2001-04-25April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 25,
2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 7:21 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Assistant County Executive, Roxanne W. White, Assistant County Attorney,
Greg Kamptner, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 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. Don Nidiffer submitted petitions signed by 228 people from throughout Albemarle County
asking that the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle close and cleanup the Ivy Landfill.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve Item 5.1
with the changes mentioned, to approve Items 5.2 through 5.5, and the accept the other items on the
Consent Agenda for information (Note: Conversation concerning the individual items will be shown as part
of that item).
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Item 5.1. SP-2000-64. Weber (Triton PCS) (deferred from April 18, 2001).
It was noted in the staffs report that on February 14, 2001, the Board held a public hearing on this
=
application and requested that Triton PCS explore alternatives regarding the ground equipment for a
communication facility to mitigate its visual impact from Route 708. The visual impact of the tower base
and ground equipment was the primary reason staff recommended disapproval of the application. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the application.
On April 4, 2001, the Board deferred action on the proposed revisions to the conditions of approval,
due to the timing of the submittal. On April 20, 2001, staff provided the Board with an executive summary
setting out revised conditions of approval reflecting the changes discussed at the April 4 meeting.
The applicant has requested that Condition No. 11 be eliminated since the proposed shed would
shield the ground equipment view. Also, staff recognized that Condition No. 12 (old Condition No. 13)
should reflect a change in the proposed size of the storage building from 20' by 19' to 12' by 14'6". Staff
finds these changes acceptable.
(Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board members had received a copy of his last E-mail communication
which contained the conditions which the Board should approve tonight. Ms. Humphris said when the
Board approves the Consent Agenda they will be approving the changes in Mr. Cilimbergs E-mail message
=
of April 24 which eliminates Condition No. 11 of SP-2000-64, and changes the dimensions in what now
becomes Condition No. 12 from 20' by 19' shelter to 12' by 14'6" shelter. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved SP-2000-64 subject to the following
13 conditions:
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed
seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the
facility, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with
the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2.The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The pole shall be a metal pole, dark brown in color;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as
provided by Condition Number Nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to
the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the
specifications as shown on the attached plan entitled "Weber Property
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Triton PCS" dated (revised) 4/06/01;
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole,
and with a width not to exceed one (1)-inch diameter at the base and
tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole;
f.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying
the height of the tallest tree, as identified in Condition Number One (1);
g.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall
provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of
the pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above
Sea Level (ASL);
h.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as
described in Condition Number One (1) of these conditions of approval,
without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as follows:
a.The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan
entitled "Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01; and
b.The proposed facility shall be located not more than twenty-five (25) feet
from the existing access road;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled
"Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01;
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole; and
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 building, including
necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this
tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the
Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not
remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment
building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree
removal within the two hundred (200)-foot buffer, after the installation of the
subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is
discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per
year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the
pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with Condition
Number One (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be
created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of
the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminary 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. A
fence surrounding the lease area is not a requirement of this approval; however,
should a fence be installed, the materials and height shall be restricted as
follows:
a.The fence shall be constructed with barbed wire to match the existing
fence adjacent to the subject lease area;
11.A landscaping plan depicting screening landscaping along Route 708 shall be
required. A landscaping plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Development or his designee prior to the issuance of building
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
permits;
12.A 12' by 14'6" shelter constructed of unpainted rough sawn wood shall be
constructed around the ground equipment, as shown on the plans titled "Weber
Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01; and
13.The entrance gate from Route 708 to the site, as located on the plans titled
"Weber Property Triton PCS" and dated (revised) 4/06/01, shall be replaced with
a solid gate constructed of unpainted rough sawn wood.
__________
Item 5.2. Set public hearing for May 9, 2001, on request to amend the jurisdictional (service) areas
of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to Tax Map 62, Parcel 24A (Roy L.
Williams).
It was noted in the staffs report that the applicant is requesting service area designation for water
=
service to a parcel (Tax Map 62, Parcel 24A) due to contamination of the existing well on-site. The parcel is
located on the west side of Route 20 North and the east side of Dorrier Drive, just north of Darden Towe
Park, and is located within Urban Area Three (Pantops). As a general policy, staff has advised that public
utility capacity should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. Since this
property is located within the designated Development Areas, the provision of both water and sewer service
to the property would be consistent with the Public Utility Policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
recommends proceeding to public hearing to consider water and sewer service to the parcel listed above.
(Ms. Humphris said David Benish is supposed to let her know why this well is contaminated. She
would also like to know why the request has to go through the public hearing process since the property is
eligible for inclusion. Mr. Cilimberg said this is the process required when a property is not located within a
designated service area.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered a public hearing on this request for
May 9, 2001.
__________
Item 5.3. Appropriation: Community Development Block Grant 00-25 (Whitewood Village project),
$25,000 (Form #20064).
