1986-06-04June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 1)
001
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 4, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher, who announced that Mr. Way could not be present tonight because of an emergency.
The Chairman also called the Board's attention to the new American and Commonwealth flags
recently installed in this room.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve Items 4.1 and
4.2 of the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Mr. Bowie
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Item 4.1. Memorandum from Mr. Dennis C. Friedrich, Engineering Department, dated
May 23, 1986, re. Request for Street Sign for Broadway Street in Spring Valley Farm Subdivi-
sion. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the
following road:
Broadway Street (State Route 1115) at its intersection with Franklin
Street in Spring Valley Farm Subdivision, and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street sign.
Item 4.2. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's
Attorney, and Regional Jail for May, 1986 were approved as presented.
Item 4.3. Memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, dated May 23,
1986, re. Real Estate Tax Bills - House Bill 501; received as information as follows:
"During the past General Assembly Session, House Bill 501 was adopted. This
bill authorizes the treasurer or other appropriate local official to reissue
a tax assessment bill to the correct property owner when the property has
been transferred between the assessment date and mailing date of the real
estate tax bill (Section 58.1-3916).
Albemarle County currently sends out approximately 30,000 real estate tax
bills in the name of the property owner as of January 1st of each tax year.
There were 3,694 transfers in 1985 to be effective for January 1, 1986 tax
bills. If the County elected to go with the new permissive legislation,
this would mean that the original tax bills would have to be exonerated and
the current property owner be issued a supplemental bill. For 1985 there
were less than 70 supplemental bills issued and less than 90 exonerations
done for real estate taxes. The workload of the Real Estate Division would
be increased dramatically.
A ruling by the County Attorney's office has clarified that this amendment
is 'permissive' legislation. This office has no plans to institute this
legislation in Albemarle County. There are so few tax bills that remain
unpaid because of the instance of sale that these are resolved on a
one-by-one basis.
If you have any questions regarding House Bill 501, please contact me."
Item 4.4. Letter from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, Highway Department,
dated May 19, 1986, accepting certain streets into the Secondary System; received as informa-
tion.
0O2
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2) _
"As requested in your resolutions dated December 18, 1985 and April 2, 1986,
the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are
hereby approved, effective May 19, 1986.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
CARRSBROOK SUBDIVISION
Route 1325 (Gloucester Court) - From Route 1424 to
Northeast cul-de-sac. 0.11 Mile
WESTFIELD SUBDIVISION
Route 1315 (Commonwealth Drive) - From Route 743 to
Northeast cul-de-sac.
0.46 Mile"
Item 4.5. Monthly Building Reports for January, February, March, and April, 1986, from
the Department of Planning and Community Development; received as information.
Item 4.6. Letter from ABG Financial Services, Inc. dated May 16, 1986 re.
Report for Arbor Crest Apartments; received as information.
Bond Program
Item 4.7. Notice from the State Corporation Commission re. Application of Clemons
Courier Service for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a restricted parcel
carrier by motor vehicle; received as information.
Item 4.8. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes for May 13 and May 20, 1986 were
received as information.
Item 4.9. General District Court - Report on Audit for the Year Ended June 30, 1985;
received and on file in the Clerk's office.
Item 4.10. Letter from Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., dated May 27, 1986, re:
Country Club Land Trust - Sewer.
Keswick
"This letter is to give the Board of Supervisors notice pursuant to Section
10-17 of the Albemarle County Code of the property owner's intent to estab-
lish a sewerage system for the existing lots for the Keswick properties that
were platted some years ago, specifically: 29 lots owned by Mr. Curtis, as
Trustee of the Keswick Country Club Land Trust, and 27 lots owned by others.
The lots are as follows:
(Keswick) Block II:
Block III:
Block IV:
Block V:
Block VI:
Total Lots: 29
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9;
Lots 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12;
Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9;
Lots 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, 17, and 18;
Lots 5, 10, 11, and 12.
(Others)
Total:
Block II:
Block III:
Block IV:
Block V:
Block VI:
Block VII:
Lots iA-, lB, 2, and 3;
Lots 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10;
Lots 4 and 5;
Lots 3, 13, and 14;
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9;
Lots 2, 2A, 2B, and 6.
14 connections, available on first-come/first-serve basis.
The location of the proposed sewerage system will be near the southern
boundary of the Keswick Country Club Land Trust property just west of
Carroll Creek as it leaves the property and crosses under Route 64. The
number of individual connections proposed is 43, including those on land
owned by others, plus connections for the clubhouse complex and associated
private facilities. The type of proposed sewerage system is an eXtended
aeration activated sludge treatment with winter months discharge to Carroll
Creek and land application during summer months.
Pursuant to Section 10-18 of the Albemarle County Code, we request the
matter be placed on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors."
Also received was the following memorandum from Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning,
dated May 30, 1986.
"Keswick Country Club Land Trust has stated intent to establish a central sewerage system to
serve the clubhouse complex and associated uses; 29 existing vacant lots owned by Keswick
Country Club Land Trust; in addition, fourteen connections would be available to twenty-seven
lots owned by others on a first-come, first-served basis.
SP-85-54 (Clubhouse expansion), staff commented that 'current septic facilities are marginal
for the existing clubhouse. If adequate on-site drainfields cannot be located, the applicant
proposes usage of a package sewage treatment plant. Such a plant could also serve the
twenty-six (26) vacant platted lots northwest of Carroll's Creek." A condition of that
special use permit requires Health Department approval of method of sewage disposal prior to
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(PaGe 3)
OO3
Planning Commission review of the clubhouse site plan. In summary, the applicants' current
proposal is consistent with past planning staff review and comment."
Item 4.11. Letter from Mr. Gordon Walker and Ms. Joyce Deily, JABA, clarifying request
for Home Safety Repair Program Budget for 1986-87; received as information.
"We would like to set the record straight on the question of whether or not
JABA had requested money from the County for salaries or for equipment for
its Home Safety Program. Attached is a copy of Part IV of our budget
request to you, submitted on November 13, 1985. Please note that it was
very clearly stated that the amount sought equally from Albemarle County and
from the city of Charlottesville was to be applied toward staff salaries.
No money was requested from you for safety equipment, since we had intended
to seek that through foundation support.
Since you very unequivocally stated that you wish the allocation from the
county to specifically not be used for salaries for assessments, we will
comply with that and use it only for material purchases and installation
costs. However, we did want to see the record set straight on this matter
since at no time did JABA intend, or try to change its original budget
proposal to you."
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: To consider naming Route 240 from the Mechum River
to Main Street in Crozet, as Allview Drive. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and
May 27, 1986 and in the Charlottesville Observer on May 22, 1986.)
Mr. Fisher stated that this matter was placed on an earlier agenda and it was a request
to name Route 240 from the Mechum River to Main Street in Crozet, Allview Drive. The Board
has ordered a Public Hearing for people who might want to make comments. The staff had
nothing further to add, so Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing.
There was no one there who wished to speak, so Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing.
The Clerk commented that she had received a call from someone who had planned to be at
this Public Hearing, but could not come. He wanted to cast his vote for Three Notch'd Road.
Mr. Fisher said he appreciates the interest that the people have expressed for the name
of Allview Drive. He has some problems with that, though, because it runs counter to the
concept of trying to retain the old road names as much as possible. He really thinks that if
the road does need to be named for postal purposes, that he would rather have one of the old
names rather than a new one even though it may be one that has been used by some people for a
while.
Mr. Henley commented that he has not had any public input concerning the naming of this
road. He said that he agreed with Mr. Fisher about using historical names, and he recom-
mended that the road be named Three Notch'd Road. Mr. Lindstrom supported Mr. Henley's
suggestion and feels that if the Board does not name the road, other suggestions will keep
coming. Mr. Bowie commented that the public response has not been very good.
Mr. Henley thanked Mr. Crosby, President of The Bulletin, for bringing this matter to
everyone's attention. Mr. Crosby said he personally supports the name Three Notch'd Road.
