits within the larger area of Dunlora, and he indicated that the proposal actually includes
a couple of locations for potential connection to Free State Road. This property was downzoned from R-4
to RA in 1981 to allow a mobile home to be located by special use permit on the lot. At that time staff,
noted that although the general area had been zoned for medium density residential development, since
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
1968 no urban development had occurred. There were several mobile homes in the area, and there had
been two other rezonings to permit nearby mobile homes. This would allow for the extension of the
Dunlora Development northward from Dunlora Phase 4A. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area to be
neighborhood density of three to six dwelling units per acre in Neighborhood Two.
Mr. Cilimberg said information has been provided on the various aspects of the development and
particularly how it relates to the requirements for rezoning as well as how it relates to the twelve principles
of the Neighborhood Model. The proposed rezoning of 5.279 acres is a small portion of a larger
development known as Dunlora. If the development was a “stand alone” development, the staff would
recommend a more urban design. However, the development is proposed to have the same name as the
previous Dunlora Subdivision, take access off of existing subdivision streets in Dunlora and connect through
to Free State Road per previous Dunlora commitments for emergency access. He commented that staff
has provided for pedestrian paths and explained that an extension of an existing rural road pattern makes
more sense than adding an urban street pattern in this location.
He next described the factors favorable as well as the ones unfavorable to the request. The
Planning Commission held its public hearing on January 9, 2001, and several outstanding issues prevented
the Commission from taking action on the rezoning. He stated that included in these issues was the need
for a revised subdivision plat of development to mirror the proffers and revision of wording on the proffers.
He remarked that this has subsequently been addressed. There was also the question of archaeological
findings, and a letter recommending a Phase One archaeological survey on the property was provided. In
response the applicant has provided proffers to address various issues raised, and those were included in
the staff information as part of the package provided to Board members. He commented that the current
set of proffers reflect the changes verbally offered at the Planning Commission meeting, and the staff
believes the proffers offered in Attachment D are ready for acceptance if the Board chooses to approve the
rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg then noted that today the staff received a revised proffer signed by the applicant that
added a necessary verb under Proffer Number Eight so it would read correctly as to the reference for the
archaeological survey. He indicated that it did not change the intent at all. He then read the eighth
proffer, and pointed out that the proffers are signed and are available as part of the record for the public
hearing tonight.
Board members had no questions for staff.
At this time, Ms. Thomas inquired if the applicant would like to make comments.
Mr. Frank Stoner, representing the Stonehaus Development, indicated that he thought Mr.
Cilimberg had done a good job with the staff report in bringing forward all the issues. It has been a long
process, and he never imagined that a rezoning which seemed so simple, could be so complicated. The
plan was a good one in the beginning, but it has been improved through this process. He said an entire
new site plan has been developed, and one of the proffers is to make a connection to Free State Road
when the Rio/Free State Connector Road is built. He added that with respect to the topography of the
property and the limitations of the tree system that is already within Dunlora, the possibility for additional
density is difficult if not impossible on this particular site, and it was felt that a rural cross section was more
appropriate given the character of the neighborhood that was already there. He would be happy to answer
questions and respond to any additional issues which may not have been covered by the staff report.
Mr. Dorrier inquired as to how many additional homes are planned for this phase. Mr. Stoner
answered that there will be 15 total lots. He explained that there are actually two pieces of property -- one
which is subject to rezoning and the other, Parcel Seven, is located just north of Parcel Five. He explained
that the parcel subject to rezoning will have eight lots on it.
Mr. Dorrier next asked for an explanation of the reason a new plat was developed. Mr. Stoner
responded that the original plat showed Loring Run Road turning left rather than turning right and
terminating in a cul-de-sac. He noted that when a connection to Free State Road was proffered, it had to
be proffered through a property his company owned. He explained that his company did not own the piece
of property to the left of this site, but it did own the parcel to the north.
Mr. Dorrier inquired if the new configuration is more in keeping with the topography of the land. Mr.
