2001-05-16May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 16,
2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7:05 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;
Deputy Board Clerk, Laurel A. Bentley; Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne
Cilimberg; and, Senior Planner, Elaine Echols.
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.
Mr. Michael Weber said he came, in part, to thank Mr. Dorrier for his remarks which were recorded
in todays issue of The Daily Progress with respect to the gag order on the settlement order on the Ivy
=
Landfill suit. Mr. Dorrier said that any time one speaks of constitutional rights, they have to be careful. Mr.
Weber said he believes that the debate about waste management and pollution should be unfettered and
free, and that out of a vigorous debate, good solutions to the problem will arise. If the debate is short-
changed or truncated the public will not have all the facts it needs to make a decision. He believes that is a
precise statement of what the key issues are with respect to why there should not be a gag order imposed
by the government on its citizens.
Mr. Weber said Mr. Bowerman is quoted as saying I think that if the gag order were lifted, it
A
wouldnt be a problem. If it was lifted, I dont think it would make any difference. He is sorry that Mr.
==@
Bowerman is not present. He disagrees with that statement, but thinks that if that is the consensus among
the members of the Board of Supervisors, there is no reason to keep it. Next, Mr. Bowerman said, By that,
A
I mean the lawyers brought it (the settlement) to us, and certainly we werent going to do anything to unravel
=
the agreement. Mr. Weber said he was mystified at that statement. He called their attorneys and asked
@
how that remark should be interpreted. They felt the only way it could be understood would have been for
McGuire Woods to come to the Board and say the litigants had requested or initiated the gag order. Mr.
Weber said that is not true. He does not know why they were so insistent on the gag order, but they were.
That was something that McGuire Woods put into the initial settlement. Many times the litigants tried to
make it less onerous. Most of the defendants reached a point where they said they did not want to go
further, they could not afford the time, the energy, the money. They got what they wanted, which was water
protection. That is how the gag order came about. It has been a great, useful political tool for them in
terms of organizing opposition. He thinks the Board made a tactical error by going along with it, but it is not
the right thing to do. He suggested the Board tell its attorneys to take it out of the settlement agreement
and see if everybody else will agree.
Mr. Martin asked if he could make a remark concerning Mr. Webers statement. He was advised
=
by the Chairman not to do so.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman arrived at the meeting at 7:05 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion to approve Items 5.1 through 5.6 and to accept Item
5.7 as information, was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Request to set a public hearing on Albemarle County's Annual Plan for Administering
Housing Choice Vouchers for Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2001.
It was noted in the executive summary that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development requires each public housing agency to prepare a five-year plan for administering public
housing assistance programs. Administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers makes Albemarle
County subject to this requirement. In addition to completing a five-year plan, an Annual Plan must be
submitted each year. Prior to the submission, the Plan must be reviewed by a Resident Advisory Board.
After receipt of comments from the Advisory Board, the final Plan is presented for adoption at a public
hearing. Staff recommends setting the public hearing for June 20, 2001.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board voted to set a public hearing on the proposed
Annual Plan for Administering Housing Choice Vouchers for its meeting on June 20, 2001.
__________
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 5.2. Request to set public hearing to approve certain amendments to the County Code,
Chapter, 6, involving regulation of fireworks.
It was noted in the executive summary that Article III of Chapter 6 (Fire Protection) involves the
A@
regulation of fireworks. For a considerable time, the Fire-Rescue Division has required that individuals or
businesses wishing to store legal fireworks in connection with the retail sale or distribution of fireworks within
the County obtain a permit. A recent Circuit Court decision found that the County had not specifically
enacted language requiring a permit for storage at locations other than retail stands or businesses. State
law and the Statewide Fire Prevention Code authorize the County to regulate the storage of fireworks within
its boundaries. Staff believes that the permitting requirement is a reasonable public safety measure
because it requires adequate storage to minimize the danger of fire or explosion, among other risks to
persons or property. Staff recommends that a public hearing be set for June 6, 2001, to consider an
amendment to the ordinance.
(Ms. Thomas said she had a question concerning this item. She realizes this is just setting a public
hearing, but she will want an explanation of why this is necessary. Just because the County is allowed to
increase the controls does not seem to be a sufficient reason to do so.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set a public hearing for June 6, 2001, on An
Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Article III, Fireworks, of Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Code of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
__________
Item 5.3. Proclamation recognizing May as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the following proclamation:
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH
WHEREAS,the consequences of pregnancies to teens (between the ages of 10 and
19) and teen parenthood tend to lead to a greater chance of the
mother's dropping out of school, obtaining a poorer job and becoming
dependent on welfare; and of poorer health and school performance of
the child; and of increasing public expenditures to provide welfare
services; and
WHEREAS,the 1999 Community Strategic Plan for Preventing Teen Pregnancies
and STDs indicated that conservative estimates place the cost to our
taxpayers of each teen birth at $37,000 over the lifetime of the mother
and child; and
WHEREAS,according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexually active teen using no
contraception over the course of a year has a 90 percent chance of
pregnancy; and
WHEREAS,the teen pregnancy rate in Albemarle County increased by more than 25
percent between 1996 and 1999, which calls for increased support for
our community's prevention programs; and
WHEREAS,teens sexual activity leads not only to unwanted pregnancies but
increasingly to sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS; and
WHEREAS,there is an urgent need to increase knowledge and awareness of issues
related to teen pregnancy among young people, parents, youth leaders
and others;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize
MAY, 2001 as
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH
and call its importance to the attention of all our citizens.
__________
Item 5.4. Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority - Appointment of Alternate.
Mr. Tucker had sent a memorandum dated May 16, 2001, in which he stated that a member of the
Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority had requested that the service agreement be amended in
order to provide for the appointment of alternate members who may attend Jail Board meetings and vote in
the absence of their principal members. He recommended approval of a resolution and recommended
that the Countys appointed directors of the Jail Board be the Assistant County Executives.
=
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution Approving an Amendment to
the Service Agreement for the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority and Providing for
the Appointment of Alternate Members to the Jail Authority's Board of Directors was adopted:
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICE AGREEMENT
FOR THE ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS
TO THE JAIL AUTHORITY'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle:
1.That the Service Agreement for the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail
Authority, as adopted effective November 15, 1995, with amendments effective
March 12, 1998, and November 12, 1998, is further amended by adding Section
2.2.1 as follows:
Section 2.2.1 Alternate Board Members. Alternate members shall be appointed
to the Board. Such alternate members may attend and participate in discussions
at all meetings of the board, and, in the absence of their respective principal
members, may vote on any matter and be counted for purposes of determining a
quorum or a required majority under Section 4.9 of this agreement. Each sheriff
of a Member Jurisdiction shall appoint his or her alternate, and each governing
body of a Member Jurisdiction shall appoint one or more alternates, but not
more than one alternate for each principal member appointed by such governing
body. The same person may serve as alternate for more than one principal
member, but shall only be entitled to vote for one absent member on any issue.
Sheriffs' alternates shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing sheriff, and other
alternates shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing body. There shall be no
alternate for the member appointed jointly by Albemarle and Charlottesville.
2.That Roxanne W. White and Thomas C. Foley are appointed to serve as alternate
members of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority.
__________
Item 5.5. Set public hearing to amend the County Code in Section 2-202, Compensation of Board
of Supervisors.
A memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, states that governing bodies
can increase their salary annually up to five percent after a public hearing regarding the matter has been
held. With the Boards approval, the Clerk will advertise a 4.2 percent increase for the Board members
=
(which is equal to the salary pool for all County employees) for June 6, 2001. The effective date of the
salary increase will be July 1, 2001.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Clerk was ordered to advertise a public hearing on
an amendment to County Code Section 2-202, Compensation of board or supervisors, for June 6,
2001.
__________
Item 5.6. Resolution regarding Route 29 Corridor Development Study - Combined Phases II/III.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution regarding the Route 29
Corridor Development Study, Combined Phases II and III, was adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Route 29 Corridor Development Study, Combined Phases II and
III, (State Project No. 6029-963-F01, PE100, From I-64 To: North Carolina State line)
encompasses the counties of Amherst, Nelson, Albemarle, Pittsylvania and Campbell;
and
WHEREAS, over the past two years the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) has held public workshops and received citizen input and comments regarding
various concepts developed by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., consultants for this
study; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the County of Albemarle had an opportunity to
review and discuss the Study with VDOT with the consultant and VDOT consultants; and
WHEREAS, in a resolution dated February 14, 2001, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors provided comments and/or recommendations regarding the Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, hereby endorses the following comments regarding the Route 29 Corridor
Development project:
The area along the Route 29 South Corridor is not in the County's
$
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
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 recommendation of the Phase I Corridor Study into the planning for the
Route 29 South Corridor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Specifically, this
recommendation states, "An Access Management Plan (AMP) should be developed for
the corridor in conjunction with the local jurisdiction who would then be responsible for its
implementation. The AMP should address modifications to land use as well as physical
improvements to U.S. Route 29 and the development of other roadways. The AMP
should recognize that local options and needs vary in the study corridor." 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.
The County suggests the Commonwealth Transportation Board encourage
$
VDOT and local governments to facilitate donated and purchased conservation
easements as a means to access management and to ensure that the capacity of the
corridor is not impacted by potential entrances from by-right subdivisions.
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. It is anticipated that certain intersections in Albemarle
County will need upgrades for safety reasons.
Remove the term "to extent practical" from any Comprehensive Plan
$
references in the guidelines for developing alternatives.
The County strongly supports the "Non Location-Specific or Corridor-Wide
$
Transportation Recommendations" outlined in the Study Summary Recommendations.
Double-track rail line in corridor to provide increased capacity for freight and
$
passenger service.
Support one additional AMTRAK train per day along entire corridor as well as
$
new Trans-Dominion Express service between Charlottesville and Lynchburg. Albemarle
County does not support localities subsidizing this service. 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 in 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.
Include transit with ride-share for Internet match systems.
$
__________
Item 5.7. Draft copy of minutes from Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2001, was
received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2000-72. Crown Orchard Co. (Nextel/Crown Castle) (Sign #48). Public
hearing on a request to allow collocation of 3 panel antennas at 165', on existing 250' tall lattice tower
structure & construct of equipment shelter. Loc on Carter's Mountain Trail, approx 1 ml S of intersec
w/Thomas Jefferson Pkway (Rt 53). Contains 234.165 acs. Znd RA. TM 91, P 28. Scottsville Dist.
(Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on April 30 and May 7, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office. He said the
==
applicant is proposing to install ground equipment within a building 9' by 16', 10'3" in height, on a 200
square-foot concrete pad. This is being done in connection with a three-sector array of panel antennas to
be placed on an existing 270' tall guyed-tower. A special use permit was approved in 1993 for construction
of the existing tower and two equipment sheds. There was a condition on that permit which allowed
administrative approval for the collocation of additional antennas. Because those conditions did not allow
administrative review for the installation of new ground equipment, the applicant has submitted this request.
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Cilimberg said the facility site is in a tower farm on property owned by Crown Orchard
A@
Company at the top of Carters Mountain. The area is already cleared and will not require any significant
=
disturbance. Furthermore, access is already provided to the site from a private access road which begins at
U.S. Route 53. The buildings which house the current ground-based equipment are minor features which
are virtually indistinguishable from outside the lease area. Staff does not anticipate that the ten-foot tall
ground equipment building in the request will have an impact on any of the nearby properties or mountain
resources. Because this request would allow the applicant to take advantage of the collocation opportunity,
staff does not believe approval of this application would be inconsistent with the policies and guidelines set
out in the Comprehensive Plan for the siting of wireless facilities and protection of important resources. The
staff did recommend approval of this special use permit subject to two conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 8, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-2000-72 subject to the staffs recommended conditions.
=
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Brian Kearney was present to represent Crown Castle. He said staff has outlined the request
very well. In 1993, when the special use permit was issued it allowed for additional collocation of antennas,
but did not allow for additional structures. They are asking today for the building described by staff. He
offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked if every collocator will have to come before this Board for a similar special
permit. Mr. Cilimberg said it will be based on the conditions placed on the original permit. With regard to
treetop facilities, there is now a condition attached to each permit saying collocation will require the Boards
=
approval. Ms. Thomas asked if that will apply in the tower farm. Mr. Cilimberg said it depends on the
conditions which were placed on the towers when they were originally approved.
Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve SP-2000-72, Crown Orchard (Nextel/Crown Castle), subject
to the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.Approval of this special use permit shall only apply to the building described in the
applicant's request and site construction plans entitled "VA-064P-d Patterson
Mountain Co-Locate Guyed Tower", dated January 21, 2001; and,
2.None of the related antennas, nor any future antennas for use by other service
providers shall be installed on this tower prior to administrative approval, in
accordance with condition number 4 of SP-93-15 which states: Staff approval of
A
additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute support
for or approval of, the location of additional tower, antennae, etc., even if they may
be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved
under this section.
@
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2001-003. Wood-Arrowhead T.E. Wood (Triton PCS) (Signs #92 & 93).
Public hearing on a request to allow construct of personal wireless facility w/97' tall wood monopole (8.7'
above height of tallest tree w/in 25'). Contains approx 71.34 acs. Loc on Arrowhead Valley Rd (Rt 745), E
of Rt 29S. Znd RA & EC. TM 88, P 26. Samuel Miller Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 30 and May 7, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office. He said the
==
proposal is for installation of a personal wireless service facility which would implement a self-supporting
wooden monopole approximately six feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet of the site. There was some
confusion at the Commissions hearing about the pole, but the application is for a wooden pole, so Planning
=
Commission Condition No. 2a has been changed to reference a wooden pole.
Mr. Cilimberg said the site is a 400 square-foot wooded lease area, situated below and west of
Dudley Mountains ridge line. A similar facility is located approximately 160 feet to the south of this facility.
=
Staff reviewed the request for compliance with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehen-sive
Plan. They determined that a minimal amount of clearing and disturbance would be necessary to install the
facility and extend an existing access road. In accordance with the Personal Wireless Communication
A
Facilities Policy, staff review focused mainly on possible visual impacts. Because the site is adjacent to the
@
Route 29 Entrance Corridor Overlay District, the Architectural Review Board has recommended approval
with conditions which are meant to remain consistent with the existing wireless facility on the property. The
site is also adjacent to an Agricultural-Forestal District. The Advisory Committee, in review of this proposal
for its impact on nearby properties within the Hardware A/F District, resulted in a split vote; four members
were against the facility and four members believed that the facility would impose no significant impact.
Mr. Cilimberg said that based on the limited visibility of a balloon which was floated at the height of
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
the proposed monopole structure, and impact of the existing structure at the site, staff recommended
approval of this special use permit with conditions. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May
1, 2001, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of this request to the Board subject to conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked for questions from Board members.