He said he had to mention Allview due to his obligation because of the terms of the context
of the request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following
resolution:
WHEREAS, several requests have been received from Albemarle County
citizens to name the section of Route 240 from the Mechum River to Route 810
in Crozet, for identification and address purposes; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, on June 4, 1986, tO consider naming the afore-
mentioned section of Route 240;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, respectfully requests that the section of Route
240 from the Mechum River to Route 810 be named as "Three Notch'd Road".
Mr. Bowie asked if there was an appostrophe in the word "Notch'd." Mr. Agnor suggested
that it be spelled, "Notched," because it would simplify it for street markers, etc. Mr.
Crosby suggested that the name be spelled, "Notch." At this point, Mr. Henley asked which
spelling was the most historical? Mr. Fisher replied that the Staff Report shows the spell-
ing as "Notch'd." Mr. Horne commented that he would not recommend that the Board rely on the
spelling in the Staff Report as being the historical way to spell the name.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board consider the motion and requested that the staff
confer with the Highway Department to try to get the appropriate spelling for the road that
would be consistent with parts of the road in other, localities. Mrs. Cooke said she would
support the motion as stated, even though she is still concerned that Board members did not
support her feelings about having a road in her district named, "Gasoline Alley."
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
004
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-86-09. VEPCO. To locate a microwave communications facility on
17.2 acres zoned HC. Property located in the northwest quadrant of Interstate 64/Fifth Steet
interchange (deferred from May 21, 1986).
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: A site plan for Virginia Power's Western Division
Headquarters was approved on this property in November 1985. Properties on
both sides of Fifth Street in the City and County north of Interstate 64 are
zoned for commercial or industrial development. Residential areas/zonings
are across the Interstate in the County and northwest of the site across
Moores Creek in the City.
Applicant's Proposal: Virginia Power has established a microwave communica-
tions system which includes 69 sites in Virginia, West Virginia, and North
Carolina. Virginia Power has stated that 'this system, which carries
circuits vital to company operations, alleviates the high cost of leased
circuits and provides highly reliable communications which benefits our
customers, particularly in emergency and service restoration situations.'
The proposed microwave facility at the Western Division Office site on Fifth
Street would provide communication linkages to Richmond as well as areas in
the Western Division (i.e., Dooms and other areas west of the Blue Ridge;
Bremo). Additionally, the system has capability of remote operation of
unmanned facilities (i.e., open and close switches electronically).
At the Fifth Street site, Virginia Power proposes to construct a 153-foot
concrete pole adjacent to the proposed office building. The pole would have
a 54-inch base diameter, tapering to 18 inches at the top, and would support
a six-foot diameter solid antenna. Since microwave relay is line-of-sight
broadcast, the height of the Fifth Street tower is dictated by the elevation
of the microwave installation on Bear Den Mountain.
Broadcast frequency would be in the range of 6 gigahertz (GHz), substan-
tially above the resonant frequency range (frequencies of health concern)
and commercial broadcasting in the area (i.e., UHF - TV, 69 broadcasts at
802 MHz.). Virginia Power has stated that 'microwave radio power output
would be one watt and the worst case power density (exposure) from ground
level would be ...approximately two million times less than the American
National Standards Institute' recommended hazard level.
Staff Comment: Historically, the County has been conservative as to the
visual character of development adjacent to Interstate 64 and residential
areas and has discouraged random location of broadcast towers. The Compre-
hensive Plan recommends maintaining aesthetic integrity at interstate
interchanges through deliberate landscaping and buffering, setback, signage
and building mass, height, and orientation measures.
More specifically, in the early 1970's, the Board of Supervisors appealed to
the Circuit Court to overturn a variance granted by the Board of Zoning
Appeals for a sign at the Fifth Street/Interstate 64 interchange which was
taller and larger than permitted by the zoning ordinance. Also, during
review of Virginia Power's site plan in November, 1985, the Planning Commis-
sion added a specific condition prohibiting storage and warehousing facili-
ties on the site. Given this background, staff recommended that Virginia
Power analyze alternatives to the proposed tower. Three alternatives were
specifically discussed:
Alternative 1: Siqnal relay form Bear Den Mountain to Carter's Mountain to
Western Headquarters site (Carter's Mountain Alternative): The intent of
this alternative would be to locate a repeater facility at the Carter's
Mountain 'tower farm' with a building or ground-mounted dish at the head-
quarters site. Site availability, increased system costs, decreased system
reliability, uncertainty as to FCC position, and time delay were cited as
problems. Balanced against these considerations is Virginia Power's state-
ment that 'any use of Carter's Mountain as a repeater site will still
require a 60-foot above ground level (AGL) pole at the new office.' Assuming
a building height of 30 feet, a roof mounted Structure would be elevated 30
feet above roofline.
Alternative 2: Reduce tower height at Fifth Street by increasing~tower
height at Bear Den Mountain (Bear Den Mountain Alternative): Again the
intent would be to achieve a building or ground-mounted dish at Fifth Street
by increasing tower height at Bear Den Mountain in order to maintain
line-of-sight signal reception. The increased tower height at Bear Den
Mountain would be substantial (i.e., 900 feet). A 100-foot pole would still
be required at Fifth Street to overcome obstacles in the immediate area.
The National Park Service considered the existing 60 foot facility at Bear
Den Mountain to be 'a very serious intrusion upon the character' of the
Appalachian Trail (See Attachment B on file).
Alternative 3: Maintain communication facilities at Hydraulic Road and
translate/relay signal to Fifth Street by cable: Under this alternative,
there would be no need for a microwave dish at Fifth Street. Microwave
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
005
facilities would remain at the current Hydraulic Road location and the Fifth
Street site would be linked by cable to these facilities.
Currently Virginia Power is operating in a narrow band (96 channels) which
is at capacity. The system will be upgraded to a broad band (612 channels)
and the existing facilities at Hydraulic Road would become incompetent. The
change-over would require upgrading of the Hydraulic Road facilities includ-
ing installation of a 200-foot tower.
Staff Recommmendation:
Neither the Carter's Mountain nor Bear Den Mountain alternatives would
eliminate the need for a pole structure at the Fifth Street site.
Though pole height could be reduced, both alternatives have drawbacks
which in staff opinion outweigh this consideration. Staff does not
view the Carter's Mountain and Bear Den Mountain alternatives as viable
options to the installation of the propOsed 153 foot pole and dish at
the Fifth Street site.
The Hydraulic Road alternative would eliminate the need for a pole and
dish at the Fifth Street site. However, a 200 foot tower would be
required at Hydraulic Road in the City. This alternative is at least
three times as expensive at the tower proposed at Fifth Street.
Staff recommends approval of this petition. Staff would emphasize that
the proposal does not meet all criteria for issuance of a special use
permit since the structure would change the visual character of the
area. Virginia Power has addressed this concern: 'Although we agree
that no antenna structure can be considered attractive, the concrete
pole structure we propose is the least offensive. The pole has been
strategically located to mitigate and minimize the visual impact.
Considering the benefits to our Western Division customers, we believe
that it is a reasonable compromise.' Virginia Power has consistently
maintained that its system-wide, microwave communications network is
intended to 'fulfill many needs which are vital to VEPCO's ability to
provide reliable electrical service'. Based on this representation,
staff opinion is that consideration of the general public purpose
outweighs the lack of complete satisfaction of the special use permit
criteria. Staff recommends approval subject to the following condi-
tions:
Se
Compliance with Sections 4.10.2.2, 4.10.3.1, and 5.1.12 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
b. Pole and antenna not to exceed 160 feet in height AGL;
c. Staff approval of pole location;
d. Building official approval;
e. Submit copies of FCC, FAA, and other approvals."