Stoner replied that both configurations fit the topography as well as they can. He does not think there was
any significant improvement with respect to the vertical curvature of the road, but it enabled a connection to
Free State Road which was not possible under the prior plan. In this sense, he would agree that this plan is
an improvement, because he believes it is a slightly more efficient plan.
There were no further questions for the applicant. Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and
invited anyone who wished to speak to come forward.
Mr. Robert Vernon informed Board members that he spoke at the last meeting where this project
was considered and offered some historical data about the site.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this information was covered in a letter.
Mr. Vernon replied that there was a letter sent to the Department of Planning and Community
Development from Fraser Neiman and Jillian Galle, but the information he is providing tonight is
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
supplemental to the information in the letter. He showed an overhead presentation and informed the Board
that the letter from Mr. Neiman and Ms. Galle dealt with the history of this parcel from about 1845 to the
present, and he showed a map that divides the land between Lawrence and George Carr in 1845. The
property in the center is known as Free State, and at this particular time, it was 93 1/2 acres. He has platted
out the property from the original land grants, and he pointed out the portion of the property in which the
historians are interested. Free State falls within this area. This particular parcel of land is approximately
224 acres, and he showed how the proposed development falls within the 224 acres that was purchased in
1788 by Amy Barnett. He explained that she was the mother of Zachariah Boles and several others who
ended up owning the property over the next 100 years. This land was bought from William Johnson, who
was a Quaker and the son-in-law of Charles Norman who owned land to the west of this property. When
Ms. Barnett bought the land in 1788, the deed stated that it was the land where Charles Norman lived, so
there is documentation in the record of there being a house site on this property as early as 1788. He
added that the Charles Norman land was patented in 1738, so it is quite likely that there are settlements in
the area that go back to the 1740s, not to mention the fact that the Carr land dates back to 1730.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the parcel to which Mr. Vernon referred was to the north of Free State
as it currently exists. He said it looks as though he can see a Free State Road noted in this area. Mr.
Vernon answered, “yes.” He then pointed out Free State Road on the map. Mr. Bowerman asked if the
parcel the Board is considering tonight is to the left of the parcel identified by Mr. Vernon. Mr. Vernon
answered affirmatively. He then showed the 224 acre parcel that was purchased in 1788.
Mr. Dorrier inquired about a certain area on the map. Mr. Vernon responded that it is Town Creek
which flows to the Rivanna River. He pointed out the area where Charles Lynch had his ferry in the 1730s
and 1740s. This is an area where there was considerable occupation for the 1730s and 1740s, and it is at
the head of a stream on a ridge with two branches coming down from it. When he did archaeology 20
years ago, this is exactly the type of place he would search for on a map to find an archaeological site.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Town Creek is an intermittent stream. Mr. Vernon was uncertain.
Mr. Bowerman inquired about the location of the Free State area. Mr. Vernon responded that the
93 acres of Free State would be a rectangle to the left of the property that is being proposed for
development. He said last week the developer stated that he thought this area was outside of Free State,
and Mr. Vernon believes he is correct and that this area is outside of what was left of Free State as of 1745.
He added that his point is that it is well within the bounds of the land that was purchased in 1788.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Vernon believes the black dot in the middle of the property may be the
1730 house. Mr. Vernon answered that he has no idea. When an archaeological study is done, there will
definitely be material found on the site to verify whether or not the house was located here.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the map to which Mr. Vernon is referring is recent. Mr. Vernon answered that
he made the map himself recently, but it is essentially a US/GS map.
Ms. Thomas wondered what the black dots represent. Mr. Vernon replied that they represent earth
structures as to the date of the US/GS map which is probably 1995 or 1996. Ms. Thomas asked for
verification as to the location of the subject property. Mr. Bowerman said it appears to him that the property
subject to the ZMA is on the other side of Free State. Free State can be seen from the parcel, and Free
State Road is identified on the plat. He said houses on Free State can be seen from the proposed parcel,
as well as other houses in the Dunlora development.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Vernon is satisfied with the most recent proffer that was made by the
applicant relating to Phase One. Mr. Vernon answered affirmatively. He wanted to document that there
was a component of the occupation of Free State that went back to the Revolution. He has shown that this
is not just a legend, and the people were actually there as early as 1781 and possibly the 1770s.