It was noted in the staffs report that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
=
through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, approved a $25,000.000
planning grant for the Whitewood Village Project. The grant is totally funded by a Federal Community
Development Block grant, and there is no local match required.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20064
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: WHITEWOOD VILLAGE PLANNING GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1221 81030 563100 AHIP$25,000.00
TOTAL$25,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1221 33000 330009 CDBH-HUD$25,000.00
TOTAL$25,000.00
__________
Item 5.4. Request by Lane Babe Ruth Baseball League to rename the Lane Baseball Field.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Lane Babe Ruth League has been responsible for the
=
capital improvements and maintenance of the County-owned Lane Field since Lane High School closed in
the mid-1970s. Mr. Darrell Gardner has been involved in youth baseball in the community for nearly 50
years. For the past 15 years, he has spent countless hours maintaining and organizing various improve-
ment projects for Lane Field. The League has recently obtained funding to replace the scoreboard and
would like to rename the field in conjunction with this. In recognition of Mr. Gardners commitment to the
=
youth of this area and to baseball, the League proposes that the field be renamed Darrell C. Gardner Field
A
at Lane Park. The Countys Parks and Recreation Department endorses and joins with this request.
@=
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
(Ms. Humphris said this request tugged at her heart. She is probably one of the few people left
who know this as the Lane Baseball Field, one of the last remanents of Lane High School. She said the
rationale given is certainly a good reason for doing it.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved renaming the County-owned Lane
Baseball Field as the "Darrell C. Gardner Field at Lane Park".
__________
Item 5.5. Appointment of Jack Kelsey as Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works.
It was noted in the staffs report that Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works, has
=
submitted a letter of resignation and is scheduled to leave County employment on April 24. Due to the
vacancy, it is necessary to appoint an interim Director. Staff recommends that Mr. Jack Kelsey, the
Countys current Chief of Engineering be appointed as the interim director.
=
By the recorded vote set out above, Mr. Jack Kelsey was appointed Interim Director of
Engineering and Public Works until the vacancy is filled.
__________
Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated April 11, 2001, from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. Douglas E. Little, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax
Map 41, Parcels 39A, 39B and 39D (property of MLB Land Trust, Douglas E. Little, Trustee) - Section
10.31, was received as information.
__________
Item 5.7. Copy of notice of public hearing on application of Ennstone, Inc., for proposed Revenue
Bond Financing by Virginia Small Business Financing Authority, was received for information.
(Ms. Humphris asked if this concrete processing plant, located on two acres of land at the
Northside Industrial Park, is a by-right use or is it something that will need a special use permit in the future.
Mr. Martin said that basically the applicants are preparing all of the things they need before coming to the
Planning Commission and the Board. They did not realize that this loan approval would be announced in
this way.)
__________
Item 5.8. Copy of resolution adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors
setting out all proposed rates and fees of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was received for
information.
_______________
Not Docketed: Ms. Thomas said she would like to deviate from the printed agenda for a moment.
She said she represented the Board at the Salvation Army Dinner recently. A County school won the
Golden Can award. This was a reward for a large public school. In this case it was Jack Jouett Middle
A@
School, which had collected 3,285 cans of food for a food drive. Ms. Chris Thomas was present to accept
the award for the school.
_______________
(Note: Agenda Items 6 and 7 were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2000-34. Spring Hill (Signs #38 & 39). Public Hearing on a request to
allow amendment of earlier SUPs for the purpose of dividing the residue of Spring Hill Farm into one 102
ac lot w/340 ac residue & to create a stream crossing in accord w/Secs 10.2.2.30 & 30.3.05.2.1.2 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 58, P 95, contains 442.656 acs. Located on Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637) at the intersec w/Rt
677. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 9 and
April 16, 2001.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2000-38. Spring Hill (Signs #61, 63 & 64). Public Hearing on a request to
allow new stream crossing to be created in accord w/Sec 30.3.05.2.1.2 of the Zoning Ord. TM 58, P 95,
contains 442.656 acs. Located on Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637) approx at its intersec w/Rt 677. Znd RA.
Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 9 and April 16, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal by Blue Springs Land Corporation, is to both divide the existing
residue of Spring Hill Farm to create a 102-acre residential lot with the remaining 340 acres being in a
second residue parcel. The farm was originally divided in the early 1980s by two special use permits. With
those approvals, there was a condition that no further subdivision of the residue could occur without
amendment to the existing permit. There is also a proposal in conjunction with this to construct a driveway
and bridge over Ivy Creek at or near the intersection of Routes 637 and 677.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has offered to protect Ivy Creek, which crosses the proposed 102-
acre parcel, and other streams on the parcel with 100-foot riparian buffer easements, and to accept a
condition preventing any further division of the new 102-acre parcel. The stream crossing would be used
for access to the residential parcel that would be created by SP-2000-34.