Mr. Horne went over the Staff Report with the Board and explained the discussion of the
site plan that was presented at the Planning Commission meeting. At the time that the site
plan was presented to the Commission, there was a notation on the site plan showing a 153
foot tower. His staff failed to bring this to the Commission's attention, so the Commission
was not aware of the proposal for a tower. During the site review, the staff did point out
to Virginia Power that it would need a Special Use Permit for that tower. Under normal
procedures, the Special Use Permit would have been required before the site plan was
approved. Mr. Horne explained that this is the reason the site plan was approved prior to
the Special Use Permit for the tower. The Planning Commission did express concern as to why
the tower was not brought to its attention at the site plan stage, and the minutes of the
Planning Commission indicate that this was a major factor in the Commission's decision not to
recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors. He believes, however, that there were other
factors that went into the Commission's decision as to the aesthetic character of the neigh-
borhood. He does not feel that necessarily the Commission would have voted to approve this
petition even if it had been handled under normal procedures. He cannot guarantee, though,
what the Commission would have done if this had come before it under a normal sequence of
events. Mr. Tucker next went over the alternatives that the staff suggested that virginia
Power consider.
Mr. Fisher asked if the staff had evaluated the alternatives and were confirming those
costs associated with them. Mr. Horne replied, "absolutely not." He said this information
was provided by Virginia POwer at the request of the staff. He added that the staff has no
idea whether these installation costs are accurate. Mr. Horne went on to say Ghat the staff
recommends approval of this petition, but emphasizes that the proposal does not meet all the
criteria of the Special Use Permit. Virginia Power has addressed this concern and agrees
with the staff that no antenna structure can be considered attractive at the Fifth Street
site. Virginia Power believes, though, that the proposed concrete pole would be the least
offensive. The staff's recommendations are based on consideration of the overall need for
communications in the Western Division's area. The staff also suggests approval only with
the five conditions listed in the Staff Report. At the May 6 meeting of the Planning Commis-
sion, the Commission unanimously recommended denial of the petition. Mr. Horne then pointed
out on a map the site for the Western Division's headquarters, the landscaped area, Inter-
state 64, and where the microwave tower is proposed. He described the elevation and appear-
ance of the structure and the pole structure.
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe6__~
Mr. Fisher asked what the circumference is of the pole, and Mr. Horne answered that it
is 54 inches at the bottom and 18 inches at the top. Mr. Horne said he understands that it
is somewhat similar in appearance and size to the large, single pole transmission poles. Mr.
Fisher asked Mr. Horne to describe the ground elevation where the tower will be placed versus
the ground elevation of the interstate. Mr. Horne responded that the ground elevation for
the tower will be lower than the ground elevation of the interstate. He said the elevation
of the interstate is approximately 435 feet, and the base elevation of the pole would be
approximately 420 to 425 feet. Mr. Fisher mentioned that, from the Interstate 64 ramp, a
substantial bank can be seen looking towards this property. According to the topo map, Mr.
Horne said the bank appears to be approximately ten feet in elevation.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there are plans to remove the tower that is now at Hydraulic
Road. Mr. Horne responded that there is a dish located at Hydraulic instead of a tower, and
he is not sure if this will be removed, but he thinks it would still be needed for communica-
tions.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why the needed information could not be relayed by a cable from the
existing facility on Hydraulic Road. Mr. Horne answered that, according to the applicant's
figures, there are two ways to do this. One way would be to use a company owned cable and
another way would be to lease a cable. In either case, there would need to be a 200 foot
tower at Hydraulic Road. The existing dish could not be used due to various technical
considerations of how this signal will work compared to the existing signal. The tower at
Hydraulic Road would also have to be very large. If Virginia Power used a company owned
cable, there would be a significantly greater installation cost and ongoing costs than the
plan that is currently before the Board. If a cable is leased between Hydraulic Road and the~
new site, there will be similar installation costs and a very high ongoing cost. According
to the applicant's figures, the cost would be $228,000 a year, and most of the cost would be
related to the actual leasing of the cable. He mentioned, again, that the staff does not
know if these figures are accurate.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired if all three of the alternatives that were discussed in the staff
report would require a special permit, or would the dish on top of the building not require
one? Mr. Horne responded that if the dish was on top of the building, a pole would not have
to be considered, so he does not believe it would require a Special Use Permit. He said,
however, he would have to check this out with the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Lindstrom next
asked that if the plan was used to put the dish on top of the building, would it have to be
elevated an additional 30 feet to get a 60 foot height? Mr. Horne and Mr. Agnor answered
that this is correct. Mr. Horne said that, because of this, there may have to be something
built besides the dish on top of the building. He said again, that according to the appli-
cant, there would also have to be a 900 foot tower if this plan is chosen.
Mr. Lindstrom then mentioned Carter's Mountain, and Mr. Horne said there would have to
be a 100 foot tower on Carter's Mountain if this alternative was used. Then there would have
to be a 60 foot roof mount or 60 foot pole on the existing facility, but there would not be a
change made on Bear Den.
Since there were no further questions for Mr. Horne from Board members, Mr. Fisher
opened the Public Hearing. He asked if the applicant wished to speak.
Mr. Tom Michie said that his law firm represents Virginia Power in this area. He stated
that the Board members had been misinformed on one aspect of this petition, and he is partly
responsible for this. He said that if the Carter's Mountain alternative was used, a 60 foot
pole or roof mount would be needed. He said, contrary to his impression, the roof mount
would not have to be 30 feet above the building. It could be a dish on the roof but it would
be quite visible. The dish would cost approximately the same as a pole, but he is not sure
if the Board would think it would be more objectionable. He wanted to make it clear that
Virginia Power does not want this alternative, but he did not want to give the Board misin-
formation. Mr. Michie said he had with him Mr. Richard Gottlieber, who is the manager of
telecommunications for Virginia Power out of Richmond and Mr. Carroll Neblett, Director of
Communications Engineering, out of Richmond. They can answer the technical questions that
the Board may have.
Mr. Michie said that the need for this particular facility has to be weighed against the
visual impact of a microwave pole in this area, and reasonable alternatives to what is being
proposed have to be considered. First, Mr. Michie discussed the need for a microwave pole.
He said that a microwave pole transmits information, and that is all it does. A direct line
from Bear Den is being requested by Virginia Power because that is the most reliable and
economical solution. Mr. Michie gave two improtant uses resulting from this plan for the
County's constitUtients. He said that in the event of a power outage inca storm, people call
and say that their power is off. By relaying this information to Richmond by microwave and
using the computer in Richmond, it can help Virginia Power employees do two things very
quickly throughout the state. One is that Virginia Power can tell where the outage is so
that work crews can be sent immediately without having to ride around the area and look for
the problem. Secondly, when the power goes out in an area, there is usually another way that
the electricity can be fed into the area. By sending this information by microwave to
Richmond, the computer can direct the electricity through a different route to the area,
before repairs are made. Mr. Michie said that restoring power to customers promptly is
extremely important, and having a reliable system to relay that information to Richmond is
equally important.
The value of the microwave as opposed to leased lines is twofold. The microwave system
has been determined to be 99.8 percent reliable; leased lines have a reliability of only 80
percent. Mr. Michie commented that naturally the 20 percent unreliability with the leased
lines is more likely to occur when there are thunder storms, etc. He added that he is not
saying that this 20 percent unreliability is happening throughout the state as an average for
a leased line. However, this area is one of the worst areas in the state as far as reliabil-
ity is concerned. The second important factor to the County's constituents is economy. The
microwave is more economical to install, and the annual cost is also less.
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 7) .....
Next, Mr. Michie talked about the third use of the microwave system which is the trans-
mission of routine data such as charging and billing information. He believes that having
reliable equipment is an important factor to Virginia Power, and he pointed out that the
facts that he has mentioned are also important to the County's constituents. He thinks that
the request for a microwave tower by a public utility should have a higher standing than a
request for one by a business or an individual, because a public utility is there to serve
the public. He pointed out that the public utilities' profits are regulated by the State
Corporation Commission so that if the economy is affected by the use of a microwave system,
those economies inure to the benefit of the constituents. He said this is a factor that does
not have to be taken into consideration when a private business requests a microwave system.
Mr. Michie said these are the positive things that he is hoping will help the Board to decide
to grant the petition for the Special Use Permit for the microwave tower.