Next, Ms. Jillian Galle referred to the letter she and Dr. Neiman wrote to the Planning Commis-sion.
They are both historical archaeologists. She said she wanted to commend Mr. Stoner for including Proffer
Eight in his rezoning request. Free State is a very significant free black community that dates back to the
1700s. Mr. Stoner has taken a very good step in good faith of conducting a survey on an area that deserves
this sort of work. She hopes, as he continues to develop the property across Free State, that proffers such
as this one continue to be part of his rezoning application.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this area should be designated a historical landmark. Ms. Galle responded
affirmatively. She added that it is certainly a historical district such as Proffit. This is one of the few free
black communities in the area, and Sally Hemmings’ sister, Critta Hemmings Boles, lived in Free State.
She noted that she was freed by Jefferson’s grandson, and she married Zachariah Boles. She reported
that Critta Hemmings Boles moved to and lived in Free State for much of her life, and she owned 93 acres
of the property at her death in 1852. Ms. Galle explained that Free State has several prominent free black
families that are connected throughout this County to other free black families as well as to the Jeffersons,
the Carrs and the Dabneys and all through the founding fathers of Albemarle County. This is a very
interesting area to study because the plantations and enslaved communities are studied quite often, but it is
rare if free black communities are studied.
Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing, since no one else wanted to make comments.
Mr. Martin stated that it appears the staff, Planning Commission and the applicant have worked out
most of the issues. At this time, Mr. Martin moved approval of ZMA-2000-08, with acceptance of the
proffers of February 14, 2001, including the revision of Proffer Number Eight to reflect the changing of a
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
verb.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. He asked if the Planning Commission will hear this matter
because of the critical slopes waiver request.
Mr. Cilimberg said all waivers have to go to the Planning Commission. However, he was unsure if
the Commissioners had already approved this waiver. Several Board members indicated that the Planning
Commission approved the waiver request at its meeting on January 30, 2001. Mr. Bowerman stated that
the only reason he walked the property was because of the waiver, and he was satisfied that there would be
minimum disturbance.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she is personally delighted that the archaeologists have brought this
matter to the Board’s attention.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The proffers are set out in full below:)
PROFFER FORM
Date: __February 14, 2001__
ZMA #_2000-08________
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) __62, Parcel 12_____
5.279 Acres to be rezoned from RA to R4
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized
agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation
to the rezoning request.
1.A final plat of development for the lots on Tax Map 62, Parcel 12 shall reserve land for
dedication upon demand of the County to make a public road connection from Tax Map 62, Parcel
12 to Free State Road (State Route 651).
2.The owner shall construct a public road, in accordance with public road standards in place
at the time from TMP 62-12 to the point where state maintenance begins on Free State Road. The
cost and responsibility for constructing this road shall not be transferred to a homeowner’s
association.
3.This road shall be constructed within 12 months following the commencement of
construction for the upgrading of Free State Bridge or the commencement of construction of the
Connector Road from Rio to Free State Road, as determined by the Albemarle County Department
of Engineering and Public Works.
4.At the time of commencement of construction of either the upgraded bridge or the Rio-Free
State Connector road, the owner shall post a bond for the construction of the road described
above. If commencement of the upgrading of Free State Bridge or the Connector Road has not
begun within ten (10) years of the acceptance of these proffers by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, then the owner shall be relieved of the obligation to construct a public road in this
location, but the reservation for dedication of the right-of-way shall remain in place.
5.Until such time as the road connection to Free State Road is built and accepted into the
public system, emergency access to Free State Road shall be provided in the area shown on the
plat for a public road. The emergency access road shall meet Department of Engineering and
Public Works specifications for emergency access road construction. It shall be constructed with
public improvements shown on the engineering plans accompanying the final plat for development.