Mr. Bowerman asked how close the nearest personal wireless tower of another carrier is to this
tower. Mr. Cilimberg said it is 160 feet.
Ms. Thomas said there is a one thousand foot area where there is not supposed to be any tree
cutting. Because this pole is some distance from the other pole, will that area be enlarged? Mr. Cilimberg
said the new lease area could only be enlarged through recommended condition #5. He read that
condition for the Board.
Ms. Humphris said she understands the applicant would like for the Board to consider allowing a
wood pole. Mr. Cilimberg said he was going to leave that item for the applicant to discuss with the Board.
He said the Commission, in discussing metal poles, indicated that the diameter of those poles should be
conditioned in future applications.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the metal poles, strength wise, are narrower or bigger. Mr. Cilimberg said
staff understands the poles are designed to telescope. The poles are brought onto the site and then
extended outward. He does not know that is the same type of issue for wood poles.
With no further questions from Board members at this time, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Valerie Long was present to represent the applicant, Triton PCS. She said Mr. Cilimberg did
clarify that the one thousand foot radius is around each pole. With regard to the issue of steel versus wood,
this is an application for a wooden pole, but the applicant will use whichever material is preferred. In regard
to diameter, it is hard to control the diameter of the wooden pole. Triton works hard to find trees which are
tall enough to provide the appropriate height for which the facility is approved. In addition to the portion of
the pole which is above ground, there is usually another 15 to 20 feet of pole below ground for stability
purposes. For this site, they need a pole of 115 feet. Any tree of that height would have a wide diameter.
She said there is more control over steel poles. Diameter is controlled by height and wind loading
requirements.
Ms. Long said there are other issues, such as transportation. At a site such as this one, it is difficult
to get a wooden pole onto the property. She said the Commission has talked more and more about the
diameter of the pole, but it is a difficult issue for Triton. They focus on finding a pole tall enough and have
little control over its diameter.
Ms. Long said Mr. Cilimberg covered most of the issues. They are agreeable to all of the
conditions as the Commission recommended. The visibility of the pole at this site is minimal. With the
exception of one span on the southbound lane of Route 29, it is visible against a wooded backdrop, so it
has good screening even during the winter months. She said it will be six feet above the tallest tree. It
corresponds to a 95-foot pole which is the same height above the tallest tree as the existing facility on the
site. There is no need to remove any trees. They will use the existing access road, improving it somewhat
to extend it along an existing gravel path. It is not visible from nearby residences. She asked that the Board
approve the special use permit subject to the conditions, and also grant the site plan waiver subject to those
conditions. She offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed, and the
matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said this area lies in her district. There was a lot of opposition to the first site chosen
for the first pole. It was actually moved and approved by the Commission. The discussion with the
Ag/Forestal Advisory Committee points out that the policy contains some inconsistencies which the
Commission would like for the Board to clarify, such as "avoidance areas" and what happens next door to
avoidance areas. She thinks there is some work that needs to be done to the policy so the Board will not
receive split votes on almost every application. She believes the current pole is one of the best-located
poles in the County. People who drive the road all the time say the pole is not even noticeable. This one
will be only slightly more visible. She recognizes that the community is not totally happy about the pole, but
she still would entertain a motion of approval, leaving the conditions as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to approve SP-2001-003 subject to the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks there should be a little discussion. She mentioned a communication
from Ms. Long about the steel pole/wood pole. In the letter Ms. Long wrote to Mr. Steven Waller on May 9,
Ms. Long pointed out that in this situation, if Triton used a steel pole, the diameter of the pole would be
approx 30 inches at the bottom and 16 inches at the top. If they use a wood pole, it would be 30 inches at
the bottom and 30 inches at the top. Mr. Bowerman said that is not possible. Ms. Humphris said that was
her question. She has been trying to envision a 30-inch diameter pole in the air, as compared to a 16-inch
diameter pole at the top. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the applicant should address that statement
because he thinks it is in error.
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Long said she was trying to make a point, and hoped she clarified that that was an approximate
figure. She was trying to explain that with a steel pole there is the ability to taper the top to make it more
narrow. Obviously, the base of the pole is where more stability is required. She was trying to express that
with a wood pole, they do not have that ability. No adjustments are made to the wood because it does not
provide the same level of stability as the steel pole.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board is to understand that the wood pole specified in the conditions is
more likely to be wider in diameter than 16 inches. Ms. Long said that is a good possibility. Mr. Perkins said
that is not likely. He asked one of the other applicants how deep these poles are implanted in the ground.
He was told that ten percent of the height of the pole is buried. Mr. Perkins said that usually depends on
soil conditions. Also, any pole can be tapered because that is the way they grow, and wooden poles can be
machined to make them whatever size is wanted.
Ms. Humphris asked how it can be insured that the wood pole is strong enough with the narrowest
diameter possible. Mr. Perkins said if the pole is 30 inches at the top, it will be much bigger at the bottom,
unless it is machined. Mr. Bowerman said an applicant would want it to be as stable as possible at the
lowest possible cost.
Ms. Thomas said there can be no guarantee, at this time, how small the diameter of a metal pole
would be. Ms. Long said they could not guarantee a specific diameter, but can provide more range of
diameters. At another site which the County approved, the top of the pole was 16 inches in diameter, and
the bottom, 36 inches in diameter. That pole is 98 feet in height. Triton believes they might be able to find
a supplier who could make the pole even smaller at the base. At this location, the site is heavily wooded so
the pole will not be very visible even during the winter months.
Ms. Humphris said since the wood pole suits the applicant, that is fine. She does think it would be
interesting, after it is constructed, to know the diameter so the Board will have some information to use in
the future.
Mr. Cilimberg said the motion was to approve this permit subject to the Planning Commissions
=
recommended conditions which was actually for a metal pole. In the staffs report for todays meeting,
==
Condition 2a was corrected to read: The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color.
A@
Mr. Bowerman amended his motion to approve SP-2001-03 subject to the conditions of the
Planning Commission, but to reflect that Condition No. 2a has been modified since the Planning
Commission vote to read: The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color. Mr. Martin said he will
A@
second that change.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in Condition No. 5 the second sentence reading: All construction or
A
installation associated with the pole .... should actually read All construction or installations associated
@A
with the pole .... Mr. Kamptner brought this to the Boards attention at a previous meeting.
@=
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: 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 six (6)
feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility at or
below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL).
No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole;
2.The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown 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, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment
attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than
the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Wood-Arrowhead
(Triton PCS)";
e.A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width
shall not exceed one-inch (1") diameter at the base and tapering to a point,
may be installed at the top of the pole;
f.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the
height of the two (2) trees that have been used to justify the height the
monopole;
g.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant
shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above
sea-level (ASL);
h.The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number one
(1) of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this
special use permit;
3.The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled
"Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS)";
4.Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled
"Wood-Arrowhead (Triton PCS)";
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
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 installations associated
with the pole and equipment pad, 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 one thousand
(1000) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
foot (200') 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 shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless
telecommunication service provider.
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
luminaire 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
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light,
to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
10.The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing
of the lease area shall not be required;
11.Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal
grading necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of gravel.