Negative factors involved with the microwave system, according to Mr. Michie, have to be
weighed also. He said that tourism is important in this area, and the beauty of the City and
County should be preserved, as well as the beauty of 1-64. At this time, Mr. Michie distrib-
uted pictures to the Board that he had had taken going east and west on 1-64. Mr. Michie
then described the views going west. One picture, as this area is approached, shows a hill
with a significant cut and the Fifth Street Bridge in the distance. He is reasonably confi-
dent that the microwave tower cannot be seen at this point because of the high hill. Another
picture shows the point where the concrete starts for the exit ramp. He pointed out that
there is another high bank here and trees, so he does not believe that the microwave tower
can be seen here, either. He said that another important factor is that the road is bending
away from this site. Mr. Michie discussed another picture that shows where the pavement is
actually making the turnoff for Fifth Street, and the tower is visible. If this exit is not
taken, there is less chance of seeing the tower. He added, however, that at the point at the
top of the ramp at Fifth Street, there is a perfect view of the tower because the tower will
only be approximately 300 to 400 feet away. He said that the thickness of the tower, as it
is drawn on the pictures, is less than is pictured, but the height should be correct.
Going east on 1-64, he said, there is a good view of the mountains, and the four towers
are visible on Carter's Mountain, but trees block the view of the microwave tower. Mr.
Michie showed a picture with the most panoramic view that is available going east, and said,
at this point, Fifth Street is a half a mile away. The tower is not drawn on the picture,
because it was undecided where it would be located, but Mr. Michie believes it would be
visible. He pointed out, though, that the tower would be well below the top of this moun-
tain, and would not be as objectionable as it would be if viewed against the sky. Again, Mr.
Michie mentioned that the line of vision does not go in the direction of the tower because of
the bend in the road. The next picture was of the bridge over the Old Lynchburg Road. Mr.
Michie said there are shrubbery and trees here, but he believes that the tower may be visi-
ble. But, again, the road bends away from the tower. He said the tower would also be
visible, coming from this direction, at the Fifth Street exit. He said that the tower was
not drawn on some of the pictures, but it was not conspicuous on the ones where it was shown.
Next, Mr. Michie showed the Board an artist's rendition of the same tower at the North-
ern Virginia Division of Virginia Power's headquarters located in Fairfax County. He said
the actual building is not any taller than the building that is being proposed for this area,
but it is much longer. He also had a snapshot of the tower that has actually been con-
structed. He said he would not want to imply that the tower will be a thing of beauty, but
it will not be a thing of ugliness.
Mr. Michie then discussed alternatives with the Board. To summarize what Mr. Horne has
already said, Mr. Michie stated that three of those alternatives require a 200 foot tower at
Hydraulic Road verus a 150 foot tower at Fifth Street. When traffic and the number of people
who live in the immediate vicinity at Hydraulic Road is considered, it is obvious to Mr.
Michie that this is a less desirable choice. A fourth alternative requires a 900 foot tower
on Bear Den Mountain. He thinks this is totally unrealistic, and believes the Board is wise
to put restrictions on towers such as this relating to the color of the paint, etc., and it
should be as unobtrusive as possible to preserve the scenery. He mentioned that someone had
asked about the $252,000 related to the costs of leasing lines from Centel. It is his
understanding that this figure came from Virginia Power's tariff, which is on file with the
State Corporation Commission. If a line was leased from Hydraulic Road, it would cost a
quarter of a million dollars annually versus an estimate of $5,000 annually for the microwave
tower. Mr. Michie said this is an enormous difference, and that also the lease line proposal
has the least reliability of any alternative. The last choice is Carter's Mountain. Mr.
Michie said that some Board members might think this is a preferable choice because there are
already four towers there. He knows that Virginia Power has talked to the owner of the
property, Henry Childs, in terms of a five year lease with the minimum cost per month of $750
to $1,000, and those figures can be doubled for a ten year lease. He does not know if the
rent is reasonable, but the point is that Mr. Childs is only willing to talk in terms of a
five or ten year lease, at this time. Mr. Michie does not believe it is good business to put
a facility costing over $200,000 on a piece of property that could be leased for only ten
years. At the end of this time, the tower would either have to be moved or Virginia Power
would have to pay whatever rent was being required. He said that possibly a lease could be
worked out with Mr. Childs, but it seems to him that this is not a good alternative.
One question that has been raised is whether Virginia Power will come back to the Board
with request for another tower or dish. Mr. Michie has asked Virginia Power if it were in a
position to make a commitment not to come back and make similar requests. Virginia Power has
a letter from Tom O'Neill, the Vice President of the western division, stating that similar
requests will not be made. He said that the difference between the proposal that is before
the Board and the Bear Den facility is that Bear Den is a crucial facility serving the whole
western part of the state, and their needs for the use of this facility have increased over
the years. This proposal only involves a terminal to serve the Charlottesville/Albemarle
area. He then passed out copies of the letter from Mr. O'Neill to the Board which pointed
out that this is an entirely different situation, and that Virginia Power has no forseeable
reason to make a request for anything more and promises not to do that. The letter also
includes a copy of the statewide microwave facility system, and shows that Bear Den is the
hub for the western part of the state.
OOB
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
In summary, Mr. Michie said that the facility will serve a public good, it increases
reliability for the restoration of service and it serves a great economy purpose for Virginia
Power, if this whole system is statewide. The importance to the public of having this
facility is a plus, and this needs to be weighed against the seriousness of the visual impact
of the tower. He hopes that the Board is convinced that there is not a reasonable alter-
native, and he said it is obvious that there is no cost efficient reasonable alternative. He
hopes that the Board can agree with its staff recommendation and support this special use
permit. He said that he or the Virginia Power representatives would be happy to answer
questions.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Neblett what sort of band width is needed for this kind of communi-
cations system. Mr. Neblett answered that there is a narrow band width at the Hydraulic Road
location, and it seems to be full at this time. Virginia Power is looking at a 600 channel
band width for this western division office. Mr. Fisher then asked what the band width is
for each channel, and Mr. Neblett responded that it is four kilohertz. Mr. Fisher stated
that a lot of effort has been made to support this request with the idea that it is vital to
the system during emergency times. He asked for an estimate of the percentage of the total
communication time that is actually taken up With these crisis situations. Mr. Neblett
answered that it would probably be approximately ten percent of actual data transmission,
because that is continuous monitoring. As far as the crisis situation is concerned, Mr.
Neblett guessed that it would be one-half to one percent. Mr. Fisher said that it seems to
him, then, that most of the time the microwave system would be used for ordinary busineSs
communications. Mr. Neblett replied that Mr. Fisher's statement is true for some of the
facilities. Other facilities, however, are dedicated to pure operation or full-time monitor-
ing of the electrical system. If there is a problem, there is a crisis. As far as what
percentage is related to crisis situations, it is very low, however, the electrical system is
being monitored all of the time. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Neblett what recommendation would he
make to Virginia Power to solve its problems, if this request is denied. Mr. Neblett replied
that the Carter's Mountain plan is the Company's next alternative. Mr. Fisher said that, as
he understands it, with 612 channels of four kilohertz each, there will be a total band width
of two and one-half megahertz. Mr. Neblett answered that Mr. Fisher is correct, and that is
what is required.
Mr. Fisher inquired if Virginia Power has explored the use of the new optical transmis-
sion system that has a link established and in operation between Charlottesville and Rich-
mond. Mr. Neblett responded that the optical transmission system is one of the alternatives.
Virginia Power has looked at it on a long term basis, but at this time, it is cost prohibi-
tive. The construction cost, depending on the type of facility, is approximately $20,000 to
$50,000 a mile. Mr. Fisher said since that system is already in place, all that Virginia
Power would have to do is connect the site in Charlottesville to the Centel offices downtown,
and then do the same thing in Richmond. If this plan was used, Virginia Power would have a
buried cable with the high reliability that it brings. Mr. Neblett replied that Virginia
Power officials know that this optical transmission system is available, but they have not
really considered it. He said that the estimated costs for lease are based on standard
dedicated facilities that are tariffed by the telephone company. He said this transmission
system could be an alternative, but it would be much more expensive.