Mr. Cilimberg said in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan of the Comprehensive Plan,
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
staff identified Ivy Creek as an important stream valley. Spring Hill Farm was divided in 1981. Some
portions of the property were in the former Ivy Village development area, and the division consisted of 33
residential parcels and a residue of approximately 480 acres. That residue has been diminished through
transactions which allowed parts of the original residue to be combined with adjacent property. The two
parcels which originally comprised Spring Hill had a total of 41 lots available for division. At the time of
adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance, those two parcels had ten development right lots, and then another
31 twenty-one or greater lots. Thirty-three of those rights were used for the small lots, plus the residue was
the 34th lot. Out of the 41, there are actually seven rights for 21-acre or greater parcels left, but those
rights can only be exercised through amendment to the special use permit, which is the request before the
Board tonight.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted factors favorable to the request: the proposed parcel is significantly
larger than the Countys minimum by-right lots in the rural areas; soil impacts can be reduced through
=
permit conditions that reduce the area of development; and, stream buffer easements will provide
additional long-term protection for streams in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed. Factors
unfavorable include: parcels of this size are increasingly rare in the County; any division diminishes the
parcels natural resource value and economic potential for forestry; and, residential development on the
=
parcel will impact highly productive and, in some cases, erodible soils.
Regarding the stream crossing (SP-2000-38), Mr. Cilimberg said staff identified the following
factors which are favorable to the request: the new driveway location will have a greater sight distance
along Route 637 than the existing farm entrance, so will be safer for the parcels owners and drivers on
=
Route 637; and, closing the existing farm entrance will eliminate off-road traffic near a documented historic
site. Factors unfavorable to this request are: construction of the bridge and driveway will impact the stream
and stream buffers. Conditions have been included on both permits intended to minimize those impacts.
Mr. Cilimberg said neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance provide justification
for approval of large residential estates when the development is not a by-right use. When the County has
an opportunity to prevent the fragmentation of large rural parcels, it attempts to do so. However, there are
practical matters to consider in this case. First, the proposed new parcel is nearly five times larger than the
21-acre minimum by-right parcel size now permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. This development would
have significantly less impact than the additional seven or eight houses that might have been built if the
applicant had used all available development rights in 1981. Both the new parcel, and the 340 plus-acre
residue would be large enough to sustain agricultural and forestal uses. Given these factors, staff
recommended approval of both SP-2000-34 and SP-2000-38, subject to a number of conditions imperative
to mitigating the projects impacts.
=
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 27, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval of both petitions, subject to conditions. For SP-2000-34, the Commission did make
some modifications to reflect a change given to them regarding Condition No. 1 which originally read: No
A
further division of the new parcel allowed by this permit or of the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be
permitted. Condition No. 1 is recommended to the Board reading: No further division of the proposed
@A
102-acre parcel allowed by this special use permit shall be permitted. No further division of the residue of
Parcel 58-95 shall be permitted without an amendment to SP-81-01 and SP-81-55.
@
Mr. Cilimberg said in the case of Condition No. 5, the wording has been revised since the Planning
Commission meeting and is reflected in the executive summary sent to the Board for this meeting. The
Engineering Department has notified the Planning Department that the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water
Conservation District may not necessarily be able or willing to hold these easements. If the applicant
cannot find someone to hold the easements, he will need to provide written evidence from the entities
contacted declining the easements, and then the condition would be null and void.
Mr. Cilimberg said Condition No. 7 was also modified by the Planning Commission to add the word
horticulture in the last sentence. Condition No. 8 recommended by staff was removed by the
A@
Commission. These requests come to the Board with a recommendation for approval with seven
conditions for SP-2000-34 and four conditions for SP-2000-38.
With no questions for staff at this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ethan Miller said he and his wife own Blue Springs Land Corporation, which is the applicant
tonight. Spring Hill Farm was obtained by his wifes grandmother in 1980. Using a map he pointed out the
=
boundaries of the property. It was 695 acres at the time. In 1981, the Spring Hill subdivision was
presented. (Note: Mr. Dorrier arrived at the meeting at 7:21 p.m.) There is a problem which the Board
dealt with in 1981, and will have to deal with again tonight. A portion of the property was located in the
Rural Areas and a portion in the Ivy Village. (He handed out a map showing the Village boundary.) He said
the issue he will raise tonight is whether the Board should look at this as a by-right subdivision or as a
special permit use. The piece of property to be divided tonight (the 102 acres), was in 1981 in the Rural
Areas. Had this been divided then, as well as under the current rules, it would be a by-right division. He
does not know how this Board will deal with the procedural issue the Board dealt with 20 years ago, and he
does agree it is somewhat confusing.
Mr. Miller said the original subdivision of 33 lots contained 170 acres. There were also some buffer
areas around the property which were intended to protect the stream with some agricultural land in the
middle of the property. An attempt was made to preserve the old farm which is now in common ownership
(about 60 acres which is fenced). What is left today is 342 acres with other land in lots, the original farm or
buffer. He has divided the remaining acreage into three parcels. Parcel A is 102 acres. Parcel C has 120
acres which is very steep land and its access is from Route 679. Then the piece in the middle has been
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
designated as Parcel B and contains 134 acres which can be accessed by the existing subdivision roads,
and which, under the original Spring Hill Master Plan, was intended to be further divided. What is before the
Board tonight is only to divide off a piece of property.
Mr. Miller said the issue of the development rights is an issue of disagreement between the
applicant and the Planning staff as to exactly how many development rights are on the property. The
method of counting that Mr. Cilimberg presented tonight is a traditional method which the staff has used,
but it ignores the fact that the division rights under the ordinance only relate to the Rural Areas. It does not
relate to property in the Ivy Village. A portion of this property was in the Village in 1981. The issue is what
to do with parcels in the village. How are they to be counted when looking at the numbers of lots?
