2001-03-21March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
21, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arriving at 7:03 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 Senior Deputy Clerk, Laura Bentley.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Jason Overstreet said he is a resident of Albemarle County. It is his understanding that Virginia
law requires drivers and front-seat passengers to wear a safety belt and to insure that children under the
age of 16 are properly restrained. He has noticed quite often for the last couple of years that many of the
County’s police officers do not wear their safety belts and therefore they are not leading by example.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve items 5.1 and 5.2 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items as
information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None
________
Item 5.1. SP-2000-64. David Weber (Triton PCS) (defer to April 4, 2001).
By the recorded vote set out above SP-2000-64 was deferred to April 4, 2001.
Agenda Item 5.2. Resolution to accept Stratford Glen in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M,
Subdivision, into the State Secondary System of Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution accepting Stratford Glen in
Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, Subdivision, into the State Secondary System of Highways
was adopted:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated March 13, 2001, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, as
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated March 13, 2001, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Stratford Glen from the intersection of Ashwood Boulevard (Station 0+52) edge of
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
roundabout, to the intersection of Stratford Glen Way ( Station 2+21.84), as shown on plat
recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.032 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.032 mile.
______________
Item 5.3. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for January 30 and February 13, 2001 (Revised
Draft), were received for information.
______________
Item 5.4. Allocations for Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway System – Albemarle County
Comparison of FY 1999/2000 and FY 2000/20006 Primary Plans.
It was noted in the staff’s report that funding for Albemarle projects in the five common years of
each plan, FY 00-01 to FY 04-05, decreased by $20,137,000.The total project cost for all thirteen projects
in the 1999-2005 Plan is $228,208,000 as compared to $106,222,000 in the 2000-2006 Plan, a
$121,244,000 decrease. The major reason for this decrease is the elimination of construction costs and /or
right-of-way costs for some projects, particularly the Western Bypass and the Route 29 widening from Rio
Mills Road to Airport Road. VDOT eliminated the construction cost estimates for projects that were
scheduled for construction beyond the 6-Year Plan because the estimates have proven to be inaccurate in
the past. VDOT believes it can estimate the construction cost more accurately as the construction
advertisement date gets closer.
By the recorded vote set out above, this report was accepted as information.
______________
Item 5.5 2000 Fourth Quarter and Year end Building Reports as prepared by the Department of
Planning and Community Development.
The staff’s report noted that beginning with the 2001 First Quarter Building Report Certificate of
Occupancy data will no longer be included, as Certificate of Occupancy data is not directly comparable to
building permits issued over time. Building permit data more accurately reflects development trends. A
new table will be added to the Building Report tracking building permit data issued by elementary school
district.
By the recorded vote set out above, this report was accepted as information.
______________
Item 5.6. Letter dated March 8, 2001, from Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Mr.
John B. and Ms. Diann R. Fiery, re: .
Official Determination of Division Rights, Tax Map 9, Parcel 20A
By the recorded vote set out above, this letter was accepted as information.
______________
Item 5.7. Notice of an application filed on February 22, 2001, with the State Corporation
Commission, by Virginia Electric and Power Company for approval of a Functional Separation Plan under
the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act, Case No. PUE00584 (on file in the Clerk's office).
By the recorded vote set out above, this item was accepted as information.
______________
Item 5.8. 2000 Annual Report for the Central Virginia Small Business Development Center.
By the recorded vote set out above, this report was accepted as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for water and sewer service to Tax Map 46, parcels 30 and 30A (Baker-Butler Elementary
School). (Notice of public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 5 and March 12, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant, the Albemarle County School Board, is requesting jurisdictional
area designation for water and sewer service to a 53-acre site (Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A) which is
the location for the new Baker-Butler Elementary School. The property is located on the west side of Proffit
Road, approximately 1.3 miles east of Route 29.
The subject property is located in the Hollymead Community Development Area. The western
portion of Parcel 30 is already in the jurisdictional area for water and sewer service. The Comprehensive
Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Development Areas:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and
sewer (p. 109).”
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125). ”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas
(p.125).”
Mr. Cilimberg said as a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be
reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with public
utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of an amendment of the
ACSA Jurisdictional Area to include Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A for water and sewer service.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin moved approval of the amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authority
jurisdictional area to include Tax Map 46, parcels 30 and 30A for water and sewer service. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
Agenda Item 7. PUBLIC HEARING to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for water service to Glenorchy Subdivision. (Notice of this public hearing was published in
the Daily Progress on March 5 and March 12, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a proposal to amend the jurisdictional area to provide water and sewer
service to the Glenorchy subdivision which is located on the north side of Route 250 East in Urban Area
Three (Pantops), just west of the I-64 Interchange. The original application was made by a resident
requesting public water service due to a failing well on-site. Upon consideration of the initial request by the
resident, the Board proposed considering an amendment to the jurisdictional area that would include all of
the Glenorchy Subdivision located within the designated Development Area for water and sewer service.
All of the lots within the Glenorchy Subdivision are located within the designated Development
Area, with the exception of the northern, non-contiguous portion of one parcel, Tax Map 78B, Parcel 1. The
Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the
Development Areas:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and
sewer (p. 109).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas
(p.125).”