Mr. Fisher wondered how Virginia Power can determine how expensive the optical transmis-
sion system would be, if the system has not been evaluated. Mr. Neblett answered that he
knows basically what the telephone companies are charging. He said for 24 channels, it would
cost approximately $1,500 a month. He said the optical transmission system is an alterna-
tive, but from his point of view, it would be more expensive and less desirable. Mr. Fisher
stated that he believes that Virginia Power is committed to its own microwave system, and
anything else would be considered second best. Mr. Neblett answered that Mr. Fisher is
correct because the microwave system serves the site directly and does not depend on outside
facilities. And, it is more economical than any other alternative. Mr. Fisher stated then
that he is disappointed that Virginia Power has not evaluated everything that is available
before its presentation to the Board, but he appreciated Mr. Neblett's honest answers to his
questions.
At this point, Mr. Gottlieber addressed the Board and said that he is Manager of the
Telecommunications Department for Virginia Power. He then reported that Virginia Power's
telecommunications system now has about 70 percent of its channels on a microwave system,
with 30 percent being leased from other common carriers. The microwave system was developed
in the late 1970's based on control and reliability. As far as control is concerned, Vir-
ginia Power recognizes the need for reliable electrical service and did not want to be
dependent on another party to restore communications. Mr. Gottlieber pointed out that
someone else may have different priorities, and restoring communications may not be as
important to another party as it is to Virginia Power. He said that Mr. Michie had already
addressed the reliability issue. After the microwave system was installed, it was expanded
to 69 sites because it was economically justifiable. Mr. Gottlieber stated that the micro-
wave system now saves Virginia Power's rate payers approximately $4,000,000 annually. He
mentioned that comnunication rates are going up, sometimes as much as 18 1/2 percent.
Mr. Fisher told Mr. Gottlieber that the Board is not trying to get him to justify the
costs of the microwave system. Mr. Gottlieber said, though, that the point he is trying to
make is that Virginia Power's main concern is control and reliability in addition to the
costs. If facilities are leased, he believes that control and reliability will be lost.
Since there were no other persons present to speak about this application, Mr. Fisher
closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Pisher then commented that he had known about this building being started long
before an application was made for a site plan. He asked at that time if the zoning was
right for this project, or if anything else would have to be done. At that time, it was not
expected that anything else would have to be done as far as zoning is concerned. Mr. Fisher
added that he was seriously disturbed to see this request for a 150 foot tower right beside
the interstate. He mentioned also the fact that the building was under construction before
the matter of the tower was brought forward for public consideration. He said the Board's
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 9)
responsibility is not to provide the lowest cost alternative to an applicant. The responsi-
bility of the Board is to consider the zoning needs of the community, as well as to protect
and encourage the tourist industry. He is not sure that Virginia Power's evaluation of all
of the alternatives is thorough enough. Before he can vote to put up a tower such as this
one, he would like to see some more evaluations. He suggested that maybe someone outside of
the County, who is more skilled than the County staff, is needed to help review these evalua-
tions. He is also concerned about what is happening on Carter's Mountain and the fact that
if sites are not available there, it will mean that towers will be sent to other parts of the
County. This could mean that the Board could face bigger problems than the one it has now
with Virginia Power. Mr. Fisher added that the County staff has indicated an interest to him
of trying to find some way of providing space on Carter's Mountain for all types of antennae
to try to keep them from proliferating around the community. It seems to him that all of the
alternatives should be .explored before the Board commits itself to this project. He is
concerned about how many more applicants will come before the Board from the area of Avon
Street, Fifth Street, Route 20 South and other areas who will propose antennae that will
impinge on that area. He is worried that the view will be spoiled for people driving through
that area a few years from now. He recommended that the Board defer this matter and try to
find a way to evaluate some of the alternatives from the County's point of view, and not just
from the applicant's standpoint.
(Note: The Board recessed at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened at 8:48 p.m.)
After Mr. Fisher called the meeting back to order, Mrs. Cooke commented that she thought
Mr. Fisher's suggestion of exploring all the other opportunities would be in the best inter-
est of good business. She also pointed out that Mr. Way was unable to be at this meeting,
and this project is in his district. She said she would feel more comfortable taking a stand
on this after all the alternatives have been explored and with Mr. Way's input.
Mr. Henley mentioned that he does not think some outsider needs to be hired to review
the alternatives. Mrs. Cooke agreed, also, that an outsider does not have to be hired, but
she said it is obvious that there is another alternative that has not been explored by
Virginia Power. Mr. Michie then commented that Virginia Power would be happy to cooperate in
any way. He said that obviously Virginia Power will have to do the work, but perhaps some
documentation can be obtained from the State Corporation Commission that will help verify the
costs. Mr. Bowie said that he, too, has heard about the buried cable and would like to know
if this is an alternative. He will support a one week deferral, since Mr. Way is not
present. Mr. Fisher stated that he is not sure there is time to do anything in a week. He
said that Board members' packets are mailed at noon on Friday for the upcoming week's meet-
ing. If there is additional information to be considered at that meeting, it must get to the
clerks by noon on Friday, or it will have to be hand delivered to the Board some time after
that. He wants to make sure that there is time for Virginia Power to do what is needed, and
also that the Board will have time to evaluate the information that it receives. Mr. Neblett
added that Virginia Power is going to be dependent on people giving it quotations, and he
cannot say what the response will be. Mr. Fisher told Mr. Neblett that he is really asking
him if a one week deferral will be adequate. Mr. Neblett asked if the next alternative would
be a two week deferral, and Mr. Fisher answered, "yes." Mr. Neblett said he would be more
comfortable if Virginia Power was given two weeks to acquire this information. Mr. Fisher
agreed that he believes a two week deferral is more reasonable. He said this would give
Virginia PoWer time to get the information and allow time for the County staff to review it.
He suggested that it might be a good idea to have the County's engineering staff review the
information, also.
Mrs. Cooke moved that Virginia Power's request to locate a microwave comnunications
facility on 17.2 acres of land zoned HC be deferred until the June 18, 1986 meeting. Mr.
Bowie seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had a general concern that may not be answered by the requested
study. He believes that a growing number of people, for various reasons, would like to have
similar facilities for home or business use. He does not want to see towers all over the
County, and he believes the tendency is heading in this direction. He thinks it would be
appropriate to study that general problem. He then asked Mr. Agnor to have the staff
schedule this into its work program as soon as it can conveniently be done.
Since there was no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: Clearing of Jarman Gap Estates Common Area.
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"The Clerk has forwarded to this Department a letter dated February 18, 1986
from Charles J. Mott in reference to some maintenance of a utility
right-of-way that has been undertaken by Virginia Power in Jarman Gap
Estates. Enclosed you will find some materials concerning Board action on a
ZMA-77-12. As you can see from the condition of approval that the common
areas were to remain undisturbed. Attached to those Conditions of approval
is a map showing the area in which an existing VEPCO power line and
right-of-way has recently been cleaned out. The original deed from Mr. and
Mrs. Toms to Mr. and Mrs. Maupin is attached which does have a statement
that the conveyance is subject to utility easements. On the plat attached
to that conveyance there is a power line shown along Route 691. The subse-
quent deed between the Maupin's, two corporations, and other parties was
made after the redivision of the property as evidenced on the plat attached
010
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 10)
to that deed. The plat does not show, in this case, the power line although
the power line was in place at that time.
I have spoken to Mr. Marion Sims of Virginia Power and he has stated that in
the last few weeks the Power Company has cleared some underbrush and scrub
trees from this right-of-way in order to adequately maintain the power
lines. He also stated that adjacent property owners in Jarman Gap Estates
were notified and were supportive of this action.
It appears that there was an existing right-of-way associated with this
power line at the time of the ZMA approval by the Board of Supervisors. The
power line did go through common areas that the Board intended to remain
undisturbed. Virginia Power, however, does seem to have the right to
maintain a right-of-way in this area. There is existing vegetation remain-
ing between the power line and the homes in Jarman Gap Estates that does
provide fairly extensive screening. I am certain, however, that the homes
are more visible now than they were prior to this action by Virginia Power.