Should installation of the facility require provision of greater access improvements,
these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed;
12.The applicant shall execute an agreement with CFW and the property owner, in
order to ensure that all of the responsibilities for maintaining the access road in a
condition safe are shared evenly; and,
13.The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of
Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit
for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to
ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been
addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-2000-07. Mill Creek-Village Homes (Sign #71). Public hearing on a
request to rezone 7.1 acs to amend existing Mill Creek PUD to increase allowed # of d/us. Loc on Stoney
Ridge Rd on S side of Southern Pkway. TM 90C, Pcls D & E. Scottsville Dist. (The Comp Plan designates
this property as Neighborhood Density, recom for 3-6 du/ac in Neighborhood 4.) (Public hearing advertised
in the Daily Progress on April 30 and May 7, 2001.)
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Echols said this is a request to amend the Mill Creek PUD from 435 to 466 units, and to provide
a proffered plan of development. The applicant has used up the density in other sections of Mill Creek and
only has seven units left on two parcels which total 7.1 acres. The applicant would like to complete the
development as originally proposed with 36 units on private roads. She said this application was made in
September, 2000 with numerous issues being raised during review. When the application came before the
Planning Commission in January, 2001, the issues raised by staff had to do with slopes and open space.
The issues raised by the neighborhood were with architectural compatibility, tree preservation, landscaping
and screening, and stormwater facility use.
Ms. Echols said the Commission reviewed the proposal and the proffers twice. All of the issues,
except for the stormwater facility, have been worked out with the neighborhood and the staff. The
Commission, at its meeting on March 13, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject
to the proffers which were amended at its March 13 meeting. She said the Board had been furnished with
an executive summary describing the current plan and proffers which are essentially the same as those
seen by the Commission, with one exception.
Ms. Echols said Proffer No. 9 relates to a provision for access to the homeowners association
=
stormwater pond through this site should the County accept the stormwater pond for public ownership and
maintenance. She said the outstanding issue of stormwater is one which the staff believes can be taken
care of at the site plan stage. But, it is something the homeowners are still concerned with, and the Board
has been sent copies of letters from the homeowners association. The issue is this. The stormwater
=
facility that the applicant wishes to use is owned by the homeowners association. It was put in with the
=
previous phase of development. The homeowners association does not want to grant permission to use
=
this facility out of fear of additional siltation to the pond that they have to maintain. They would like for the
County to take over ownership and maintenance. The Countys Engineering Department has looked at this
=
facility, and they said that before the County could take it over, it should be dredged. The applicant and the
homeowners association are unable to come to any agreement on the conditions for use and whether or
=
not there would be any dredging of the facility.
Ms. Echols said if the homeowners association and the applicant cannot work this out, and the
=
applicant is not able to use the stormwater facility, the site would have to be redesigned, or the applicant
would have to lose lots in order to put a stormwater facility on his own property. The applicant under-stands
this and is willing to accept that outcome if the stormwater use on the homeowners property is not allowed.
=
Staff thinks this can be worked out at the site plan stage, but it has to be worked out before the preliminary
site plan can be approved.
Ms. Echols said staff and the Commission have recommended approval of this request subject to
the proffers. She said the County Attorney has reviewed the proffers and they are in order.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there had been any calculations done as to holding capacity of the
stormwater facility. Ms. Echols said Mr. Jeff Thomas from the Countys Engineering Department did some
=
calculations. Mr. Bowerman asked what was required at development time in terms of capacity versus
what storage capacity is calculated at now. Mr. Thomas said the computations were done with design of
the basin. This particular parcel was taken into account in the drainage area for that basin. Mr. Bowerman
asked how much capacity has been lost. Mr. Thomas said he does not have an actual number.
With no further questions from Board members, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Steve Blaine was present to represent the applicant. He said their reaction to the staffs report
=
specifically with respect to stormwater management, is that they do not want discussion of that to color their
relationship with the homeowners association. The applicant began meeting with them last fall, and have
=
enjoyed a good working relationship. They worked through a number of issues dealing with screening,
design of the houses to be built, etc. The homeowners association never directly requested the developer
=
to dredge the pond. That came from a recommendation of the Engineering Department when they
observed siltation in the pond which was designed to receive stormwater for this site and the overall PUD,
about a 100-acre drainage area. The stormwater pond was designed and built in the mid-80s and it has
served the overall PUD, not just the project being considered tonight.
Mr. Blaine said stormwater ponds do three things. They deal with stormwater management,
erosion and sediment control and act, defacto, for water quality management. He said water quality on this
site will be through a bio-filter which is located on the seven-acres. The surface water (stormwater) leaving
the site will already have been filtered through a bio-filter. The stormwater pond located adjacent to this site
which is owned by the homeowners association will not be acting in that role, filtering water to meet water
=
quality. Siltation will be controlled on the applicants site. It is their initial position that when the
=
homeowners association was conveyed this common area (open space), the developer retained
=
easements for utilities, water, etc. It was not necessary to reserve an easement for stormwater if it is
surface water. If they were going to pipe or trench or direct or channel water into this pond, he thinks there
would be a need for an easement.
Mr. Blaine said this is before the Countys Engineering Department and it is an issue on which
=
Engineering has to be satisfied. The applicants back-up position is that they will just manage stormwater
=
on their site. The proffers say they will develop their project in substantial accord with the Application Plan.
If they need to make adjustments to deal with stormwater management on-site, they will do that. He
offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if siltation will all be handled on-site. Mr. Blaine said erosion and sediment
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
control during construction and the new water quality management measures are dealt with on the site for
this project. There is a new requirement that post-development surface water can be no worse in terms of
water quality than pre-development. That is managed through a bio-filter which is a form of berm which
has vegetation and grass over which surface water filters before leaving the site. There are examples of
this technique all throughout the County.
Mr. Dorrier read from a letter from the Mill Creek Homeowners Association: ... The site of this
=A
proposed development is directly above our pond on a steep hill. The developers plans indicate that this
=
new development will utilize the pond in Mill Creek for stormwater detention as part of their overall water
quality plan. This plan also calls for the denuding of most of the existing seven acres in order to
accommodate their design. We fear that this new development represents a substantial threat to the health
of our pond and the surrounding environment. He asked if that is an accurate recital of the developers
@=
plans. Mr. Blaine said no. In terms of denuding the site, that has to comply with County ordinances. They
A@
also have to address the 2:1 slopes requirement, and they have proffers which go beyond ordinance
requirements in way of vegetation and management of the site. Water quality must be maintained on the
site. They do understand the Homeowners heightened interest in the stormwater pond. They support the
=
Homeowners in seeking the Countys dedication and acceptance of this pond into the Countys CIP. That
===
is why they put in a proffer which will allow the County access to the pond over the developers site.
=
Mr. Dorrier said they already have problems with stormwater runoff in Mill Creek. He often gets
telephone calls about the problem.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the calls are about basements or roadways. Mr. Dorrier said most calls are
coming from the Lake Reynovia area, but he thinks the whole area has a problem with runoff because of
the steep slopes. Mr. Bowerman said he knows there is a problem with a lot of the driveways. Mr. Dorrier
said the siltation in the pond indicates there is a problem. Mr. Blaine said the developer was made aware of
that by observations of residents. He said there is a stream flowing from the Lake Reynovia neighborhood
into this pond. There has been some discussion by people about dredging without any consideration of
how to do that if there is a constantly flowing stream. There are statements in the record by homeowners
who said they observed a brown stream emptying into the stormwater pond. It is a legitimate item to be
addressed. The developer is prepared to do his share. If there is not an equitable accommodation with the
County regarding the stormwater pond, and a contribution by the Homeowners, and the applicants
==
schedule demands that they move forward, they will put a stormwater pond to manage their seven acres,
on their seven acres. It is likely that could result in a loss of two lots, but the applicant is prepared to do that.