Mr. Cilimberg said as a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be
reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This amendment is consistent with
public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of an amendment of
the ACSA jurisdictional area to include the Glenorchy Subdivision, as noted on Tax Map 78B, except for the
northern (non-contiguous) portion of Tax 78B, Parcel 1, for water and sewer service.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin moved approval of the amendment of the ACSA jurisdictional area to include the
Glenorchy Subdivision, Tax Map 78B, excluding the northern noncontiguous portion of Tax Map 78B, Parcel
1, for water and sewer service. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on local community development
and housing needs and potential projects in relation to Community Development Block Grant funding for a
project in the County. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 5 and
March 12, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker said local citizen participation is encouraged throughout the process of developing
Community Improvement Grant (CIG) proposals funded through the Virginia Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) program. To facilitate participation two public hearings are required. The first public
hearing is to receive community input on housing needs and priorities that could be addressed by CDBG
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
th
funding. The second public hearing scheduled for April 4 is to receive public comment on a proposed
project for CDBG funding. Subsequent to the public hearing, the Board will be asked to sign a resolution to
the Department of Housing and Community Development authorizing the County to officially apply for the
funds.
Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CIGs over the years, the most
recent being a multi-year funded grant for housing and neighborhood improvements for the Porters Road
and Yancey Mill neighborhoods. Staff, in consultation with staff from the Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program (AHIP), requests this first public hearing to receive input on community needs that may be eligible
for a CIG.
Mr. Tucker said a brief description of eligible activities under the CDBG program and Albemarle
County’s past performance with CIGs has been provided to Board members. Staff may also present some
options under consideration for a CIG proposal. Staff will provide this information at the public hearing
along with some potential options under consideration for a CIG proposal.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends this public hearing be held to provide information on CDBG
funding that may be available and to obtain input from low- and moderate-income persons or persons
representing low- and moderate-income communities.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Leona A. Powell said she lives in Whitewood Village and would like for her apartment be
expanded.
Ms. Thomas asked if small apartments is a problem many people have at Whitewood Village. Ms.
Powell responded "yes". She also would like to have educational programs, and recreation and exercise
classes.
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, said the County has been considering a block grant for some
activities at Whitewood Village. Staff will provide details to the Board at the next public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman asked if funds could be used for expansion of existing units. Mr. White stated that
staff met with the architect yesterday and expanding existing units is one of the things being considered. He
stated that you cannot do a whole lot with expanding within an existing structure, but staff is looking at the
options of putting in some three bedroom units as well as making some of the existing units handicapped
accessible which they are not at this time. Mr. White noted that a community center is under consideration
as well.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Tucker reiterated that there will be another public hearing on this matter on April 4, 2001.
There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2000-75. Howell (Triton PCS-CVR 370A) (Sign #60). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to allow a communication fac including a 98 high steel monopole, flush mounted antennas, &
ground equip on a 30’ x 30’ leased area of a 154.939 ac parcel. A request for the waiver of a site plan, per
Sec18.32.3.10 has also been submitted. TM 72, P 21. Property located at 5726 Wyant Lane, approx 153 ft
S of I-64, & between St Rt 635 & Mechums River. Znd RA & located w/in EC. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice
of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 5 and March 12, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report stating that this request is for a communication facility.
As applied for, it would be a 98 foot high steel monopole with ground equipment, flush mounted antenna on
a 900 square foot lease area of about a 155 acre parcel. The property is located on Wyant Lane and is in
an area of mixed residential, forestal and agricultural land uses. The lease area can be reached through a
farm lane and across pastured fields. No residences are visible from the lease area, according to staff’s
field observations.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ARB considered the impacts of the facility on I-64 which is the
Entrance Corridor road nearest to this particular facility. The ARB granted it a Certificate of
Appropriateness on December 18, 2000. The proposed site is located on the exterior of a very large parcel
and within a grove of trees. Visibility of the top of the tower from adjacent properties is minimal. Agricultural
uses on the property would not be impacted by the use. Ground equipment would be painted a dark brown
and would not be visible from any public road or adjacent property.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff has recommended approval subject to 11 conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on February 13, 2001, also recommended approval. In condition 1, the
Planning Commission changed the height above the trees from 10 feet to 7 feet.
With no questions for staff, Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to address the Board.
Ms. Valerie Long spoke on behalf of the applicant. She said that Mr. Cilimberg covered the major
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
issues and she would point out just a few other items. She stated that this is a standard design Triton uses
for all of its facilities in Albemarle County that are not co-locations. The only real difference here is that
Triton would add an enclosed lease area and all of the equipment would be within a fence. The property
owner has a number of cattle on the property therefore installation of the fence would be a safety measure.
It is not expected that the fence would be visible from the interstate or from any of the adjacent parcels.
This facility, as demonstrated by the balloon test conducted, is nearly invisible from the interstate. It is a
heavily wooded area of the property. The difference in the road elevation, the lease area and the amount
of heavy tree coverage provides for very good screening from the interstate. Ms. Long stated that it was
extremely difficult for Triton to find the balloon when they drove by it on the interstate a number of times
during the winter months.