However, that is not before the Board tonight.
Mr. Miller said he wrote a letter concerning the conditions and is asking for relief from three of the
conditions on SP-2000-34 and also asks for relief from one condition on SP-2000-38. The relief he seeks
is that there not be riparian buffer easements imposed on streams not located on the new 102-acre parcel.
Secondly, the Planning Commission is limiting the building on the new parcel to only one home site. He
thinks that since the 102-acre parcel was in the Rural Areas, the Board should not impose a limitation that
would not be imposed on a by-right division on a 102-acre parcel elsewhere. He believes Condition No. 7
to be unenforceable and confusing. The issue of why one is clearing land, for forestry or agriculture, is
difficult to figure out.
Mr. Miller said that one of the requirements for SP-2000-38 is that the original farm entrance be
closed. He said they will put a new entrance at the intersection of Routes 667 and 637. They will give sight
easements to VDOT to improve the safety of the public on Route 637. There is now a little farm road in that
area which is gated. It would be a convenient place to take tractors, hay equipment, etc. that does not go
across their bridge or their entrance. It is a fairly innocuous entrance which is approximately 875 feet from
what will be the main entrance.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Miller to point out the farm entrance and the new entrance on the map.
She asked if the farm entrance takes a road across the creek. Mr. Miller said no. There is a small
A@
tributary to Ivy Creek and there is an existing culvert in that tributary which is no more than a trickle. It does
not impact the more significant Ivy Creek. It has been there for as long as anyone can remember.
Mr. Perkins said there was a mention of an historic mill at the farm entrance. Mr. Miller said there is
not much left of the mill. It is hard to know exactly where it is. He does not think that will impact having the
existing entrance stay open.
Mr. Perkins asked why the old entrance would not serve the same purpose as a new entrance. Mr.
Miller said it is an old farm entrance and is not in the right location for a building site. The new entrance will
be safer for the traffic which will use it.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin asked for some clarification as to Condition No. 5. He believes the newest language
answers the questions Mr. Miller raised. Mr. Cilimberg said there are two pieces to No. 5 in terms of what it
covers. The easement itself is noted as extending 100 feet from each bank, and that the easement shall be
placed on all streams on the existing parcel which contains more than 400 acres. The tree planting plan to
be approved by Planning and Engineering and executed along Ivy Creek where the buffer is less than 100
feet from each bank would be for that portion of the stream located on the 102-acre parcel.
Mr. Martin said the sentence that was added still does not address what Mr. Miller mentioned. Mr.
Cilimberg said that is correct. Staff and the Commission felt that all of this is about granting something that
does not exist now. One of the notations picked up from 1981 was that future review of an amendment to
the permit should be under the Rural Areas provisions in place. This is balancing between adding the
possibility for new parcel and building site, with those things which are important to the Rural Areas. In this
location, one of the more important elements is stream protection because the property lies in the drinking
water reservoir watershed.
Ms. Thomas said she asked staff the difference between the Countys ordinance which says you
=
cant disturb 100 feet on either side of the stream, and what a riparian easement would do. The answer
=
she got was that an easement would actually have a plan that went along with it that would require the
planting of trees. This would be an arrangement made with whoever is holding the easement, rather than
with the County, but it would require that something be done to actively protect the stream. Whereas, the
Countys Ordinance protects large trees, would keep one from disturbing the buffer, but it would not have a
=
tree planting plan as part of it. She thinks tree planting is very necessary along Ivy Creek. The applicant
has proposed that there be a riparian easement along Ivy Creek and others on this 102 acres. She is not
certain about the need for the riparian easement on the rest of the property since, in theory, it is not a house
site; it might be used for forestry activity in which case the Countys Ordinance would protect the buffer from
=
being disturbed.
Mr. Cilimberg said he is not totally familiar with the Water Resource Protection Ordinance. He does
not know the extent to which the buffer provisions apply to tributary streams. Mr. Kamptner said the
greatest protection offered by the Water Resources Ordinance exists in the water supply protection area,
and also when there is a perennial stream. He is not sure Parcel C has a perennial stream.
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Cilimberg said Ivy Creek is a perennial stream, but this condition covers all of the tributaries
also. He does not know the extent to which all of those tributaries are covered under the Water Resources
Ordinance. He said this was actually a condition arrived at in consultation with the Water Resources
Manager. It was that office which let Planning know the easement may not be taken by the Soil & Water
Conservation District. He said staff was looking for the most reasonable trade-off that covered the residue
property in total. Right now, there is nothing specifically in the form of easements. Staff is relying on the
Water Resources Manager to advise them in this matter.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is necessary because there is a building on the property. Mr. Cilimberg
said the easements start in the general area where the house site would be, but they would cover
throughout the property.
Ms. Thomas said the easements are very important where there might be a house because they
restrict putting a lawn straight down to a creek. Things have to be put in a buffer area which actively act as
a buffer. She thinks it is a good idea on the 102-acre part. The question is about the other 300 acres that
are possibly going to be forested.