A barrier consisting of a breakaway fence, chain with a lock, or similar type of barrier shall be
installed to ensure that the connection is used for emergency access only. The type of barrier to be
used shall be approved by the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Division.
6.The barrier shall be placed at the time of commencement of road construction for the
development for Tax Map 62, Parcel 12.
7.A conceptual overlot grading plan, reviewed and approved by the Department of Engineering
and Public Works, is required prior to issuance of any permits for the site. All lots shall be
graded in general accordance with the approved plan or the latest revision to the plan approved by
the Department of Engineering and Public Works. The overlot grading plan shall show:
1. building pads which minimize grades steeper than 10% within 10 feet of the house;
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
2. driveways with no grades steeper than 16% and 20 foot sections graded, where
feasible, no steeper than 5% in front of garages or on parking spaces;
3.drainage patterns with sufficient detail that the Department of Engineering and
Public Works can verify concentrated flows are not directed across adjoining lots except in
storm sewers and all flows are adequately conveyed from lots to a storm drainage system
approved by the County.
8.Prior to initiating any grading, the developer shall conduct a Phase I archaeological survey
on Tax map 62 Parcel 12 and Parcel 7 and report findings, if any, to the Albemarle County
Planning Department.
Signature of Owner:
Belvedere Station Land Trust by
_(Signed)_______________________2/14/01______
Robert M. Hauser, Trustee Date
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Route 250 West Task Force Recommendations regarding
proposed improvements by VDOT for signal at intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road (Rt 677)
and installation of wildlife warning highway reflector system.
Mr. Cilimberg informed Board members that the staff has provided them with a summary of the
discussion of the Route 250 West Task Force regarding the signal at the intersection of Route 250 and
Broomley Road (Route 677) as well as the installation of the wildlife warning highway reflector system on
Route 250. He reminded the Board that VDoT had intended to install a signal at Broomley Road and Route
250 on February 12, 2001 but agreed to delay the installation until the Board had a chance to see and act
on the Task Force recommendations. The Task Force, which met on January 30, 2001, did not support the
installation of a traffic signal at this time and believed that VDoT should explore other options such as
reducing speed. They came to this conclusion based on several reasons pointed out in the report.
Regarding the wildlife warning highway reflector system, Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Task Force did not
support the installation of the system on Route 250 West at this time and requested information of the
effectiveness of the system from VDoT based on the use of it in other locations throughout the state. He
added that Mr. Jim Bryan, VDoT’s Resident Engineer, is present at this meeting.
Ms. Thomas stated that Mr. Bryan would probably want to share information about the warrants for
traffic signal installation, since only a few of the warrants were met.
Mr. Bryan apologized for not speaking with more clarity at the last meeting, and said he hoped to
make things clearer tonight. There is a lot of traffic on Routes 250 and 677, and the sight lines complicate
the issue because they are not the best at any time of day and especially at night. He views the warrants as
decision tools, and they are not mandated in such a way that a light has to be installed. However, he
believes four of these warrants demonstrate the fact that there is a problem. The second warrant is a
strong one, and it indicates that the traffic flow is so continuous on Route 250 that it is causing the traffic to
pile up on Route 677. He added that the other warrants relate to periods of time during certain times of day
and peak hours which exacerbates the problem. The most compelling information relates to the accident
data which shows that this intersection has almost three times more accidents than any like intersection in
the VDoT Culpeper district. There were four accidents this past year, and he has already shown the Board
members the history for the last ten years. He commented that if the installation of the light is postponed
one more time it will be ten months before a light can be located there. He remarked that other measures
such as reducing the vertical sight line and adding another lane as well as a light are approximately
$400,000 and there would be a wait for funding. Mr. Bryan said, in his opinion, the best way to remedy the
problem now is to install a light. He stated that if there is an accident within the next ten months, he would
feel responsible for it.