Ms. Long also noted that the Planning Commission did recommend approval with one change to
the first condition regarding the height of the facility. She pointed out that the Planning Commission minutes
reflected some concern expressed by a few members and one of the neighbors in the area that the balloon
would be visible from Wyant Lane, the road just south of the property shown on the map that the Board has
before it. There was concern that the pole would be visible from that road. Triton had conducted a number
of balloon tests and had never really been able to see it. Triton repeated a test this past week in an effort to
address that concern. She noted that Ms. Thomas was present during the test and that the balloon was
eventually found way off in the distance. Visibility is quite limited.
Ms. Long noted that one of the neighbors pointed out that Wyant Lane will soon be widened and
brought up to state road standards. The neighbor expressed concern that in order to widen the road VDOT
would be removing some of the trees along either side of Wyant Lane which might cause additional
visibility. The applicant, however, feels confident the trees that are well beyond the edge of the roadway will
continue to provide sufficient screening of the facility once it is constructed. The applicant is requesting that
the Board restore the first condition to its original recommendation by staff at a height of 10 feet over the
trees. Ms. Long stated that the applicant does not expect to have to remove any of the trees on the
property. The property is extremely large. She then distributed photos of the balloon from the interstate to
the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked at what height was the balloon she saw. Ms. Long replied that it was at 10 feet
above.
Ms. Thomas then opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Ms. Thomas stated that the balloon was indeed difficult to see. She recommended approval with
the original 10 foot condition. Ms. Humphris clarified that Ms. Thomas felt that the tower was not as visible
as one of the Planning Commissioners had stated. Ms. Thomas affirmed that it was not as visible.
Mr. Dorrier moved approval of SP-2000-75 with the 11 recommended conditions and at 10 feet as
originally noted in Condition No. 1 (instead of 7 feet recommended by the Planning Commission). The
motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above
the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, as measured Above Sea Level
(ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above
the top of the pole;
2.The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The pole shall be painted dark brown in color;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached
plan entitled “Howell (Triton PCS)” and dated 1/19/01;
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not to
exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of
the pole;
f.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
g.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in
feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level;
h.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as follows:
a.The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled “Howell (Triton
PCS)” and dated 1/19/01 (copy on file in the Clerk's office);
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “Howell (Triton
PCS)” and dated 1/19/01;
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole;
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying
tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site
both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of
Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with
the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall
be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized
by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing
trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer,
after the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the
pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are
steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a
luminaries is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
11.A maximum six (6) foot high barbed wire fence with a metal gate, as shown on the attached plans
entitled “Howell (Triton PCS)” and dated 1/19/01 shall be permitted around the perimeter of the
lease area.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2000-79. East Belmont Farm (Sign #99). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow low-water bridge (stream crossing) in accord w/Sec 30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 80, P
1, contains 721.120 acs. Located on E Belmont Farm Rd, at intersec of Belmont Farm Rd & Rt 22. Znd
RA. Rivanna Dist (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 5 and March
12, 2001.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report. He stated that this request is to rectify a violation that
currently exists. The applicant constructed a stream crossing on Camp Branch without applying for the
required special use permit. That construction included the installation of a concrete low-water bridge,
grading of the stream banks to access the bridge, and grading back of overhanging streambanks
downstream of the crossing.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant states that the crossing connects two sections of East Belmont
Farm and prevents a two-mile (one-way) trip between two sections of the farm separated only by Camp
Branch. An unimproved ford that had existed at this point for decades, but has become heavily eroded and
often impassable. This area is recognized in the Open Space Plan as part of a major stream valley. The
surrounding area is important farmlands and forests. The farm is included in the Southwest Mountain Rural
Historic District.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Engineering Department found that because of the crossing’s location
within East Belmont Farm and the lack of adjacent properties upstream of the crossing, there will be no
flood impacts on neighboring properties. Staff did note that the flood levels may increase by approximately
one foot in a small, isolated area directly upstream of the crossing. However, this area of impact is small
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
and will not effect any adjacent properties.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the stream, which will provide access to an agricultural use, will not change
the character of the district. This crossing does not appear to be intended for anything other than
agricultural uses. Staff has noted in its report that East Belmont Farm is under a conservation easement.
Staff did recommend approval of the special use permit with four conditions.
The Planning Commission, as well, recommended approval of the request. At its meeting, the
Commission stated that the costs involved in the required engineering study as stated by the applicant could
exceed the cost of the project itself and would be onerous to a working farm. The Planning Commission
requested that staff find a way to either waive condition #2, as recommended by staff, if that would be
permissible or to provide the minimum requirements for the applicants to satisfy the condition. Mr.
Cilimberg noted that the County Attorney’s Office has stated that it is not possible to waive the requirements
of the condition. Therefore, Engineering has provided a memo, that is attached, that lists the minimum
requirements necessary to satisfy the condition. The applicant and/or his engineers should be able to
minimize costs by following these guidelines.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the memo from the Engineering Department has been given to the
applicant to guide his engineering work. Again, staff recommends approval with the four conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to address the Board.