Ms. Humphris asked if the residue parcel were to be forested, would the Countys Water Protection
=
Ordinance naturally provide for that 100-foot buffer or is a legal easement needed to protect it from a
forestry operation? Mr. Kamptner said the applicant would need to have a permit issued by the Department
of Forestry which would deal with some of the water quality issues. Mr. Perkins said the Department of
Forestry does not issue permits. It has to be done according to their guidelines, but there is not a permit
issuing process. He can see requiring a buffer on Ivy Creek. As to the small tributaries, he asked if there is
a map that shows those. How many streams are being talked about? Mr. Miller said he had indicated the
location of the streams on his map and proceeded to point out those locations.
Mr. Perkins said those are buffered by the railroad track. Mr. Miller said they are actually where the
Crozet Interceptor is located. Mr. Cilimberg noted the location as being near Little Ivy Creek. Ms. Thomas
said two of those tributaries are in the existing subdivision. Mr. Miller said yes.
A@
Mr. Perkins asked about requiring buffers where there are flood plains. He said there are flood
plains along Ivy Creek and Little Ivy Creek. The small tributaries are probably intermittent streams, at best.
Mr. Martin said he was thinking that this requirement should be limited to the 102-acre parcel.
Ms. Humphris said that is why she asked the question, do the streams on the residue parcel get
protected in the event of forestry? Mr. Martin said they would be protected no more, or no less than they
currently are protected, while the streams on the 102-acres will get a much higher level of protection. He
assumes that if Mr. Miller decides to do something with the other parts of the property, there would be a
requirement to have an easement on those streams as well, unless he does forestry.
Ms. Humphris said that is the point. Based on what the Planning Commission thought it was doing,
are residue parcel streams being left unprotected without the buffer? The Commission intended it to be
that way in the event of a forestry operation. She understands that if Mr. Miller had to apply for another
special use permit, conditions could be placed on the property at that time. She is concerned about what
would happen if the Board does not do what the Planning Commission and the staff recommended. Mr.
Cilimberg said there is the potential on the residue parcel to have another house site.
Ms. Thomas asked if they could build a house without coming back for another approval. Mr.
Cilimberg said yes. Mr. Kamptner said the Water Protection Ordinance may apply to forestry activities.
A@
Generally, harvesting of forest crops is exempted unless the area in which the harvesting occurs is
reforested, artificially or naturally, in accordance with certain provisions of the Virginia Code. Depending on
how the parcel is forested, it may or may not be subject to the Water Protection Ordinance. In the areas
listed in the Water Protection Ordinance, the 100-foot buffer applies also to intermittent streams, not just
perennial streams.
Mr. Dorrier said he is trying to visualize the threat. He is having trouble seeing the threat, and asked
if the forestry possibility is a threat to the stream. Ms. Thomas said it could be a house lawn which goes
right down to the stream. Mr. Dorrier said it is then non-point source run-off. Ms. Thomas said she tends to
think the Board could just put Condition No. 5 on the new parcel where there is going to be a house. Mr.
Martin said that is also how he feels.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board is to trust the ordinance. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Martin said yes.
A@
Ms. Thomas said if the condition is not on the new parcel, the condition would read Riparian buffer
A
easement 100 feet from each bank placed on all streams on the new parcel, including a tree planting plan,
to be approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments, executed along Ivy Creek where existing
riparian buffers extend less than 100 feet from each bank. She asked if that makes sense to counsel. The
@
new underlined words could be dropped from the condition. Mr. Cilimberg said that was to apply only to Ivy
Creek where it was less than 100 feet. He suggested saying Riparian buffer easements extending at least
A
100 feet from each bank shall be placed on all streams on the new 102-acre parcel.
@
Mr. Kamptner said the Planning Commission did not get into it, but does the Board want to consider
what it would like to have as part of the easement provisions? Ms. Thomas said it requires a tree planting
plan. She said Mr. David Hirschman described it to her and said an easement would most likely have a tree
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
planting plan, but this makes it explicit that it include such a plan. Mr. Kamptner said it should include a
requirement that there be no disturbance of the existing vegetation.
Mr. Perkins said considering some of the sessions the Board has had recently, there is a question
of what is a stream? If he were the applicant, he would want some definition. Ms. Thomas said she also
A@
asked Mr. David Hirschman that question. The Engineering Department has a process they go through to
make that determination. Since the property lies in the watershed, they will identify all of the streams and
use field judgment in addition to what is on the GIS. Mr. Cilimberg said they look at these streams which
are in the watershed differently from streams outside of the watershed.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the applicant has a good point about the limiting of building to home
site number one. She also thought staff had a good argument because it is on the less good soils on the
parcel. As long as there are good buffers and easements along the waterways, to limit an applicant to a
particular building site on 102 acres, as long as the other impacts are taken care of, is not a necessary
condition. She thinks the condition limiting the clearing for residential development to two acres is
necessary in the way of limiting the impact.