Mr. Dorrier referred to the report where it indicated that as an alternative to a traffic light, the speed
could be reduced. He asked Mr. Bryan if he could support this alternative. Mr. Bryan replied that he would
have to ask the traffic engineer experts, although he does not see any problem in doing both. Mr. Dorrier
inquired as to the speed in that area currently. Mr. Bryan answered that it is 45 miles per hour. He noted
that VDoT would also sign the pavement coming up the hill warning drivers of the traffic light ahead.
Mr. Bowerman referred to Mr. Bryan’s comment about signing the pavement, and he inquired if this
has been done any other place in Albemarle County. Mr. Bryan said he does not know, but it is commonly
done. Mr. Bowerman commented that it is new to Albemarle County. Ms. Thomas pointed out that in West
Leigh, there is signage on the road indicating a railroad crossing ahead. This is the only place she has seen
such signage, and it was done about a year ago. I was very effective in this particular situation. Mr. Bryan
remarked that signage in this manner avoids clutter along the side of the road.
Mr. Perkins noted that four warrants were met, and he wondered what criteria is involved. Mr.
Bryan said it involves breaking a certain threshold in terms of numbers. He explained that the second
warrant involves the number of vehicles per hour entering the intersection from one direction and the
number of vehicles entering from the other direction. I a certain number is involved, the warrant is met. He
added that the other warrants involve duration in terms of hours and times of day.
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Perkins recalled that County officials have been told so many times in the past that requests
have not met the warrants. Mr. Bryan said it is not the easiest language in the world to understand, but he
has provided a summary to try to clarify the information.
Mr. Perkins remarked that he felt another particular intersection had also met the warrants, but
VDoT did not agree. There are probably more accidents at this intersection than the intersection being
discussed today. Mr. Bryan answered that common sense is also necessary. He reiterated that the
warrants are decision tools, and they are not mandated. The accident data is critical, and there is an
accident report available which gets into much more detail. Mr. Martin concurred that common sense is
very important.
Ms. Humphris stated that she also likes facts, and this is the first time she has ever seen the
warrants in writing. She said Board members were never told what the warrants involved, but every time
County officials asked for a traffic signal somewhere, they were told it did not meet the warrants. Ms.
Thomas mentioned that once she really wanted to know about the warrants, and a meeting was arranged
just for her. She said it took three people from VDoT approximately an hour to convince her that the
warrants were art and not science. Mr. Bryan remarked that the simplest way he can explain the situation is
to say that there are a lot of vehicles in the area conflicting with one another and no one is in charge.
Ms. Thomas commented that the Advisory Committee is aware of the complaints that will come
about when Route 250 is constricted with a stop light, and one of the County’s goals is to try to keep traffic
moving safely on Route 250. She added that if a speed limit is lowered, the volume of traffic can still be
kept moving, but as soon as a traffic signal is installed, major things have been done to the amount of traffic
that can be moved on a road. She wondered if Mr. Bryan can encourage the Supervisors to have a traffic
signal installed given that one of the goals is to keep traffic moving. She asked if the sole argument
pertains to safety and the number of accidents involved in that area. Mr. Bryan concurred that the number
one goal is to keep traffic moving, but it has to be balanced with safety. He added that the way the green,
red and amber traffic signals are cycled is the mechanics of how a traffic signal functions to achieve the
balance between safety and the movement of traffic.
Mr. Martin recalled that when the Route 250 Committee recommended not widening the roads,
etc., it went against VDoT’s logic. He said it goes against his logic as well, but if the people who live in the
area don’t want these types of improvements, then it is a persuasive argument. He feels the same way
about this situation, and it really should be the will of the people. He added that at some point things will
either get so unsafe that the will of the people will change or if it doesn’t, the situation can stay the same.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that between Broomley Road and the light at Boar’s Head there is an
automobile dealership, the Christian Mission and Northridge. He remarked that he sees people coming out
from these places into traffic and getting into the center lane and then merging. He said putting in the stop
light would help them get into the flow of traffic, and it might help more than just the one intersection. He
gets frustrated when he is on Route 250 and one car enters the road and stops 15 vehicles on Route 250.