Mr. Woody Baker said he is the General Manager of East Belmont Farm which is located in
Keswick. He is representing the owner, Archibald Craig, who sends his regrets for being unable to attend
the meeting. Mr. Craig is elderly and does not really get out much at night. Mr. Baker asked for the
approval of the application for construction of a low-water bridge. The applicant was unaware that there
was a floodplain designation on a couple of hundred yards of creek at the farm’s southern boundary, and
that by working in this creek the applicant was in violation of the County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
graded 210 feet of dangerously overhanging creek bank, cleaned up the old ford, and built a low-water
bridge just over three feet tall.
The applicant’s reasons for embarking on this project were to reduce on-going erosion at the ford,
improve access to the front of the farm for movement of machinery and livestock, and to fence the cattle off
th
the creek. At the Planning Commission public hearing on February 13 the applicant requested relief from
one of the recommended conditions for approval which required engineering work which would have cost
from $5,000 to $10,000 based on two different engineering firms the applicant had consulted. The
Commission asked Engineering staff to waive the condition or come up with a minimum set of standards.
The resulting conditions will reduce the applicant’s engineering costs to the $1,500 range. The applicant
thanks staff for working with them on this issue.
Mr. Baker stated that, for the benefit of other farmers in the County, he is compelled to add that
they find themselves, as farmers who know their land and waterways, faced with compliance to ordinances
which do not always aptly apply to agriculture. The required engineering work deals with how the project
changes the floodplain. The planning and engineering reports state that this project will have no impact on
properties other than East Belmont. A low-water bridge obstructs about 20 inches of water flow, similar to
that of a tree fallen across the creek. If additional water were to back up on the pastures as a result of the
low-water bridge, the applicant would embrace the results just as they appreciate any trees that have fallen
across the miles of creeks. A huge rain is nicely dispersed in their low pastures along the creeks. This
occurs without erosion and revitalizes the applicant’s best grazing land. The applicant aerates its fields in
March to capture moisture from spring rain and any brief flooding.
Mr. Baker added that East Belmont was one of the first farms in the Southwest Mountain Historic
District to be placed in a permanent conservation easement, therefore, the actions of the applicant will not
impact future land use. Section 30.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the purpose and intent of the
Flood Hazard Overlay District to provide safety and protection from flooding. From an agricultural point of
view the applicant feels that the engineering requirements do nothing more than protect them from
themselves and from the Engineering Department. The applicant understands that any alterations to the
floodplain have important implications related to county government and federal funding and that this
project must not alter the floodplain more than one foot or a FEMA remapping application must be
submitted. Mr. Baker acknowledged that he is not an engineer but believes this project will change the
floodplain only fractionally.
Mr. Baker stated that with 27 employees in the Engineering Department one would think that
someone could have helped the applicant reach that determination and therefore eliminate engineering
fees. After all, the applicant’s efforts have been centered around the reduction of erosion at a ford and
fencing cattle off the creek, both important issues to the County. The Comprehensive Plan strongly
supports protecting agricultural lands and forests for many reasons. A 1994 report by the Agricultural and
Forestal Industries Support Committee, of which Mr. Baker was a member, commissioned by the Board of
Supervisors states among other things, that income derived by the landowner encourages the landowner to
keep that resource in tact.
Mr. Baker went on to state that farming must ultimately be economically viable. The applicant’s
construction costs for the bridge was $2,200. Permit fees, engineering, riparian buffer replanting and time
spent will cost in excess of $5,000. The point is that if the County sincerely wants to support agriculture, it
should look hard at how the Zoning Ordinance really applies to farmers. County resources should be used
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
to help bonified farmers work through the process. The applicant requires few services from the County
and prides himself on the improvements he continues to make to the farm without local, state or federal
funding. Conversely, the applicant expects regulations and laws to which he must abide to be reasonable
and fair. It would seem that certain parts of the Zoning Ordinance are geared to the difficulties that arise
from development and their need is understandable. Costs can always be passed down by developers.
Farmers, on the other hand, provide the backdrop for a beautiful county and must pay big bucks to comply
with regulations that may have no relevance in the farming world, especially when they occur on one’s own
property and affect no others.
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would like to submit what he read for the record. She noted that
part of it is before the Board but not in its entirety.
Ms. Humphris stated that he had added more to his letter and the question for staff is can the
County learn anything from this experience for everybody’s benefit. Are there changes that should be
considered? Mr. Martin stated that it should be considered as part of the Rural Areas Study.
Ms. Thomas said her first thought was that since this property is in a conservation easement, she
had assumed some of these regulations were because of the County’s basic mistrust of when a farmer
builds a farm road and so many times it is turned into a subdivision road. Obviously, if the property is in a
conservation easement that cannot happen and so she wondered if the rules could be changed for lands
that were not going to be subdivided. Her understanding is that this is something FEMA requires of the
County. Mr. Davis responded that the engineering calculations are basically a FEMA requirement that the
County has to incorporate in its floodplain ordinance. The County is the enforcement agent for FEMA on
the local disturbance within a floodplain. That is not something the County has any control, if it participates
in the FEMA program.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wanted a differential fee structure for these types of issues that Mr.