Ms. Humphris said that on Page 4 of the staffs report, the staff said By limiting the area of land
=A
clearing for residential development, conditions on this permit can limit the impacts on productive and
erodible soils, without requiring the applicant to go through unduly complex site selection processes. That
@
was the rationale of the staff, and with the applicant asking that he be relieved of that condition of the siting
of the home, what are the unduly site selection processes the applicant might have to go through?
Ms. Thomas said she assumed that was Condition No. 8 which the staff proposed. It reads Land
A
clearing for a future building site on the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be limited to no more than two acres.
The site shall not be located on soils rated high or very high for tree productivity by the USDAs Albemarle
>=>==
County Soil Survey, or on soils rated moderate or severe for erodibility or septic field limitations. She
>=>=@
said maybe that condition should be reinstated if a house is to be allowed anywhere on this acreage. She
does not know why the Commission dropped Condition No. 8. Mr. Cilimberg said Condition Nos. 6 and 7
apply to the new parcel. Condition No. 8 applies to the residue parcel. The Commission decided that the
residue parcel was not as critical. So, they did not recommend that particular condition to the Board.
Ms. Thomas said it could say Site shall not be located on soils rated high or very high for tree
AA@A@
productivity, or on soils rated moderate or severe for erodibility or septic field limitations.
A@A@@
Mr. Martin said he has some problems with that suggestion. He can understand soils rated
moderate or severe for erodibility or septic field limitations, but, to say that on 102 acres the applicant
A@
cannot build on a certain site because the soils are too good is not logical to him. Suppose the only soils
that are suitable are on a corner somewhere, where no one would want to build? Why is the Board getting
into this?
Ms. Humphris said her only reason for getting into any of this is to find out if that site condition is
dropped, what will happen about the site selection? Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant will have to meet
ordinance requirements for site selection, which is meeting building site requirements. The site shown is an
adequate building site which has space for adequate drainfields, and the back-up drainfields. By limiting
clearing to no more than two acres, it means that there can be no more clearing than that for this building
site. Staff does not judge building sites based on productivity of the soils.
Ms. Thomas said she understands why staff made the recommendation. There does not have to
be any building site, and it is good productive land. The Countys Comprehensive Plan says that productive
=
land should be protected, but there reaches a point on 102 acres where there is a limit to what can be said
to someone who wants to build on that acreage.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board could agree to the exact wording for Condition No. 5.
Mr. Kamptner said he would read the language recommended at this time, hopefully incorporating
all of the suggestions made. He read: Riparian buffer easements extending at least one hundred feet
A
from the bank of each stream shall be placed on all streams on the new parcel. The Water Resources
Manager shall identify the streams for which the easements shall be established. The easements shall
include provisions protecting existing vegetation and a tree planting plan to be approved by the Planning
and Engineering Departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less
than one hundred feet from each bank (Mr. Kamptner said that from this point, the condition will be worded
as set out in the executive summary for todays meeting for that portion of the stream located on the 102-
=
acre parcel: "The final plat creating the new parcel shall not be signed until these easements have been
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The easements shall be granted to the Thomas
Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District, the County of Albemarle, or such entity approved by the
County of Albemarle. If no such entity accepts the easements, the applicant shall provide written evidence
from such entities declining the easements and this condition shall be null and void.")
Ms. Thomas said she would suggest that Condition No. 6, as recommended by the Planning
Commission (The building site shall be limited to the area labeled Homesite 1" on the applicants
A=
Preliminary Site Study, drawn by Gloeckner Engineering/Surveying, Inc. and dated July 19, 2000.), be
A@
removed.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that in the first line of Condition No. 5, the new parcel be referred to as
A@
the new 102-acre parcel.
A@
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
At this point, Ms. Thomas entertained a motion for approval.
Ms. Humphris offered motion to approve SP-2000-34 subject to six conditions, with Condition No. 5
being amended to read as set out above, and read into the record by Mr. Kamptner, and removing
Condition No. 6 as recommended by Ms. Thomas, and renumbering Condition No. 7 as Condition No. 6.
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. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.No further division of the proposed 102-acre parcel allowed by this shall be
permitted. No further division of the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be permitted
without an amendment to SP-81-01 and SP-81-55;
2.The 102-acre parcel shall be created through application for a rural division;
3.If an application for a rural division of Parcel 58-95 is not filed with the Planning
Department within eighteen (18) months from the Board approval date, this
permit amendment will expire;
4.Only one (1) dwelling unit shall be permitted on the 102-acre parcel;
5.Riparian buffer easements extending at least one hundred (100) feet from the
bank of each stream shall be placed on all streams on the new 102-acre parcel.
The Water Resources Manager shall identify the streams for which the
easements shall be established. The easements shall include provisions
protecting existing vegetation and a tree planting plan to be approved by the
Planning and Engineering Departments and executed along Ivy Creek where
existing riparian buffers extend less than one hundred (100) feet from each bank.
The final plat creating the new parcel shall not be signed until these easements
have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The easements
shall be granted to the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District, the
County of Albemarle, or such entity approved by the County of Albemarle. If no
such entity accepts the easements, the applicant
shall provide written evidence from such entities declining the easements and
this condition shall be null and void; and
6.Land clearing for this residential development site (including accessory
structures such as sheds or pools) shall be limited to no more than two (2) acres
(includes 1.05 acres required for the 35,000 square-foot building site and 10,000
square-foot septic site). This condition is not intended to limit agriculture,
horticulture or forestry on the parcel.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the next item is SP-2000-38 which deals with the stream crossing.