While I have not consulted directly with the County Attorney, it would
appear that the conditions placed on ZMA-77-12 were not enforceable for
those areas in the Virginia Power right-of-way and therefore, the Board
would not be able to require additional screening measures within that
right-of-way."
Mr. Fisher explained that the clearing of the Jarman Gap Estates common area was on the
Board's agenda in May, and information was included in the Board members' packets for that
meeting. After the packet was sent to the Board members, they were requested by Mr. Mott to
defer action because Jarman Gap Estates could not have anyone present at that May meeting.
This matter was then rescheduled for this June 4, 1986 meeting.
Mr. Agnor said this matter was initiated by a letter from Mr. Charles Mott which pointed
out that several years ago, in the approval for the development of the Jarman Gap Estates,
the plans required that a buffer zone of trees would be maintained along Jarman Gap Road on
the north side between the road and the Jarman Gap Estates lots. This letter calls to the
attention of the County a recent action that destroyed the buffer zone by the contractors for
Virginia Power clearing the right-of-way. Mr. Mott contacted Mr. Simms, of Virginia Power,
and indicated his concern. Mr. Simms advised Mr. Mott that Virginia Power had the authority
to do what it had done. Mr. Mott ended his letter by asking that he and his neighbors be
advised as to when the buffer zone would be re-established. Mr. Mott's letter was sent to
the Planning Department so that the staff could look at the approval conditions of the Jarman
Gap Estates in 1977. The conditions included a statement that said common areas were to
remain undisturbed. The common area was designated on the plat for that project in the area
that Mr. Mott is referring to, which is adjacent to Route 691 between the roadway and the
lots in the Jarman Gap Estates development. Mr. Agnor stated that the staff has also exam-
ined the clearance that was done by Virginia Power. The power company cleared underbrush and
trees from its right-of-way easement for the power line in existence at the time the Jarman
Gap Estates was approved, according to County records. In the removal of the underbrush,
Virginia Power also advised that the property owners had been notified of the intent to clear
the right-of-way, and according to Virginia Power's understanding, the property owners
supported that action. The existing right-of-way that was associated with the power line at
the time of the Board's approval developed vegetation which has been removed, and the homes
are more visible than they were prior to Virginia Power's action. However, there is some
remaining vegetation between the power line's right-of-way and the homes in the Jarman Gap
Estates. Mr. Agnor said that the County Attorney, Mr. St. John, was asked to examine this
situation from the standpoint of the legality of the County's reaction. Mr. St. John's
letter to the Board, which has already been distributed, indicates that Virginia Power has a
vested right to clear its easement and to do what it did on its easement at the Jarman Gap
Estates. The County Attorney's letter also indicates that there is nothing the County can do
about it. Mr. Agnor added that it was not, however, something that was anticipated when the
common areas were shown to remain undisturbed, but the power line was there at the time. He
said that Virginia Power is doing what it usually does to keep brush and trees off its power
line.
Mr. Fisher asked if this is true for any plat that comes into the County that shows an
open area or buffer zone. He said that the people who are making these statements may not
actually have the power to enforce them because there may have already been an easement
granted to someone else. Mr. Agnor replied that this is certainly possible and that Mr. St.
John's letter indicates that if the County tries to avoid this type of situation in the
future, the applicant would have to submit a title certificate along with the application for
the approval of any development plans, in order that those easements could be taken into
account. A map locating the existing utility line easements would also have to be required
by the County. Mr. Agnor stated that often most deeds that create easements are granted
without a specific location and are located only by records to a sketch. He said that to
avoid this in the future, easements would have to be recorded with the County when the staff
is looking at buffer zones.
Mr. Henley asked Mr. Agnor if he is talking about easements that do not have a power
line now or easements that are under a power line that is already in existence. Mr. Agnor
responded that he is talking about easements under power lines that exist when developments
are approved.
Mr. Henley said he did not know why developers could not show power lines on the plat.
Mr. Agnor replied that this could be done. Mr. Fisher commented that if the County takes the
position that there is nothing that can be done, he expects there will be more site plans
where buffer zones will be put in non-productive areas. Mr. St. John discussed a gas line
easement that is about 60 feet wide that goes across the Garlick Track. He said there have
been quite a few plats relating to this open space, because it can be used to good advantage.
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 11)
01!
At this time Mr. Fisher said that there were some people at the meeting who would like
to speak to the Board about the Jarman Gap Estates common area.
Mr. Mott was the first to speak, and he said he thought it would be of good use for the
Board to understand what actually occurred in 1977 when the Jarman Gap Estates project came
to the Board of Supervisors from the Planning Commission. None of the people who are living
there now were there at that time. Mr. Mott's home is just across from Jarman Gap Estates.
He said he used to look at only the Blue Ridge Mountains, and now a development is also in
his range of vision. Mr. Mott stated that in 1977 the master plan did not call for such a
subdivision to be developed there. The developers were asking for an exception to this, and
in due process with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, they were granted
permission to build this subdivision. The developers first had in the plan provisions for
six entrances into the Jarman Gap Estates, with four coming off of Jarman Gap Road and two on
another road. At that time, he and other concerned citizens in that area asked that the
supervisors at least reduce the number of entrances because the sun in the evening makes it
very difficult to see other vehicles. This group of concerned citizens was worried about
school buses and other vehicles going into six entrances into this subdivision and causing a
dangerous situation. He said there were 120 people who signed a petition against the
approval of this subdivision. The supervisors did give the approval, but the entrances were
reduced to three. As a compromise with the concerns of this group of people, the supervisors
also ruled that the common space would not be disturbed. Mr. Mott pointed out the common
space on the map as the green area to the Board. He said that, now, this common space has
been disturbed, and the vegetation has been cut except for a few dogwood trees that some of
the residents had planted. He stated that Virginia Power does have a vested right to do
this, but he said in past years, the power company would cut approximately 20 feet from the
wire. This year, however, Virginia Power cleared out the whole area. That was when he wrote
his letter to Mr. Fisher. Mr. Mott said that in Mr. St. John's letter to the Board, Mr. St.
John indicated that in the Jarman Gap case it appears from the County's documentation that
there~is an additional common space outside of the right-of-way on which new and additional
planting could be required. This is the only possible remedy in this case. Mr. Mott sug-
gested that the Board look at this whole issue, and see what the neighbors had to face at the
time the area was developed. He said that none of the residents of the development were
aware that there was supposed to be a buffer zone in this area. Mr. Mott reported that he
had talked to one of the residents this afternoon, and the resident's property was totally
exposed. This resident was primarily concerned about the traffic noise. Mr. Mott also hears
the traffic and more of the houses in the development are exposed to his view. It seems to
Mr. Mott that there should be some way not only to prevent this from happening in the future,
but to remedy what has been done at the Jarman Gap Estates, without cost to the residents.
He thinks that at the time of the ruling of the Board of Supervisors, the idea was to provide
a buffer for the people who were going to occupy this development and also for the surround-
ing neighbors. He hopes and proposes to the Board that it find some way in its budget to
find that common space that is not in the Virginia Power easement and not on the property of
the development's residents. Some plantings could be done that would be attractive and would
also provide the buffer zone that was actually designated in 1977.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Mott if he expects the County to plant a buffer zone. Mr. Mott
replied, "sure." He said that the Board in 1977 said that the buffer zone was going to be
there and now it is not there. He does not think that it is up to the neighbors or the
residents of Jarman Gap Estates to plant it. Mr. Fisher indicated that Virginia Power could
come back in and cut the area again. Mr. Mott responded that what he is suggesting is that
trees be planted in the common space area that is between the Virginia Power easement and the
property line. This is the area that was indicated in Mr. St. John's letter. Mr. Fisher
then asked Mr. St. John if there is room there for plantings, and Mr. St. John answered that
the sketch that was shown to him indicated an area that could be used as a common area. Mr.