Baker has described so that there are not application fees of about $2,200. Mr. Cilimberg noted that
$2,200 is total fees. The fee for a special use permit is in the $800 range.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Baker what the $2,200 represented. Mr. Baker responded that the $2,200
was actual bricks and mortar. He stated that the application fee was $790 plus $50.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Davis had some suggestions on how this issue could be dealt with and still
meet the requirements. He asked if there is a way that it can be done as a matter of course when it is
obvious that, because of all of the considerations, somebody can determine that the requirements of FEMA
are met without going through a lot of the arithmetic. Mr. Davis responded that is what Engineering was
asked to determine, and what they came up with was in the staff recommendation. If there is a shorter
method, it is a question Engineering must answer.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is a way to make sure that Engineering gets the short way as an option
for people. Obviously, in this case it looked like it was going to be very expensive to meet the requirements.
Engineering was sitting on the answer of how to do it in a short way and that was not shared with the
applicant until the Planning Commission asked them to.
Mr. Tucker asked the Board to allow staff to look into other options. He clarified that the options
would apply to the types of issues Mr. Baker presented tonight. Ms. Thomas said she would support the
options just limited to lands in a conservation easement. Mr. Tucker said the County would need some
standard to follow.
Mr. Perkins asked if FEMA would still require something. Mr. Davis said that typically nothing would
be built until after the approval process. This one was already built due to a misunderstanding so it was
somewhat obvious what the impacts were going to be. He also stated that he was not sure Engineering
would be as comfortable with the proposed option before something is built.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff could see what, if anything, could be done. Mr. Tucker agreed and said
the applicant provided good information for staff to use in evaluating the issue.
Ms. Thomas then opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin moved approval of SP-2000-79, East Belmont Farm, with the four conditions and with
condition 2 making note that the Engineering Department has provided the applicant with a list of the
minimal requirements necessary to satisfy condition number 2 and that the applicant is comfortable with
that. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes.
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The applicant must submit all plans, calculations, and documents required in conditions 2 through
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
4 within four months of the approval of this permit;
2.Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the
floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after constructions. Sections
18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated
floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within one (1) vertical foot;
3.Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream
channel and any associated wetlands; and
4.Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream
buffer. [17-322]
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2000-80. Colonial Baptist Church (Sign #43). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord, to allow printing & distribution of church literature in
3,040 sq ft bldg to be constructed adj to existing church on 10.39 acs of land. Located on Rt 250 E, .7 mls
E of Rt 744 (Hacktown Rd). TM 94, P 46. Znd RA & EC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of the public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on March 5 and March 12, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report stating that in August, 1998 the Board approved the
applicant’s request to amend an existing special use permit. The mission building would house operations
for the printing and distribution of humanitarian literature as well as a prophet’s chamber. The printing and
distribution operation would operate Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The staff report
indicates hours from 7:00 am to 7:00 p.m., but the approval was for the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. He
said that originally the mission building would employ up to five people. This changed in that these five
would be volunteers, not employees.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant did not enact the approved special use permit within the
appropriate time frame and the approval has since expired. The applicant is seeking re-approval of the
same request except for the prophet’s chamber. Staff could not identify any changes in conditions or to the
request that would change the original finding or approval. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
applicant’s request with the same conditions noted in the original approval letter of August 31, 1998.
Planning Commission review of this did not recommend approval originally. In this new review the
Commission has recommended approval by a five to two vote.
Ms. Humphris stated that she wanted to make sure it is noted for the record that there were two
errors in the executive summary. Mr. Cilimberg said the executive summary noted the original application
rather than the action that was actually taken by the Board, which is Attachment A. The letter is correct.
Ms. Humphris said the statement in the executive summary should have reflected the minutes of the
meeting and that decision, but they are in error. Mr. Cilimberg agreed and said he pointed that out. Ms.
Humphris said she is clarifying for the record the correct information. Ms. Thomas said the letter to the
applicant states that the request was unanimously approved. Ms. Humphris stated that is not correct. Mr.
Cilimberg agreed that the March 6, 2001 letter is also incorrect. Ms. Thomas asked whether the conditions
th
listed in the March 6 letter is correct. Mr. Tucker answered "yes".
With no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked the
applicant to address the Board.
Mr. Ed Leake, Jr., representing the applicant, stated that after the approval in August of 1998, they
realized that they would have to do more fundraising. In the Spring of 2000, they broke ground but the
builder became extremely busy and was not available. The applicant realized that the site plan has a limit
of five years on it while the special use permit has a limit of two years. The applicant is now ready to
proceed.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin reminded everyone of the long discussion the Board had on whether or not a print shop
was a business in the rural area and the issue of volunteers versus paid workers. The request was
eventually approved by the Board.
Mr. Martin moved approval of SP-2000-80, Colonial Baptist Church, with the three conditions as
outlined in the March 6, 2001 letter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board desired further discussion.