Mr. Martin asked if any Board member had a problem with the old entrance being gated.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning Commission recommendation reads: The existing farm entrance
A
shall be permanently closed upon completion of the new entrance. The applicant said he would be happy
@
to place a gate on the entrance. That would help to make sure it did not become an easy second access
and a less desirable location for an entrance. She thinks that if the Board wants the land kept in forestry or
agricultural use, the agricultural access road should be kept. She suggested that Condition No. 3 be
changed. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has suggested that the existing farm entrance be gated and
locked and used only by Department of Forestry equipment, although he does not think the Forestry
Department needs to be mentioned.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the condition read: The existing farm entrance shall be gated and
A
locked by the landowner. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not think a reference to the landowner is needed,
@
simply say The existing farm entrance shall be gated and locked upon completion of the new entrance.
A@
At this point, motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve SP-2000-38 subject to the four
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but rewording Condition No. 3, as set out above.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below.)
1.The applicant shall secure the following approvals before removing vegetation or
beginning work on the stream crossing:
a.Engineering Department approval of structural computations for the entrance
and stream crossing, include structural design computations that demonstrate
the bridge can safely carry the vehicles that will access the residence
(including all emergency vehicles);
b.Fire & Rescue Department approval of the entrance design;
c.Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting
changes to the flood plain. Plans must show flood plain limits and levels
before and after construction. Sections 18-30.02.2 and 18-30.03.2 allow no
increase in flood levels. On the plan sheet, indicate the FEMA panel and
designation (Community-Panel # 510006 0215 B) and that this section of Ivy
Creek is a detailed study area;
d.Engineering Department receipt of copies of Federal and State permits for
disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands;
e.If the Engineering Department, after review of the hydraulic computations, finds
that the flood plain will be changed, the applicant must obtain a map revision
from FEMA;
f.Engineering Department approval of an erosion and sediment control plan
[17-203]. A water protection (E&SC and SWM) bond must be posted and a
pre-construction conference held prior to the issuance of a grading permit;
g.Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and
enhancement of the stream buffer [17-322]. Please include planting of trees
to widen the Ivy Creek stream buffer; and
h.Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the entrance design,
including provision of adequate sight distance;
2.In order to protect downstream habitat of the endangered James Spiny-mussel, the
applicant must adhere to the following conditions recommended by the Virginia
Department of Game & Inland Fisheries:
a.In-stream work for constructing either entrance shall not occur from May 15 to
July 31 of any year;
b.Any cofferdams used in in-stream work for isolating the bridge construction
area shall be non-erodible;
c.In-stream construction work shall block no more than fifty (50) percent of
stream flow at any given time;
d.Excavated material shall be removed from the flood plain to prevent reentry of
that material into Ivy Creek or its tributaries;
e.Where they have been altered by construction or vegetation removal, the
original stream bed and stream bank contours shall be restored; and
f.Areas where vegetation has been removed for bridge construction shall be
replanted with similar species (except in the area occupied by the bridge), or
must be included in the tree-planting plan required as a condition of
SP-2000-34;
3.The existing farm entrance shall be gated and locked upon completion of the new
entrance; and
4.The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property for
the purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has
been placed and the stream crossing remains stable.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2000-077. Orrock Property (Triton PCS) (Signs 34 & 35). Public Hearing
on a request to allow construction of a personal wireless communications fac w/an 80' tall steel monopole,
in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 92, P 5A, contains approx 15.61 acs. Located off of St Rt
53, approx 1/8 ml W of intersec w/Milton Rd (Rt 732). Znd RA & EC. Scottsville Dist. (This public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 9 and April 16, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office. He said this
==
proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility which would include an eighty-foot, self-
supporting steel monopole with two flush-mounted panel antennas and a lightning rod. All ground-based
equipment would be contained within a metal cabinet 6'9" in height, on a 10' by 12' concrete pad. This
approval would help the applicants system provisions along State Route 53 south of Monticello.
=
Mr. Cilimberg said the 80-foot height of the tower was based on two specific trees in the area. The
first tree is a 78-foot tall Ash which is located 39 feet away and situated at an elevation that is approximately
four feet lower than the proposed location of the monopole. The second tree is a 75-foot tall Ash,
approximately 63 feet away and eight feet higher.
Mr. Cilimberg said access to the facility would be by use of an existing gravel road which starts on
the north side of Route 53, and would be extended 109 feet east to the lease area. The areas directly
south and east of the facility site are vegetated with a mixture of large, mature trees and dense underbrush.
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
A heavily wooded tree line lies just west of the private road, and with the exception of areas that are cleared
for the house and to accommodate utility lines, most of the property exists in its naturally wooded state.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was a balloon float test, and during the field visit, staff observed a red
balloon from two nearby locations. The first was the parking lot on the Jefferson Vineyards property. The
balloon was visible from this location approximately at the same height as the treetops along the ridge line.