St. John said, though, that he has not seen a survey of that area. Mr. Mott also informed
the Board that Virginia Power did not contact all of the people in the development. He said
that Mr. Stalnaker, a resident of Jarman Gap Estates, told him today that no one had con-
tacted him about clearing the-right-of-way. Mr. Mott said he recognizes that Virginia Power
has a right to do what it did, but he is upset that everyone was misled in 1977. Mr. Agnor
added that he had not intended to leave out Mr. St. John's comment that new and additional
plantings could be required, but he also realized that Mr. Mott's letter had described that
the developers of Jarman Gap Estates have gone bankrupt. Mr. Agnor said that common areas in
all subdivisions today are maintained and preserved by homeowner associations which have come
into being since 1977. Mr. Agnor understands Mr. Mott's recommendation for County funds to
be used to plant a common area, but he was of the opinion that Mr. St. John's comment was
that there was additional planting that could be required. Mr. St. John was not specific,
however, as to who would be required to do it. Mr. Agnor does not think that public funds
should be spent on private property.
Mr. Henley wondered why the common area had to be replanted. He said that Virginia
Power did not cut it all down, and unless the neighbors cut it totally down, the plantings
should still be there. Mr. St. John responded that there is some vegetation there in the
common area, but it is not as thick or as wide as it was before Virginia Power cleared it.
Mr. Horne asked Mr. St. John if he was ever able to determine the width of the right-of-way,
and Mr. St. John replied, "no." Mr. Horne said he had asked Mr. Simms that question, and Mr.
Simms said it was not an established right-of-way, but was an old line that had been there
for a long time, with no specified width. Mr. Horne indicated that it is very difficult for
the staff to determine if there is more open space because it has not been determined how
wide the right-of-way is supposed to be.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that it is probably a right-of-way that is sufficiently adequate
for Virginia Power to establish and maintain the power line, but is hard to define. Mrs.
Cooke asked if the buffer zone is on private property. She wondered what needs to be
replaced, if Virginia Power has only cut down vegetation in its own right-of-way. Mr. Fisher
explained that this land is common open space and is commonly owned by all of the develop-
ment's property owners, which makes it private property. He said that the area in question
also has power lines that go through this common area, and were not shown on the plat.
012
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mrs. Cooke asked if there were other clearing done by private property owners on this
common area before Virginia Power cleared its right-of-way. Mr. Fisher said he doubted if
private property owners would clear anything in the common area. Mr. Mott explained that,
originally, grass was planted all the way back to a bank that is 20 or 30 feet wide, and that
is where the power line is. He said that Randy Rinehart finished the houses after they were
sitting for two years in a 90 percent finished state. He presumes that Mr. Rinehart did not
know that this area was to be left as a common area. Mr. Henley said that there was nothing
desirable left in that common area, anyway. He commented that Mr. Alvin Toms had cut the
locust trees before he sold the land. Mr. Mott said that all that Virginia Power cut from
the common area were trees of paradise and locusts.
Mr. Henley feels that if the residents of Jarman Gap Estates want trees in their back
yards, they should plant them. He does not think the County should replant anything, and he
pointed out that the County is not supposed to maintain this common area.
Mr. Bowie stated that he cannot see public funds being used to improve this or any other
private property. Nor can he see requiring additions to applications because of a problem
that has arisen only once in quite a number years, when Virginia Power exercised its right to
clear its right-of-way. He said if the common area had only scrub vegetation, it will grow
back. He agrees with Mr. Henley, that if the owners want a buffer zone, they can plant their
own trees.
Mr. Lindstrom thinks that when plats are being approved, particularly if it is a discre-
tionary legislative action and the plat before the Board indicates a buffer area is required,
there should be some reasonable degree of certainty that this area will in fact do what is
intended when the ordinance is enacted. He does not think a title search is necessary, but
he thinks that if the applicant is representing a buffer zone to the Board, the Board should
know that there is some likelihood that there will be one. In order for the applicant to
sell the plats, he will have to have the land surveyed, and this will show the location of
rights-of-way. He does not think it is unreasonable to request that when a plat shows a
buffer zone or one is required that the Board know that it will, in fact, be there. He does
not think that this will require the developer to do any more that he will have to do,
anyway, to sell the property, in this case, though, he is not sure what can be done to
remedy the situation.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the right-of-way was indicated on the plats of the lots that were
sold in the Jarman Gap Estates. Mr. Fisher replied that the right-of-way is not shown on the
plats. Mr. Henley added that he doubted that there was a right-of-way at that time, but the
Virginia Power lines were already there. Mr. Fisher said it was an oversight, however, not
to have the power lines shown on the plats. Mr. Lindstrom brought out the fact that Board
members have before them a sketch, and it is not a plat. Mr. Agnor explained that the staff
researched several plats of lots in the Jarman Gap Estates and found that the power lines
were shown on them. Mrs. Cooke asked if the buffer area showed on the plats, and Mr. Agnor
answered, "no." He said that only the boundaries of the lot lines and the existence of the
roadway and power lines were shown. He pointed out that the document that Board members used
in 1977 is the one that is posted on the wall for this meeting and is a landscape architect's
sketch.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne if the plats that are now required under the ordinance
require more information than earlier ones. Mr. Horne answered, "yes." He said that things
of this type are now shown on plats, and buffered areas are confirmed. Mr. Agnor added,
though, that homeowner associations usually maintain these common areas.
Mr. Fisher said he has not seen any kind of indication that the Board of Supervisors can
rectify this problem. It seems clear to him that if there is space in back yards or a common
area that is not likely to be cut down that young trees could be put there.
Mr. Lindstrom understood from one gentleman who spoke at this meeting that in the
process of completing construction at Jarman Gap Estates, some of the buffer area may have
been removed and grass planted. He stated that this happened at the stage of the County
ordinance when the homeowners' associations may have been a little less formal in structure
than they are now. But, it seems to him that the land is owned commonly, and there is
similar land that could be re-established by the joint efforts of the homeowners. He under-
stands Mr. Mott's feelings that this should not be the homeowners' responsibility, but he has
a problem with all of the County taxpayers subsidizing the establishment of a buffer zone.
He thinks this would be a bad precedent. The homeowners' association will defray the cost
and spread it among a number of people. He said that it sounds as though there is an area at
Jarman Gap Estates that Virginia Power will not have to clear cut, and he added that Virginia
Power now has a policy concerning clearing its rights-of-way that has affected a lot of
people. Since there is room there to re'establish a buffer zone by the common efforts of the
homeowners, that will be free from interference by Virginia Power, he thinks this is the way
it should be handled.
Mr. Mott stated that in the list of provisions that the Board gave to the developer, Mr.
Maupin, there is no provision that a homeowners' association be formed. He said that he did
not know if this was the intent of the Board. He commented that if anything is to be gained
from this experience, it shOuld be that it will not happen again. He thinks it is unfortu-
nate that the neighborhood people who did not want the subdivision there, anyway, were
further misled to think that these trees would always be there. He does not think this was
done purposely, but it is unfortunate. He mentioned that in 1977, Mr. Henley did not comment
when he was told about the list of 120 concerned citizens. He believes that whatever can be
done by the present Board to insure that this type of thing will not happen again will be
appreciated by all County residents.
Mr. Fisher replied that this is what the Board is trying to accomplish.
Agenda Item No. 8. Agreement: County of Albemarle. Crozet Volunteer Fire Company.
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 13)
Mr. Agnor said that in the capital budget there were funds allocated for purchases by
the volunteer fire companies to a committee of the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Associa-
tion. Recommendations from the Firefighters' Association come to the Board in the form of
written agreements which are contracts for the repayment of these funds. The agreement
before the Board tonight is for the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company for $120,000, with $80,000
to be drawn from the 1985-86 fiscal year's budget. The remaining $40,000 is contingent upon
the capital improvement appropriation for 1986-87 for the Jefferson Country Firemen's Associ-
ation, and if this appropriation does not take place, this agreement is subject only to
$80,000. Mr. Agnor said that repayment is scheduled over a seven year period of time. He
asked the Board to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to authorize the Chairman
to sign the following agreement:
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 20th day of June, 1986 by between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the CROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE
COMPANY, INC. ("Crozet");
WI TNE S SETH:
That for and in consideration of the operation by Crozet of a volunteer
fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from
loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement and the purchase
of Crozet of a new pumper tanker for use during the period of this agree-
ment, the County shall pay to Crozet One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dol-
lars(S120,000.00), which shall be paid as follows:
(a) $80,000 in the fiscal year 1985-86 to be drawn June 10, 1986. This
$80,000 is the present balance left in the 1985-86 fund appropriation;
(b) $40,000 from the 1986-87 advance allocation fund to be drawn August
25, 1986 pending approval of the 1986-87 Capital Improvement Appropriation
for the Jefferson Country Firemen's Association.