Ms. Humphris stated that her position has not changed. She still does not believe this is an
appropriate land use in the rural area. She stated that although she is sure the motion will pass, she will be
voting against it.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is just an add-on to the church that is already there. Ms. Humphris
answered that it is a print shop as an accessory to a church. Mr. Dorrier said that it is a pretty big operation.
Ms. Humphris agreed. Her position is that it is not an appropriate land use in the rural area and that the
Board would not allow anyone else to do this in the rural area. However, the majority does feel that it is an
appropriate accessory use to the mission of the church. So, it previously passed the Board of Supervisors.
She also stated that she thought it interesting that when the matter came back to the Planning Commission
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
two members voted against its approval. She is concerned that this is a precedent setting decision for
anything in the rural area.
Mr. Dorrier stated that one of the concerns he has is that if you put the structure where it is
proposed to be placed, you wouldn’t necessarily know that the print shop is going on from the normal traffic
that occurs. He asked if the print shop would create additional traffic that would cause the neighbor-hood to
be disrupted. Ms. Humphris stated that under the terms of the special use permit the church is allowed
twelve truck deliveries per month. Mr. Martin stated that the majority of the Board felt, at the time, that even
though it was an accessory, based on the intended use of these print shops to get these booklets out all
over the world, it was part of the church’s mission and was basically a part of the church. In the two years
that this has been approved, he has not seen others trying to set up print shops or anything of that nature.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he does not feel that 12 commercial delivery trips per month is excessive.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:Ms. Humphris
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship uses will require
amendment to this petition;
2.Print shop and mailing service is limited to distribution of church related items; five (5) volunteers;
hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; and, no more than twelve (12) commercial delivery
truck trips per month as described in memorandum dated August 10, 1998, from Colonial Baptist
Church to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Section I. Facts, Item No. 8 (on file in the
Clerk’s office); and
3.Additional development shall be limited to the final site plan revised May 29, 1998.
(Note: Agenda Items No. 12 and 13 were heard simultaneously.)
Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-2000-009. Holly Memorial Gardens. PUBLIC HEARING on an
Ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Section 3.1,
Definitions, & Section 10.2.2, Rural Areas District, uses permitted by Special Use Permit. This amendment
pertains to the definition and regulation of Cemeteries. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on March 5 and March 12, 2001.)
____________
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2000-49. Holly Memorial Gardens (Sign #29). Public Hearing on a
request to make non-conforming cemetery conform to Zoning Ord, & to allow construction of mausoleum in
accord w/Sec 17.2.2.15 of the Zoning Ord [Cemeteries]. TM 32, P 42G & 42F, contains 30.46 acs.
Located on Seminole Trail (Rt 29) approx 3/4 mls from intersec of Proffit Road & Seminole Trail. Znd C-1
& R-1. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 5 and
March 12, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report stating that Holly Memorial Gardens desires to add a
mausoleum to the cemetery. The Zoning Ordinance does not currently permit a mausoleum in any district
except the RA and only by special use permit. This ZTA will allow mausoleums to be considered as
accessory to a cemetery in any zoning district by incorporating them into the definition of cemetery. Staff’s
opinion is that the more logical districts for cemeteries, mausoleums and columbariums would follow those
currently permitted for cemeteries. They are by right in all commercial districts and by special use permit in
the RA and residential districts.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposed definition of a cemetery follows the State Code definition, therefore
this would bring the County ordinance into line with the State Code requirements. A mausoleum is a
natural extension of a cemetery as is a columbarium. Staff recommended approval of the amendment, the
appropriate sections include a new definition under 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and removal of multi-crypt
mausoleum from the rural area district’s special use permit list. The Planning Commission as well
recommended approval of this ZTA.
Addressing SP-2000-49, Mr. Cilimberg stated that Holly Memorial Gardens is currently a non-
conforming use under the County’s Zoning Ordinance in the R-1 District. Portions of the existing property is
currently zoned C-1. Cemeteries are allowed by right in that area. The proposal will allow the applicant to
add a mausoleum use to the property in the R-1 area through the special use permit approval. Staff has
identified two factors it feels are favorable to the request. The first is that the nature of the use is consistent
with the commercial zoning and existing cemetery use in the area and secondly, the use should not result in
substantial detriment to adjacent property. Staff has recommended approval with one condition. The
Planning Commission, in its review, added a second condition regarding the location of the mausoleum in
conformity to the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the mausoleum has an eight-phase build out over
40 years. What is represented on the site plan is a very long-term phase build-out of the mausoleum
facilities. He noted, for the applicant's benefit, that such an extended phase will need to be addressed as
part of the County’s site plan process. Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board had any questions.
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Thomas asked the meaning of his latter sentence. Mr. Cilimberg answered that as the County
deals with the site plan it will have to deal with the phasing over 40 years to determine how best to address
that because over 40 years things change with ordinances and so forth.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the size of the mausoleum. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it is just over 20,000
square feet. Referring to a map, Mr. Cilimberg said that the mausoleum would be a garden style. There
will be structures but they will be within an area of walkways and landscaping. The main structure is
actually not proposed under the phasing until 2028. The initial structure proposed is in phase five and is
about a 2,000 square foot structure.