He does not know if there is any way to remedy the situation of one car tripping the signal and getting a
green light which stops all the cars on Route 250.
Ms. Thomas wondered if it will be a triggered signal rather than automatically changing. Mr. Bryan
answered affirmatively.
Ms. Thomas noted that soon after she was elected to this Board, the parents of a teenager who
had been severely injured brought to her attention that this was a dangerous intersection, and at that point,
she asked VDoT about a stop light. The answer was that a blinking amber light could be installed, but not a
traffic light. She said VDoT representatives explained that putting up a stop light would increase rear end
collisions of people coming out of town and driving over the hill and suddenly there is a line of traffic they
didn’t expect. She stated, though, that Mr. Bryan is proposing to put writing on the pavement indicating that
there is a stop light ahead.
Mr. Bryan pointed out that for a six month period, there is also signage indicating that a new traffic
pattern is ahead. The light will be raised as high as possible within standards, and if the pile up of traffic is
getting too great, the triggering will cause the light to turn green.
Ms. Thomas referred to the fact that Mr. Perkins has a lot more constituents involved with this
situation than she does, and she wondered how he felt about the matter. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Perkins
how the stop light at Route 240 was received. Mr. Perkins replied that this traffic light has been a real help.
Ms. Thomas stated that people hate the fact that there are traffic lights at Farmington and Ednam Forest.
Mr. Perkins said this goes against VDoT’s policy of having traffic lights that don’t work all the time, and the
problem is from 7:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. He added that at 10:00 a.m. there is no problem. Mr. Bryan
commented that he was there at noon today, and he still felt as though he was taking a chance entering the
intersection.
Mr. Perkins said the sight distance is bad. Mr. Bryan concurred. He added that the situation is
stressful.
Ms. Thomas informed the group that she telephoned 16 households in the Flordon and Old Ballard
Road area, and 13 wanted the stop light adamantly. She said three wanted an amber signal. She stated
that some people pointed out that if they don’t live in Flordon, they try to use other ways to get onto Route
250 or to go into town, such as Garth Road or through West Leigh. She hates not to support the Advisory
Committee’s recommendations, since it is not a good citizen relationship to set up such a committee and
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
then disregard its advice.
Mr. Dorrier inquired as to the main statistic used to determine whether or not a traffic light will be
installed. Mr. Bryan answered that it all depends on the situation. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a determining
factor that will ensure a light being installed. Mr. Bryan answered, “no.” He added that sometimes a traffic
light will create more problems than it will solve. However, in VDoT representatives’ judgment, they think
this particular light is necessary.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that the problem there is speed, and if the traffic can be slowed down, it will
solve the problem. He wondered, though, how to slow down the vehicles. It cannot be done with just a
sign. Mr. Bryan responded that if the speed limit is reduced in this area, there will be such a steady stream
of cars going at 30 to 35 miles per hour, that the vehicles would never get out of Route 677.
Ms. Humphris remarked that when she puts herself in place of someone living in Flordon who
would be sitting there trying to get out onto Route 250, she thinks a traffic light is the best alternative.
However, when she considers her own situation of driving on Route 250, she thinks it is a horrible idea.
Probably the Flordon situation is more important, although there will be some rear end accidents even with
the painting on the pavement.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he cannot imagine a person would not be able to see stopped cars in
any direction. Ms. Thomas disagreed. She added that there is a tall hill when vehicles are traveling west.
Mr. Tucker said there should not be a problem once people know the traffic light has been installed.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if vehicles could come another way to get onto Route 250 without using this
particular intersection. Ms. Thomas said traffic would have to go all the way back into West Leigh toward
Ivy.
Next, Ms. Thomas mentioned the wildlife warning highway reflector system. Mr. Bryan remarked
that this system will not be installed.
Ms. Humphris asked how the system is working in other parts of the country. Mr. Bryan replied that
VDoT officials do not know yet if this system is effective. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Bryan to inform the Board
of Supervisors about the effectiveness of this system as soon as VDoT has had some experience with it.