Thereafter, the sum of Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Dollars
($17,100.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual
grant to Crozet, for a period of six (6) years, beginning with fiscal year
1987-88 and extending through fiscal year 1992-93, and the sum of Seventeen
Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($17,400.00) shall be withheld in the seventh
fiscal year (1993-94) from the County's annual grant to Crozet, so that at
the end of the seventh year, which is the term of this service agreement, a
total of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00) will have been
withheld. This withholding is in addition to any other withholding as a
result of prior service agreements with Crozet.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Crozet is no longer
in the business of providing fire-fighting services involving the use of the
pumper tanker to be purchased by Crozet, Crozet covenants that it will
convey its interest in the pumper tanker to the County at no cost to the
County so long as the County or its assigns use the pumper tanker for
fire-fighting purposes.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were a clause in the contract that referred to reversion of
the property. Mr. Lindstrom read a clause from the contract to Mr. Fisher, which he thought
answered his question, but Mr. Fisher said that this referred only to rolling stock and not
buildings. Mr. Henley asked how much was advanced to the Crozet Fire Company for the build-
ing, and Mr. Agnor answered that the Company was advanced $100,000. Mr. Henley then asked if
the Crozet Fire Company was repaying this money in the same manner as this loan, and Mr.
Agnor replied that the pay back plan is for a longer period of time which he believes is ten
years. Mr. Fisher then asked if the Company would be able to repay all of these loans, and
Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." Mr. Fisher said he did not want to induce these fire companies
into doing something that they cannot afford. Mr. Agnor explained that the repayments are
set up so that they are substracted from the fiscal year's allocation which now exceeds the
repayments. He said as long as the allocations remain at the current level, there should not
be a problem. Mr. Fisher asked if this is one of the priority items that has been through
the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." He indicated a
letter in the Board members' packets from Sandy Tucker, Chairman of the Jefferson Country
Firefighters' Association, asking that this request be approved.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 9a.
Agenda Item No. 9b.
Extension Service Letter:
Extension Service Letter:
Notice of Drought.
Notice of Freeze.
Mr. Agnor informed the Board that at its last meeting there was a request from the
Extension Service that a notice of drought be sent to the Governor's Office concerning the
fact that Albemarle County has the potential for a serious drought. Following that meeting,
Mr. Agnor had a discussion with Mr. Mark Reynolds, Extension Agent, who indicated that this
notice is intended to meet a federal requirement that stipulates a 90 day notice from when
the rainfall deficiency occurred. In this case, it was January through April. The agricul-
tural people in Richmond have advised Mr. Reynolds that Albemarle County should notify the
Governor's Office that this drought exists. This will not declare an emergency, but it will
begin the 90 day cycle that is required.
014
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the 90 day notice indicates that it seems as though the County
will not get any rain, or does it indicate that no rain has occurred. Mr. Agnor answered
that the 90 day notice will indicate that it has not rained, and if it does not rain in the
next ninety days, there could be serious trouble.
Next, Mr. Agnor discussed a notice of freeze that should also be sent to the Governor's
Office, if the Board concurs. Mr. Henley then mentioned that the peaches were killed in
January due to a freeze, and that there was also a late frost in the spring. Mr. Agnor said
that the notice of ~freeze is based on the spring frost. He indicated that he had just
received a letter concerning the problem with the peaches. Mr. Henley said that very few
farmers knew that the peaches were ruined until they started blooming. Mr. Henley also
mentioned that no harm can come from sending the letter to the Governor's Office about the
drought, because it can always be withdrawn, if rain occurs.
Mr. Lindstrom said that the letters seemed reasonable, and he read excerpts from them.
Mr. Agnor suggested, if it is agreeable to Board members, that he will write a similar letter
for next week's Board Meeting relating to the peach problem. He said these letters have to
be approved before June 23.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the Chairman send the letter attached to the memoran-
dum presented tonight to Governor Baliles. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments.
Mr. Fisher stated that the City, County and University Joint Committee met earlier this
week on the planning agreement that has finally been approved. He said that implementation
of the plan is going to take work by people who are technically capable of doing these
things. A proposal is being designed for an ongoing group to replace this joint negotiating
team that was appointed. He said it is important for the work that has been started on the
County's Comprehensive Plan that certain areas be developed to bring some proposals to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as to what will be done in these critical
areas. The Comnittee suggests that the technical committee be appointed to begin this work
under the agreement, and that Mr. Bowerman, Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Tucker
and Mr. Horne represent the County in those three positions. He asked the Board to make
these appointments tonight, so that work can be started, perhaps, as-early as next week.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Bowerman agreed to this appointment, and Mr. Fisher said he had
been unable to reach him.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to appoint Messrs. David W. Bowerman, Rober W. Tucker, Jr., and
John T. P. Horne to the Technical Committee on the City/Council/University of Virginia
Planning Agreement. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Henley asked how the Comprehensive Plan revisions will be done and if community
advisory committees would be involved. Mr. Lindstrom responded that the Planning Commission
is just beginning to set up its procedures. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Henley if he had a particu-
lar concern relating to the Comprehensive Plan revisions.
Mr. Henley answered, "no." However, he said that some of the people who had been on the
committee before had asked him if these Comprehensive Plan revisions would be handled in the
same manner. He said, too, that Mr. Perkins wanted to know how the Board of Supervisors
feels about the School Board declaring Greenwood School as surplus property. Mr. Henley
thinks that someone should look at Greenwood School and see if it is worth keeping for future
use. If so, a decision needs to be made as to who will maintain it. He mentioned that the
grass has not been cut this summer until this week.
Mr. Fisher wondered if Mr. Henley means that Greenwood School should be considered for
any public purpose. Mr. Henley responded that if the School Board gives it back to the
County, it should be considered for other uses. He said that obviously the school system
does not want to maintain it.
Mr. Lindstrom said that when the school facilities planning committee did its study
there was no indication that Greenwood would be used again as a school.
Mr. Fisher commented that he thinks the School Board needs to make the decision as to
whether or not it is going to use Greenwood as a school. If the School Board decides that
Greenwood will no longer be used as a school, then it will come back to the County. At that
time, the Board of Supervisors can look at it for other public purposes. Mr. Henley agreed
with Mr. Fisher's comments.
Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted to talk further about the Joint Committee. He explained
that one of the things that the Board should be aware of and might want to take action on
concerns the proposal for the ongoing structure of the Committee. He said there is a Techni-
cal Committee which the Board has already appointed. But, he added, there should also be a
June 4, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
015
continuation of the negotiation team, except that the team will have a different role. It
will then be a Policy Committee that will meet three times a year. He believes that the
President of the University and the two Vice Presidents will be on that Committee, and the
County and the City will each also have three members. He would like to continue to work on
the Committee and presumes that Mr. Agnor and the Chairman of the Board should also be
members of it. He believes that the Board should consider these appointments and whether it
wants those three members to continue on with the Policy Committee.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom moved that the three current members of the Joint Commit-
tee's negotiating team become the members of the Policy Committee.
Mr. Fisher commented that he had hoped to have a draft of how this Joint Committee would
proceed for the Board members. Since plans were just completed on Monday, he does not have
anything available for the Board to see. He does not think that waiting another week will
present a problem, and he would like for the Board members to have this information before a
decision is made.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that the structure of the Committee is almost identical to how
the MPO is structured.
(There was no second to the motion.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session: Property Acquisition. At 9:46 P.M., Mr. Henley
offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss property acquisition. Mr. Bowie
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 13.
meeting was adjourned.
Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the
/