Ms. Thomas asked if that is preferred by the applicant rather than participating in the cost of
dredging. Mr. Blaine said as a principle, it is preferable. The dredging is a result of sediment and siltation
that has occurred to date. This application is for property which has not been developed. When it is
developed, it will be developed with quality measures to prevent siltation.
Mr. Bowerman said in other areas of the County, retention basins have been reconstructed by the
homeowners association with participation by the County. This was done in recognition of the fact that the
=
silt came from the development of the lots. He said that when this application gets to site review, the issue
of capacity can be dealt with. He said the Board does not have that information before it, but he knows the
situation can be fixed to the satisfaction of all parties.
Mr. Dorrier said the County is in the business of construction and management of stormwater
facilities. He said this is a problematic area, so there needs to be a determination to see if there can be
some participation between the Homeowners and the County. Mr. Bowerman said that is what he is
=
suggesting.
With no further questions for the applicant, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Helen Merrick said she is a member of the Mill Creek Homeowners Association Board. She
=
said they have worked closely with the applicant. The Homeowners were told from the beginning that the
=
property lies in a growth area, so there is not much choice but to go along with the development. Since they
accepted that as a fact, their shock came about when they found that the responsibility for the pond is
totally that of the Homeowners, and that this would be the fourth neighborhood draining into it, new
=
construction on a hill directly over the pond. She said Mr. Blaine suggested that they approach the County
about taking over the pond, and they did. She said the County then approached Mr. Blaine about making a
contribution. He refused. She said the Homeowners Association was willing to consider making a
=
contribution, but they feel the developer should also make a contribution.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier said Ms. Merrick has a good point. The additional cost for the Homeowners
=
Association to dredge this pond and maintain it will probably be exorbitant. Putting another development on
the pond will result in more silt in the pond. He asked if staff and the Commission dealt with the problem,
but did not resolve it. Ms. Echols said they thought this could be addressed at site plan review. They did
ask the applicant if he would make a contribution and he said no. The fall-back position continues to be
A@
what would happen at site plan stage.
Mr. Dorrier asked at what point the County will decide whether it will accept the pond into its
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
maintenance program. Mr. Tucker said that would be decided after Engineering has looked at the capacity
of the pond and its design. This would have to be done during or before approval of the site plan.
Ms. Humphris said she understands that the Engineering Department does have criteria for doing
this. She said the Board needs to pay attention to the recommendation of that Department and not say up-
front what is going to be done. The Board does not have any facts at this time.
Mr. Perkins asked if the pond was a requirement of the original PUD approval. Mr. Cilimberg said it
would have been required during the planning process. Mr. Bowerman said a pond would have been
required instead of a retention facility because there is a standing pool of water at that location. Mr. Perkins
said there could have been smaller facilities throughout the site, so it seems that it must have been based
on the density of the development. The applicant still has responsibility for the pond because of the
increase in density. Mr. Davis said that typically this issue does not come up because the developer who
controls all of the land at the beginning reserves the right to use the pond. Here, for whatever reason, that
was not clearly delineated when they passed ownership to the Homeowners Association so this dilemma
=
came about. Typically planned communities are designed so there is a common-shared facility for this type
of drainage problem, and it is clear that it can be used by the full development.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks staff needs to determine if the pond was originally designed to
accommodate all of this zoning. The zoning category was known at that time, and what was being planned
for that area. Normally, Engineering tries to design a basin that will accommodate the entire future
development.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve ZMA-2000-07, Village Homes II, as
recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to proffers, and subject to an additional condition. Mr.
Davis said this is a zoning map amendment and there are proffers associated with it. The Board is not in a
position to add an additional proffer; proffers must be volunteered by the developer.
Ms. Thomas said she sees that the Planning Commission had a critical slopes waiver, and added a
condition concerning that waiver, but that is not in front of this Board. Only the application and proffers are
before the Board tonight. Mr. Dorrier said he thought it was an additional proffer. Mr. Davis said the issue
can be dealt with during the site plan stage, where there will be conditions attached to site plan approval.
Mr. Dorrier said he wants to be sure the Homeowners Association has a say in the final plan that is
=
developed. Mr. Davis said if the developer is going to utilize the pond, there will need to be an agreement
with the Homeowners in order to do that.
=
Mr. Dorrier said he would offer motion to approve ZMA-2000-07, Mill Creek North-Village Homes
II, with the proffers dated May 16, 2001. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
ZMA-00-007
PROFFERS
VILLAGE HOMES II
May 16, 2001
TAX MAP PARCELS 90C-D and E
7.17 Acres
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owner,
or its duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which
shall be applied to the property. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested
zoning 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.Overall development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan first
approved under ZMA-85-29, as amended by subsequent rezoning actions. The
Application Plan entitled, Millcreek PUD Overall Plan, prepared by Muncaster
Engineering, revised October 11, 2000, last revised May 9, 2001 ("Application Plan")
submitted with these proffers reflects the "as-built condition" of the Millcreek PUD as
of the date of these proffers, except the shaded area on the Application Plan, also
referred to as the "Site".
2.Development within the 7.17 acre, Village Homes II Site shall be in general accord
with the Application Plan; provided however, that adjustments to lot layout and open
space boundaries may be necessary to address on-site storm water management in
order to comply with applicable ordinances.
3.The maximum allowable residential units in the Millcreek/Foxcroft PUD shall be
limited to 466.
4.Applicant will limit total development on the Site to 36 residential units.
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
5.Where site grading is performed, Applicant shall minimize construction of slopes
steeper than 3:1, subject to approval by the Department of Engineering and Public
Works. The Applicant shall install additional low maintenance vegetation to provide
stabilization for proposed slopes steeper than 3:1, if required by the County's
Landscape Planner. Species, size, and quantity shall be subject to approval by the
County's Landscape Planner, as reasonable. Nothing contained in these proffers
shall be deemed a waiver of the Planning Commission's review of Applicant's critical
slope waiver under Section 4.2.5 of the Ordinance.
6.The Village Homes II Site road improvements shall be under an urban cross-section
(roll top curb, with four-foot (4') wide sidewalks on both sides of the road). An
asphalt pedestrian path of no less that five feet (5') shall be located on the Site
adjacent to, and parallel with the Southern Parkway across the entire frontage that
abuts the Southern Parkway.
7.Applicant will cause supplemental landscaping and trees for screening to be
installed in accordance with the proposal dated November 18, 2000, from Mr. Lee
Quillen of Waynesboro Nursery (attached), with emphasis on locating screening
within the areas designated on the Application Plan as Open Space. Except where
necessary to install utilities or water quality protection measures, and subject to
sound and customary landscaping principles, significant trees (6" in diameter or
greater) located within the Open Space shall be preserved.
8.As a condition for final subdivision approval, Applicant shall submit for review by the
Subdivision Agent, (and record upon such approval) a proposed Declaration of
Covenants and Restrictions which shall encumber the lots within the Village Homes
II site and which shall provide for an architectural review and approval of
improvements, in order to maintain the harmony of the development within Village
Homes II and with the already constructed homes in Village Homes I and IV, and
Mill Creek North. Similarity between colors and materials shall be established and
maintained.