Mr. Bowerman stated that a good place to test such a wildlife warning system would be in Pennsylvania on
Routes 80 and 81.
Mr. Perkins inquired if the Route 250 Committee was privy to the information presented by Mr.
Bryan. Mr. Bryan said the members of the Committee saw the traffic data that verifies the warrants. Ms.
Thomas wondered if they saw the Accident Data Summary. Mr. Bryan answered that he is unsure if they
saw this summary. He suggested that the Committee members address all the warrants if they wanted to
contradict them.
Ms. Humphris commented that she understands the Task Force’s position, and she understands its
history. She is familiar with all of its input on the Route 250 West study, but she thinks in the interest of
safety for everybody, she needs to support the installation of the traffic light at Broomley Road and Route
250.
Mr. Martin said this situation fits his comments in the beginning that perhaps you have to wait for
people to get to a certain point of frustration before they want to make a change. He stated that it appears
on a 13 to 16 vote, 13 people wanted the traffic light because of safety. He added that eventually he thinks
the widening of Route 250 will get to this point also.
Mr. Perkins inquired if the installation of one traffic light would warrant the removal of another one.
Mr. Bryan indicated that this would not be done. Ms. Thomas asked if the traffic signals will be coordinated.
Mr. Bryan answered affirmatively. Ms. Thomas then inquired as to how they can be both triggered as well
as coordinated. Mr. Bryan said it can be done.
At this time, Mr. Martin offered a motion to approve installing a traffic signal at the intersection of
Route 250 and Broomley Road (Route 677). Mr. Bowerman noted that especially on Sunday morning on
Route 29 it is possible to see triggering of traffic lights as well as coordination. Mr. Perkins seconded Mr.
Martin’s motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Perkins stated that the Board will wait for more information on the installation of the wildlife
warning highway reflector system.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Bryan for the information and data and for asking the advice of the Board
members.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: October 18, November 1, November 8(A), December 6
and December 14, 2000; January 3, January 10, and January 17, 2001.
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. Humphris moved approval of the November 1, 2000 minutes (Pages 15 to the end). She said
she had given the Clerk her suggestions. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments.
Mr. Martin moved to appoint Mr. Jorg Lippuner as the Board of Supervisors’ representative to the
Local Workforce Investment Board (LWIB) with said term to expire June 3, 2002. Ms. Humphris seconded
the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Perkins mentioned an item concerning the Police Department and the death that occurred in
Albemarle County a couple of weeks ago. He noticed in today’s Daily Progress that there is an internal
investigation about this matter, and he wondered if it would be better if the State Police were called in to
conduct the investigation. Mr. Martin remarked that he thinks a closed session should be held soon to
discuss the situation. Mr. Tucker said this will be done when the investigation is finished, and it is turned
over to the Commonwealth's Attorney. The Commonwealth's Attorney will then be invited to the Board’s
closed session.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County has a policy as far as when external investigation is requested
versus internal investigation. Mr. Davis answered that it is usually the decision of the Commonwealth's
Attorney as to whether or not the State Police investigate rather than the local Police Department. In this
instance, the Commonwealth's Attorney did not think it was necessary to request such assistance from the
State Police. Mr. Tucker informed the Board members that the Commonwealth's Attorney has not gotten
the results of the investigation, yet.
Mr. Dorrier stated that this puts a lot of discretion with the Commonwealth's Attorney, which is not
all bad, and in some cases, it can be good. However, if there was a policy it would take some of the
pressure off the Commonwealth's Attorney of having to determine whether it is an internal or external
matter.
Mr. Davis explained that there are two different investigations. There is a criminal investigation that
is the only thing in which the State Police would be involved, and it would relate to whether or not any
criminal charges arise from the shooting. This is a decision with which the Commonwealth's Attorney deals.