With no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked the
applicant to address the Board.
Mr. Ray Nicely of Valley Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant, Stuart Enterprises, owner of
Holly Memorial Gardens. He thanked staff for its comprehensive report. He stated that the staff report
summarized the applicant’s objective. He introduced Mr. Jonathan O’Rear and Mr. Richard Miller, both with
Stuart Enterprises and stated that they welcomed any questions from the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Bowerman if he had any questions. Mr. Bowerman stated that he was
asking the County Attorney if there were limits on where one could distribute ashes. As he reads the last
sentence of Section 3.1 of the ZTA, if one buried ashes in a biodegradable container on church grounds it
wasn’t a cemetery. If it is done someplace else, it is a cemetery. He said that the County Attorney said that
is not the case. He, therefore, wanted to know why churches were mentioned in the second sentence.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Davis said that Mr. Bowerman made a good point. This definition mirrors a State Code
definition for cemetery but it infers that churches are somehow treated differently with ashes, but he does
not think this is the case. Though he has not researched the subject in depth from a zoning standpoint, his
understanding is that there is no legal prohibition of spreading ashes.
Ms. Humphris addressed Mr. Davis stating that as she read the proposed language it should read
“the burial of ashes in a biodegradable.” In other words, it shouldn’t mention the sprinkling of ashes.
Therefore, the burial of ashes in a biodegradable container on church grounds or their placement in a
columbarium on church property is not a cemetery. Mr. Davis said that the wording, though awkward, is
based on the State Code. Mr. Martin stated that because it reflects State Code wording there is really
nothing to fix.
Mr. Bowerman moved approval of ZTA-2000-008 for Holly Memorial Gardens which is a
generalized ZTA. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None
ORDINANCE NO. 01-18(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1Definitions.
Sec. 10.2.2By special use permit.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions.
Any land or structure used or intended to be used for the interment of human remains,
Cemetery:
either by earth burial, entombment in a mausoleum, inurnment in a columbarium, or a combination thereof.
The sprinkling of ashes or their burial in a biodegradable container on church grounds, or their placement
in a columbarium on church grounds, is not a cemetery.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit.
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
1. Community center (reference 5.1.04).
2.Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.02).
3.Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
4.Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16).
5.Private schools.
6.Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-
wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances.
7.Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
8.(Repealed 3-5-86)
9.Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5).
10.(Repealed 11-11-92)
11.(Repealed 3-15-95)
12.Horse show grounds, permanent.
13.Custom slaughterhouse.
14.Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance
standards in 4.14).
15.Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section 15.1-
486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.07).
16.(Repealed 11-15-95)
17.Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
18.Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards
in 4.14).
19.Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.01).
20.Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05).
21.Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14).
22.Country store.
23.Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89)
24.(Repealed 11-8-89)
25.Flood control dams and impoundments.
26.(Repealed 11-8-89)
27.Restaurants and inns that are:
a.Located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan,
provided: (i) the structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; and (ii) the
structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of
the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith; or
b. Nonconforming uses, provided the restaurant or inn is served by existing water and
sewerage systems having adequate capacity for both the existing and proposed
uses and facilities without expansion of either system. (Amended 11-8-89; 10-18-
00)
28.Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.
29.Boat landings and canoe livery.
30.Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5.
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
31.Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
32.Cemetery.
33.Crematorium.
34. (Repealed 3-21-01)
35.Church building and adjunct cemetery.
36.Gift, craft and antique shops.
37.Public garage. (Added 3-18-81)
38.Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82)
39.Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4- 28-82)
40.Borrow area, borrow pit not permitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83)
41.Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29).(Added 1-1-87)
42.Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related to, and
supportive of the RA, rural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). (Added 12-2-87)
43.Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87)
44.Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92)
45.Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95)
46. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site employee
parking for an industrial use in an industrial zoning district (reference 5.1.39).
47. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99).
Mr. Martin moved approval of SP-2000-49, Holly Memorial Gardens with the two conditions as
approved by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The cemetery and accessory structures shall comply with the minimum yard requirements of
Section 21, Commercial Districts; and
2.The location of the mausoleum shall be in general conformity to the preliminary site plan dated
January 17, 2001, prepared by Valley Engineering.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Dorrier stated that at a ceremony for the new City Police Chief he spoke with a couple of City
Councilors and they mentioned that the City had redone its comprehensive plan. He mentioned that the
County is working on the Neighborhood Model with 11 neighborhoods around the City. He and those he
spoke with agreed that it might be a good idea to have a meeting between the City Council and the Board of
Supervisors to lay out what the City is planning. He said that Meredith Richards and Kevin Cox sounded like
they would be interested in such a meeting and he is throwing it out for discussion to see if the Board
concurs.
Mr. Tucker said he was just mentioning to Mr. Cilimberg that he believed a joint meeting of the
planning commissions for the City and County did that sort of review together. Mr. Martin stated that the
County does it with PACC and the University of Virginia. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes that just about
everyone on City Council has seen the presentation on the County’s neighborhood model.