9.If public dedication of the storm water pond located on the adjacent property
currently owned by the Mill Creek Home Owners Association requires access over
the Site, applicant will grant a 20-foot access easement to provide for maintenance
of the pond. The location of this potential easement will be identified on the final site
plan, prior to its approval and will be reserved for dedication on demand of the
County on the subdivision plat.
Submitted as of the 16th day of May, 2001, by:
HUNTER E. CRAIG COMPANY
(Signed)
By:__________________________
Hunter E. Craig, President
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-2001-05. Height. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending 4.10.3.1 to allow telecommunications facilities
'
owned or operated in whole or in part by the County in a residential district to have a height exceeding 100
feet; and to amend 30.6.8 to clarify that the Board of Supervisors may issue a certificate of appropriate-
'
ness upon a finding that a public safety facility is a public necessity. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 30 and May 7, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board is familiar with the reason this request is on the agenda. Two
changes are proposed. The first would allow that towers for public use and public safety be allowed to
exceed 100 feet in residential districts, however, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 1, 2001,
unanimously recommended approval of an amendment to Height Limitations, Section 4.10.3.1, Exceptions-
excluded from application, setting a height limit of 115 feet. The Commission also recommended approved
of an amendment to Section 30.6.8, Appeals, to clarify that the board of supervisors may issue a certificate
of appropriateness upon a finding that a public safety facility is a public necessity.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Humphris asked about the difference between the staffs recommendation and that of the
=
Planning Commission on height. Mr. Davis said there are two sections to be amended. No height was
recommended by the staff because these types of applications are subject to special use permit approval,
therefore, the Board has the ability to determine how high a facility can be constructed. Rather than have a
situation in the future where the Board is considering a public facility in excess of 115 feet, and rather than
going through a variance process, it was felt to be an adequate safeguard that the special use permit
process would take into account how a tower would impact surrounding neighborhoods.
Ms. Thomas said she prefers what the Planning Commission recommended because she is
uneasy with the situation even though it is a matter of public safety. It is a great deal different than the
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Board would respond to any commercial application.
Ms. Humphris offered motion to approve ZTA-2001-05 by adopting an Ordinance to Amend
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, with the draft date of May 10, 2001 (on file with the executive summary).
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the
recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 01-18(5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC
REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.10.3.1. Exceptions - excluded from application
Sec. 30.6.8. Appeals
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.10.3.1 Exceptions - excluded from application
The structures identified below shall be subject to height limitations as follows:
a.The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm
buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm
buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments,
transmission towers and cables, smokestacks, water tanks, or radio or
television antennas or towers.
b.Any structure identified in subsection (a), other than one now or
hereafter located on an existing public utility easement, shall not:(1) be
located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure;
and (2) within a residential district, exceed one hundred (100) feet in
height, except for telecommunications facilities owned or operated in
whole or in part by the county, which shall not exceed one hundred
fifteen (115) feet in height.
c.The commission may modify or waive either requirement of subsection
(b) in an individual case if it determines that the public health, safety or
welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver.
In granting such modification or waiver, the commission may impose
such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health,
safety or welfare.
d.The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of this
subsection only as follows:
1.The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a
modification or waiver with conditions objectionable to the
developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an
appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of
the Code, or the site plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or
32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver pertains. A
modification or waiver considered by the commission in
conjunction with an application for a special use permit shall be
subject to review by the board of supervisors.
2.In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or
deny the modification or waiver based upon the finding set forth
in subsection (c), amend any condition imposed by the
commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for
the reasons set forth in subsection (c).
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
(12-10-80; 12-20-89; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01; Ord. 01-18(5), 5-16-01)
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of
the architectural review board made in the administration of section 30.6 which,
in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof.
Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board in the
administration of this section may demand a review of the application by the
board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefor in
writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of
the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse or
modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the architectural review board. When
considering an appeal pertaining to a public safety facility, the board may issue a
certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity. In
considering an appeal, the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to
the recommendations of the architectural review board together with such other
evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application.
Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board
of supervisors may appeal such decision to the circuit court of the county for
review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of
the board of supervisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after
the final decision is rendered by the board of supervisors. The filing of said
petition shall stay the decision of the board of supervisors pending the outcome
of the appeal to the court.
For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to
the applicant, the architectural review board or any member thereof, the
commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the
county executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof.
(12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(5), 5-16-01)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-2001-001. Neighborhood Model. Public Hearing to amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Neighborhood Model, which will provide
additional guidance in the development of the County's designated Development Areas. The amendment
would include twelve guiding principles: pedestrian orientation; neighborhood friendly streets and paths;
interconnected streets and transportation networks; parks and open space; neighborhood centers; buildings
and spaces of human scale; relegated parking; mixture of uses; mixture of housing types and affordability;
redevelopment; site planning that respects terrain; and, clear edges. Also included in the amendment is
the recommendation that master plans be created for all of the Development Areas to guide development
for these areas. Other parts of the amendment suggest ways to create master plans, provide design
options for the twelve principles, and show how to create a more urban, livable environment. (Public
hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on April 30 and May 7, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that after many work sessions, and a Planning Commission public hearing, the
Board has this item before it tonight for a public hearing. He said that the Boards work sessions led to two
=
modifications in what the Commission recommended. 1) A modification to page 24, to insert the following
sentence into the last paragraph: New development in the Development Areas will need to be sensitive to
A
existing development in the Rural Areas. 2) A modification to page 88, second paragraph, Bullet #4 to
@
read Facilitation of the establishment of a public parking authority to finance, operate and profit from the
A
construction of garages; and, Bullet #5 County facilitation of the activities involved in construction of
@A
parking structures, site acquisition and operating of parking facilities.
@
Mr. Cilimberg said that after some discussion distinguishing between firm boundaries and
A@
boundaries cast in concrete with regard to the Development Area boundaries, the Board determined that
A@
prior to any action on boundaries during implementation of the Neighborhood Model, it will continue to
consider boundary line adjustments of the rural and urban boundary as is the current practice.
Mr. Cilimberg said, if the Board so desires, the staff will make a brief visual presentation using
slides, or it can go directly to the public hearing. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board will forego the full
presentation, and just ask questions after the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said he had a question He was sure that for modification #2 mentioned above (for
page 88), there was to be no talk of a public parking authority. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks the original
language referred to a public parking authority, and the Board did not want it to appear that the County
would start any such authority. Mr. Bowerman said that is correct. Mr. Cilimberg said he thought the Board
had said it might facilitate such an authority. Mr. Bowerman said that is Bullet #5. Mr. Cilimberg asked if
A@
Mr. Bowerman wanted to remove Bullet #4. Mr. Bowerman said he thought the Board had already done so.
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
He said it was recognizing that there may be times when the County has to participate financially in
structured parking, and he thinks the Board decided it did not want to be involved in public parking lots,
ownership, etc. Mr. Martin said that is what he remembers.
Ms. Thomas said the sentence used to read Establishment of public parking authority to finance,
A
operate and profit from the construction of garages. After the Boards discussion, staff suggested using
@=
the words, "Facilitation of the establishment of a parking authority to ...." Mr. Cilimberg said these were
incentives to consider, not that the County would absolutely do any of the ideas set out on page 88. Ms.
Humphris said she also remembers that the Board did not want to have anything to do with public
involvement of construction of parking facilities. Mr. Martin said he remembers Ms. Humphris leaning that
way, and others leaning in a different direction, and the compromise was simply to say that the Board might
facilitate activities. He did not remember that in discussion of a parking authority, but the Board would get
involved with the facilitation of parking issues.