The second investigation is the internal investigation conducted by the Internal Affairs Unit of the Police
Department. This really does not begin until after the criminal investigation is completed, and then it is
finished up as quickly as possible. The internal investigation information will be presented to the Board of
Supervisors as soon as possible.
Mr. Tucker remarked that the newspaper article Mr. Perkins mentioned was referring to the
investigation being conducted by the Internal Affairs of the Police Department.
Mr. Martin said he is unsure at what point it would be appropriate, but he thinks Mr. Perkins has
mentioned a good topic of conversation. Mr. Tucker responded that the staff concurs and had planned to
bring this matter before the Board. Mr. Dorrier remarked that he would also support a report to the Board
about the internal investigation.
__________
Ms. Humphris mentioned that reports are showing up in the newspaper relating to fines for hunting
violations, and they seem very low to her.
Mr. Martin suggested that it might be beneficial to write a letter in the Chairman’s name to the
judges. It would at least emphasize the Board members’ thoughts. He stated that it could be a tastefully
done letter to indicate the Board members’ concerns and to show things they had done in the hopes that
more attention would be given to hunting violations.
Mr. Tucker remarked that when the background of a situation is not known, it is hard to make a
judgment on whether or not a light fine is appropriate. He said, though, the staff will be happy to write a
letter to the judges.
Mr. Martin concurred with Ms. Humphris’ comments that when a month’s worth of fines are
considered, they seem low.
February 14, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Tucker also pointed out that the judge who usually deals with these issues will be leaving in a
couple of months.
Ms. Humphris stated that she thinks there should be a complete record of all of the citations and
arrests and the court’s disposition of them. All of this information could be contained in one report, but even
though the Board members keep requesting the information, they never get it. Ms. Thomas indicated that
her impression is that the Board is getting totally stonewalled.
Ms. Humphris said the information could at least be taken out of the newspaper. She thinks the
information is necessary even if it has to wait until this year’s data is complete. She stated that then County
officials could indicate their feelings if they are not happy with the fines being handed out by the courts.
Mr. Martin suggested that the language in the letter could indicate what the Board members have
done to try to reach their goal of having less hunting violations in Albemarle County. The letter could also
ask that consideration be given to stiffer fines, etc.
Ms. Humphris suggested that perhaps the letter should be sent at the beginning of next hunting
season and not at the end of this one.
Mr. Perkins mentioned a case where a fake deer was set up opposite the exit from Miller School,
and one of the Miller School employees came out of the driveway with his family and saw the deer. The
employee backed up to give his family a better look, and the police charged him. The employee did not
even have a gun in the car. This was probably a situation where the case was dismissed.
Mr. Martin explained that when a case is dismissed, it means that there was a court hearing and the
person was found innocent. He said some of the others where there was no fine nor sentence, indicates
that there was a court hearing with a guilty verdict.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the finding of guilt is also a punishment in itself. Even if there is no
fine, it goes on a person’s record. If a person comes into court with no record, they usually get a break on
the fine.
Ms. Humphris emphasized that she thinks whoever is responsible needs to compile court records
for this coming hunting season. She suggested that a letter should go to the judge in September noting the
Board members’ actions and expectations. Mr. Tucker indicated that there will be a new judge at that time.
He also explained that the Sheriff’s Office is responsible for compiling the data. Ms. Thomas concurred
that the Sheriff’s Office had promised the Board this information.
___________
Next, Ms. Humphris mentioned that Mr. Bowerman had a comment to make about the Route 29
South Corridor Study. She is unsure if the action the Board members took satisfied his concerns.
Mr. Bowerman responded that the action the Board took is fine with him, but he suggested that the
words “or VDoT” be added to the end of the second sentence in the first paragraph. The sentence would
then indicate that, “Therefore, the County does not believe controlled access through elimination of all
individual access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized intersections should be
assumed as necessary for either Albemarle County or VDoT.” This language will make the statement
stronger.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is the Board’s consensus to add these two words to the resolution.
Board members concurred.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 9:10 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date 04/18/2001
Initials LAB