Ms. Thomas said there are members of City Council who want very much to meet with the Board to
discuss transportation matters. She reminded the Board that in a letter to City Council the Board suggested
the City continue with the MPO process but that the Board and Council could agree on a charge to the
committee that would be working on CATS (now called CHART). There seems to be strong feelings
among City Council that this process will not be complete unless there is a joint City Council/ Board of
Supervisors meeting. Ms. Thomas said both she and Ms. Humphris sit on the MPO, and she feels that the
two of them represent the Board and try to keep the Board informed. She went on to state that City Council
is not that trusting of their members of MPO and very much want to have a face to face meeting. The staff
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
of MPO is willing to put together a meeting. For the timing of the CHART’s development it would be good if
this meeting took place in May. If the Board cannot manage that then it can take place sometime later. A
May meeting would insure time to get a charge to the committee that will be developing the first update that
CATS has had in place for four years.
Mr. Dorrier stated that Meredith Richards mentioned to him several corridors that are in the City’s
comprehensive plan. This could be the Meadow Creek Parkway. Ms. Humphris commented that the City
did an economic development corridor study. Mr. Dorrier stated that he would like to find out more about
the study because he believes it will help the Board in its planning of the County. Mr. Bowerman said he is
particularly concerned about offering an opportunity for someone to go through a personal agenda. Ms.
Humphris agreed and stated that Ms. Richards seems to be very interested in a genuine, joint planning
process but that the Board feels a joint planning process should not happen because the Board and the
Council are elected by two different bodies of people and have different charges. There is also the issue of
different agendas as relates to the Parkway. She feels there is a process in place for doing transportation
planning and it should remain that way unless members of the Board want to become more involved.
Transportation planning has become very difficult.
Mr. Martin likened the situation to one in which the County School Board takes a 4-3 vote on an
issue (4 winning and 3 loosing), the four represent the vote and the School Board. If the three kept trying to
meet with the Board of Supervisors trying to get their way after loosing it would be inappropriate. Ms.
Thomas stated that in this case it is a majority on the City Council that wants to have a meeting. Mr. Dorrier
stated that if the two meet to share information both sides gain. He is looking for a way to open a dialogue.
Mr. Martin stated that any arrangements that are made for the City Council and the Board to get together
should be made through Ms. Thomas and Mr. Caravati with them having serious discussions as to whether
something is positive or negative for the Board and Council. They can talk in ways that are open and frank
about how each one sees the Board and City Council meeting on that particular issue and whether or not it
will be mutually beneficial. Ms. Thomas noted that in this case the Mayor feels very strongly that there
should be a joint meeting on transportation. Ms. Thomas stated that if the Board is adamant about not
wanting to meet she will figure out another way to get some agreement on the charge for the committee.
Ms. Thomas said that Councilors think the Board does not understand about the City’s concern for traffic
that originates in the County going through the City and until the City has told the County that face-to-face,
the feeling will prevail.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has sometimes felt the same way regarding other issues and meetings
have been held because of the Board’s feeling that Council did not understand. Mr. Martin stated that he
would support whatever she, as chairman, thinks about a joint meeting with the assumption that she knows
the Board and how each individual Board member is going to react. If Ms. Thomas believes that a joint
meeting will be a positive experience he will support her. Should a joint meeting occur, he does not want it
to be a negative event. Mr. Perkins said that the City’s plans change all the time. He then asked what
transportation improvements have happened in the City in ten years. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board
discusses everything that it does openly.
Mr. Dorrier said that he would still be interested in hearing from the City about its comprehensive
plan. Ms. Humphris stated that the Board is confusing two different things. The City Council’s desire to
discuss transportation is a separate issue from its desire to discuss the comprehensive plan. There are two
different agendas behind each of these wishes on the part of City Council. City Council wants something
that it has not been able to get through other channels such as reversion and the Joint Transportation
Agreement of 1990, 1991 and 1992. The reason for meeting needs to be very clear. Ms. Thomas said that
City Council wants to meet outside the MPO and the CHART process. Meeting to agree on the charge to
be given the committee is the County’s way of trying to bring the City into the MPO and CHART process.
Ms. Humphris stated that she thought the charge to CHART was clearly understood with respect to coming
up with a long-range regional transportation plan based on the traffic suggestions, the land use patterns
and other things. She asked what else the Board knew to tell them to do. She wanted to know what a joint
meeting of these two bodies was going to add to CHART’s charge. Ms. Thomas said they have
comprehensive plans that emphasize neighborhood protection in a way that they never have had before
and the County has a pretty good idea of what DISC is proposing and the neighborhood model for the
County. Those are new things that did not exist five years ago. They do effect transportation and traffic.
The City also has the economic development corridors that didn’t exist five years ago and the County has
some pretty major projects that are probably going to be major economic factors in the County. The Board
can tell CHART to take into account all of the new things and leave it at that. Ms. Humphris asked if staff
wasn’t required to tell CHART those things anyway. Ms. Thomas stated that she does not have a solution
as this point.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. At 8:12 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
March 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Date: 05/02/2001
Initials: EWC