Mr. Dorrier asked why this has to be decided tonight. Ms. Thomas said if the Board is going to
adopt the Neighborhood Model tonight, it should have the words right. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks
removing the word authority would accomplish what the Board wanted to do. Mr. Tucker said if that word
A@
is going to be deleted, it would be better to just delete the whole sentence next to that bullet.
Ms. Thomas said the Board could discuss this after the public hearing. She then opened the
hearing for public comments.
Mr. Robert Watson, Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition, said that on June 5, 1996, the
Board finalized the Land Use portion of the Comprehensive Plan review. The Boards major action was to
=
freeze current growth area boundaries and stress an infill strategy which eventually became DISC. In
addition to making the Neighborhood Model a part of the Countys Comprehensive Plan, he recommends
=
three additional actions be taken as soon as possible: 1) Appropriate the necessary funds to start the
master planning process; 2) Developers and builders are attempting to abide by the DISC building
principles, but cannot do so in totality at the present time. It should be made clear that their projects are not
to be held hostage until further actions are taken; 3) Instruct the responsible departments to tackle the
necessary policy and regulatory changes now. That process will take a year or two. He said it has been
about 12 years since any land was added to the Growth Area and any meaningful regulatory change
initiated. If the County is going to have an effective infill policy, and implement the DISC recommendations,
there is a need for urgency now. If not, 50 percent of single-family homes will continue to be built in the
Rural Area, which is counter to the basic objectives outlined in the Land Use Plan. He said this entire
process is taking entirely too long.
Mr. Kenneth Maupin asked the Board to postpone any approval of DISC until it is taken to the
public. He said a lot of people feel that DISC is only related to growth and does not affect them. They dont
=
understand what affect infill, master planning, rezoning will have on their neighborhoods and their views.
He said there are many trees along Route 29, but that land is already zoned, and infill will eliminate those
trees. He said sprawl may not be that bad because it gives people the opportunity to have an acre or more
of land. There are a lot of people like him who have lived in the County all of their lives. They dont need
=
sidewalks, street lights, or feel like they have to walk somewhere to do business. He said that right now the
largest employer in the area is the University, and one has to drive to get there. People cant live and work
=
in the very immediate area. Who would want to live next to their boss? Who can have a retail business and
survive on the people who live within five miles? He does not see the City of Charlottesville as a great role
model. They are always having problems. This infill is costly. There will be a need to increase water and
sewer capacity because people are being forced to live in a growth area. He said there was a mention of
staff meetings, but he does not think they were open to the public. The Board never asked for public
comment. There should have been public comments solicited when the report was received from DISC.
He thinks the Board wasted a lot of the taxpayers money before giving the residents (time out). He said he
=
is against it.
Mr. Jeff Werner was present to represent the Piedmont Environment Council. He read from a long
statement which is on file with the Boards records. He finished by saying the PEC enthusiastically supports
=
the adoption of the Neighborhood Model and it looks forward to participating in its implementa-tion. PEC
urges the Board, as representatives of the Countys citizens and as part of the public process, to stay the
=
course and to keep an eye on the larger picture that is represented in the pages and in the process of the
Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Tony Vanderwarker said he is Co-Chairman of a new group calling itself The Albemarle Smart
Growth Initiative. He read from a long statement which is on file with the Boards records. He said their
=
mission is to support the Board as it includes the DISC proposal in the Comprehensive Plan and begins to
implement it. According to DISC documents, there are over 4500 developable acres within the Growth
Area. Couple this land with any currently under-used acreage and the vacant and under-utilized land with
the City and University, and there is sufficient acreage to accommodate growth for the next generation or
more. This group will be adamant that the Board strictly adhere to the Comprehensive Plan because they
know it is feasible and also know the benefits of doing so. They urge the Board to adopt the Neighborhood
Model and if they do, the Albemarle Smart Growth Initiative will help.
Mr. Kenneth Maupin was allowed to speak again. He said growth is called sprawl but everyone
A@
forgets that they are part of the sprawl. It started when our forefathers came from across the ocean and
ran the Indians out. He said agriculture can accommodate all the needs without using a lot of acreage.
There is the open area that would be beneficial to the people who want open land to be able to move out
into it instead of pushing all the people into a small area. He asked why open space is being protected if it
cant be used. That land could always be redeveloped if needed in future years. Now, people want space
=
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
in which to live. That is the reason the County grew so fast back in the 60s. He thinks there are more
expenses to DISC than have been brought out. There was talk tonight about stormwater runoff in Mill
Creek, but the proposal was to make it even denser. The County has been talking about having more fire
stations, about having narrower streets, and he thinks there will be a need for a street department to take
care of them. He said this Model seems to be based on the old assumption where everybody could live
and walk to work. He said people are busier now, with kids in two or three different schools, and they are
trying to get them from one activity to another. He said DISC did address the way people may think they
want to live, but how people really live, is different. He thinks more study needs to be put into this idea, and
the Board members need to go out and talk to their constituents.
Ms. Kathy Galvin said she was the former Co-Chair of DISC. She had three points to make (see
copy of full statement on file in the Clerks Office). First, the issues raised by DISC are surfacing all across
=
the country. The fact that DISC was initiated is not surprising, but the fact that it was initiated in Albemarle
County by a few grass roots organizations and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in only three-plus
years was surprising. She thinks this was due to Albemarle County having adopted a far-sighted
Comprehensive Plan which only lacked detail. Second, unlike many studies of conventional development
practice, the DISC final report offered detailed prescriptions for both master planning a development area
and site planning a parcel. Third, DISC provides County staff and elected officials with plausible guidelines
for transforming the DISC report from a visionary statement to master plans capable of building
infrastructure investment decisions, and, ordinances capable of changing the character of development.
Ms. Galvin said DISC is a new paradigm for development; a new criteria for design; a new process for
making integrated land use decisions; and, an implementation strategy.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed.
Ms. Thomas noted receipt of a letter from the Earlysville Area Residents League addressed to the
=
Board in support of DISC. She said she had received an E-mail from a constituent who said they had just
seen the DISC report. He said that Albemarle County has some of the brightest, most creative, most
A
educated, most interesting, most professional residents. There are almost no problems that cant be
=
solved here if we put our minds to it. This is the kind of report that puts Albemarle County into a leadership
role, just where it should be.
@
Mr. Martin said he would like to say a few words about the whole issue of DISC, and some of Mr.
Maupins points. He does respect some of those points, and has some of those feelings himself. Basically,
=
this was started when there was a recommendation by staff and the Planning Commission to increase the
size of the growth areas. This Board decided to hold the line on growth areas, and instead try to find a way
to make the current growth areas attractive enough to attract higher densities. In the past, growth would
occur in the growth areas in lesser densities than had been approved for those areas. He was willing to be
a part of this committee that was to look at a way to design the growth areas so they would attract people
who normally would have bought in the rural areas, or bought into the growth area, but only if they had a
cul-de-sac and at least one-half to an acre of land. He was not sure it could be done, and is still not sure.
Mr. Martin said the Committee started meeting with a group of people which included architects,
engineers, developers, as well as lay people and community people. He did not come into this study with
the new urbanism in mind. Over two or more years they worked out compromises. He said Mr. Maupin had
mentioned that everybody would be forced into accepting this concept. Mr. Martin said he refused to
A@
accept any intent on the part of the DISC committee members to set up a situation that would force anyone
into anything. Many times he said that their role was to make it attractive so people would want to move into
the growth areas, and the purpose of DISC was not to set up situations where people would be forced to
move there. Several times, the committee members got into heated arguments because some of those
members wanted to set up barriers so people wanting to live in the rural areas would be forced to live in the
DISC areas. He said that a lot of developers kept saying this is pie in the sky and is not workable.
A@
Mr. Martin said the DISC Committee compromised until developers felt they could sell this product
although there are some real problems. There were people from the Housing Committee on the DISC
Committee, and he and the Housing people kept bringing up the issue of affordable housing. They were
told that affordable housing would be a part of this concept, but he still does not believe it. He thinks the
things that will be required to make the growth areas an attractive place to live will cost so much that it will
be hard to include affordable housing. That is another reason he would not let this group touch the rural
areas. Right now, the only place there is affordable housing is in the rural areas. He does not think it will
happen in the high density growth areas.
Mr. Martin said those are just some of the things discussed by the Committee while working on this
concept. In terms of whether it will work, he does not know. He has said all along that it is not a place he
would want to live because he likes to have a little space. He said there are some people gambling large
sums of money that they can make this a sellable product. The bottom line is, if it is not sellable, and the
developers dont attract people to the growth area and high densities, then they will lose huge amounts of
=
money and will not try this again. If that occurs, there will be a lot of pressure on the Board of Supervisors
to give it up. He has known Mr. Maupin for a long time and just wants him to know that a lot of things he
mentioned are things he fought the DISC Committee members about. The Committee worked itself to this
point, and he will support this Neighborhood Model, although he understands Mr. Maupins points. He also
=
understands where a lot of members of the DISC Committee, and members of this new SMART group,
stand on this issue.
Mr. Dorrier said he shares a few of the concerns Mr. Martin has articulated so well, but it appears
that this Model only applies to five percent of the County, and the other 95 percent is in the rural areas. The
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Board still has to deal with policies for the Rural Areas. It appears that this plan does something different
from other plans he has seen, and that is commercial and residential in one neighborhood. He said that is
people living over the place where they work, walking everywhere, and not using cars. He said that goes
against the current trend in America that everyone has a car and drive to shopping centers. This is going
against the grain of present day culture. But, it is a model that in its ideal form has a great deal of merit. He
said this may be a chance for Albemarle County to lead the way in establishing neighborhoods throughout
the County that people will flock to and want to live in. One of his concerns is the affordability of housing.
He has talked with people from AHIP and Habitat for Humanity about the possibility of including one or
more units in every development that would be for low-income people. He would like to see that as part of
the overall plan. He commended the staff and the Committee for what they have done. It remains to be
seen if it will work, but he thinks it is a great step forward and he supports the proposal.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks everything has been said, but the bottom line is that the County
cannot allow sprawl to continue, financially, and quality of life wise. She said this Committee has done a
marvelous job of reaching consensus on the best way to deal with the problem of sprawl which is chewing
up the rural areas. She said Mr. Martin made it clear in his statement that no one has to follow the model.
That is the beauty of the proposal, but the Model has been carefully thought out, and it is there for business
people to use. She thinks there are a lot of people who like to live close to where all the action is, close to
their jobs, entertainment, etc. Although she does have some reservations, she thinks the Board must get
on with it and start the master planning.
Mr. Perkins said the ordinances to go along with this Model must be drafted. Hopefully this will do
away with some of the ordinances which have prevented DISC models in the past. He said there needs to
be some way to judge the progress of this concept. The Board must be willing to make changes as the
occasion arises. He thinks the DISC principles should be sensitive to existing developments. He asked how
to make this concept sensitive to existing development. Mr. Bowerman said this is one thing that was
mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Martin said the idea of clear boundaries was discussed at one of the work
sessions.
Mr. Perkins said he was talking about infill development in the growth area. Ms. Thomas asked if
removing the words "in the rural areas" from the modified sentence on page 24 and having it read New
A
development in the Development Areas will need to be sensitive to existing development is what Mr.
@
Perkins is referring to. Mr. Cilimberg said the Comprehensive Plan already addresses how new
developments relate to existing areas. The statement on page 24 was specifically in the boundary section
of the document that will go into the Plan to relate these areas to the rural areas. He believes the Board
has already covered, in prior language, approval of what Mr. Perkins is talking about.
Ms. Thomas said there is an interesting report which is soon to be released by the Eastern Planning
Initiative. They have been able to spend some money studying the impact of increasing only slightly the
number of walking trips. Families take that number of trips each day, but some of those trips can be
walking trips if one lives in a place where they can walk. It is amazing, but over a long period of time,
millions of dollars can be saved on road building. There may be some dollar figures to attach to the DISC
concept within a couple of months to emphasize the value of a pedestrian-oriented development.
Mr. Martin then offered motion to adopt CPA-2001-01, Neighborhood Model. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman who said that Mr. Perkins made a good point that the Board wants to follow up
and analyze what this accomplishes over a period of time. He pointed out that Mr. Watson had said there
were applications before the County at this time that require changes in current policies and ordinance. He
said the adoption of this Plan into the Comprehensive Plan makes those issues paramount in planning. He
agrees that they need to be addressed as quickly as possible. He said that much of this has been done in
other places, so there are existing examples which can be used.
Mr. Tucker said the staff had recommended that the implementation strategy/phasing for the Model
be presented to the Board at the earliest opportunity. He said that will occur soon. Mr. Martin said he would
include that as part of his motion. Mr. Bowerman, as seconder, agreed. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Modifications to the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment, are set out
in full below.)
1. Modification to page 24, to insert this sentence into the last paragraph: New development in the
A
Development Areas will need to be sensitive to existing development in the rural areas; and,
@
2.Modification to page 88, bullets 4 and 5 under the second paragraph, respectivley, to read,
"Facilitation of the establishment of a public parking authority to finance, operate, and profit from
the construction of garages"; and "County facilitation of the activities involved in construction of
parking structures, site acquisition, and operation of parking facilities.
@
__________
Ms. Thomas expressed the Boards appreciation for every person who had been involved in this
=
process over the last few years, and for those attending this public hearing tonight.
_______________
May 16, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker said staff has talked about the various Board meetings in June and July that might be
canceled. He recommended that the Board cancel the meetings of June 13 (which is graduation night for
Albemarle High School), July 5 and July 18, 2001. He said that in July the Board can meet and handle
everything for the month on July 11.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he had something to discuss which was sent to him by the SMART growth group.
It pertains to a sliding scale for land use. He gave the document to Mr. Tucker and asked him to look into it.
He said that apparently the longer a piece of property is in land use, a difference in assessment is allowed.
He wondered if this is something the County could adopt.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Martin have met with City officials to look at the words for the criteria
for CHART projects. She said there were not many changes mentioned. They did talk about the criterion
that deals with enhancing neighborhoods and the sense of community. Mr. Martin said he does not think
anyone will understand the conversation unless they have a copy before them. As soon as the old words
are compared to the new words, a copy should be circulated to the Board. Ms. Thomas said this has to be
done and ready to go into the plan which will be submitted on May 27, 2001. She said that she and Mr.
Tucker will be at the MPO meeting on that date. She asked that the Board members get comments back
to them by E-mail as soon as possible. Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board members will be comfortable
with the words when they see the copy.
__________
At 8:55 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant
to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection(7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal issues requiring legal advice relating to the Ivy Landfill. The motion was seconded
by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
__________
At 9:44 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge
=
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of
County Supervisors
Date: 08/01/2001
Initials: LAB