Staff found that the balloon was barely visible through the forest and below the treetops from a driveway
that intersects with Route 53 approximately one-half mile west of the site. Although the site is located on
property that is adjacent to Monticello on Patterson Mountain, the proposed facility is located completely
outside of the Mountain Resource Protection Areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are several historic sites adjacent to the subject property. Due to the
presence of the trees on the incline of the hill where the lease area will be located, view of the monopole
and other equipment within the facility site will be obscured from Simeon which is situated at a lower
elevation. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, which was contacted to observe the balloon tests,
indicated limited visibility. Due to that limited visual impact, it is staffs opinion that approval of the
=
application would not be inconsistent with the policies and guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
for siting wireless facilities and protecting the important resources of the County.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He said that in the staff
report, in the first sentence of Condition No. 1, it should say: ... the top of the monopole shall NOT exceed
A
a total height of 80 feet .... He said that was corrected by the Planning Commission. Also, at the end of
@
Condition No. 2f, it should say ... justify the height of the monopole; He said that the Planning
A@
Commission, at its meeting on March 13, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of SP-2000-77
subject to 11 conditions. He said Mr. Kamptner noted a couple of minor typographical errors that need to
be corrected. The second sentence in Condition No. 5 should read: All construction or installations
A
associated .... He said that the word tow in the last sentence of Condition No. 5 should be two.
@A@A@
With no questions for the staff from Board members, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Valerie Long was present to represent Triton, PCS. She said Mr. Cilimberg covered all of the
relevant issues. The applicant is agreeable to the conditions, along with the minor changes mentioned.
She said this is quite a challenging area in which to locate a facility. They are appreciative of County staff
efforts, and representatives of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. They think they found a
solution that will provide for a functional facility as well as one that has quite limited visibility from the major
attractions in the area. She said they appreciate the Boards consideration of the request.
=
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier moved approval of SP-2000-77, subject to the 11 conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission, and with the corrections noted above. 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. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.As shown on the construction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a
total height of eighty (80) feet, nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 712.8 feet, as
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 metal pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the
bark of the trees;
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 "Orrock (Triton PCS)";
e.A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width
shall not exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may
be installed at the top of the pole;
f.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to
the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the
two (2) trees that have been used to justify the height of 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
the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation Above Sea
Level (ASL); and
h.The pole shall be no taller than the height described in Condition Number One
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
(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 "Orrock (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 (on file)
entitled "Orrock (Triton PCS)";
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; and
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 two hundred (200)
feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be
required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200)-foot buffer, after
the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of
the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per
year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole
and shall 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 through 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 permitted; and
11.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. 9. SP-2000-82. University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (Signs #72, 73 &
74). Public Hearing on a request to allow fitness & wellness center in accord w/Sec 27.2.2.15 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 32, P 6A, contains 503 acs. Located on Lewis and Clark Rd approx 1 ml from intersec of
Lewis and Clark & Rt 29 N. Znd PD-ID. Rivanna Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 9 and April 16, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said this is a request from the University of Real
=
Estate Foundation (UREF) and the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club of Virginia, Inc. (ACAC) for a fitness and
wellness center in the North Fork Research Park. The project is roughly in the middle of the park in an
area which was designated as open space during the rezoning for the park. To the east, the site is
bordered by the town center area, to the west across Lewis and Clark Drive is the existing PRA Building.
Staff noted that important environmental features on the site include critical slopes along Lewis and Clark
Drive which were man-made, and the embankment adjacent to the existing parking area, and a small
stream that would be partially covered during construction of the projects parking area.
=
Mr. Cilimberg said factors favorable included the fitness center supplementing the mixed use
aspects of the park by diversifying recreation opportunities for park employees, and also the centralized
location allows the fitness center to be easily accessible by foot for most of the parks employees. He said
=
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
there were some issues of concern for staff that were discussed in the original Planning Commission
meeting. Four items discussed were: pedestrian access to the site, stream stabilization, the grade of
reconstructed slopes, and the close proximity of the Albemarle County Service Authority waterline to the
proposed building. He said those matters were fully addressed, and the applicant provided solutions which
staff felt met its concerns. The matter was brought back to the Commission at a second meeting, and the
staff did recommend approval. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission, at its meeting on March 28, 2001,
unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to five conditions.
The public hearing was opened, and the applicant invited to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long was present to represent the applicants. She said Mr. Cilimberg covered most of
the issues. They are agreeable to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. There
are several representatives of the Foundation and ACAC present tonight if anyone has a technical question.
They are pleased the Commission recommended approval. They feel it will diversify the use of the park
and provide a resource for the employees at all times during the day. They look forward to moving on and
having a facility there soon. She offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many members the present ACAC facility has. Mr. Kamptner said it is in the
thousands. Mr. Martin said he thinks this will be a great facility.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin moved approval of SP-2000-82 with the five conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission. 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. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.Approval of this special use permit shall be in general accord with the updated
Application Exhibit plan, prepared by Draper Aden Associates and dated March 2,
2001 (revised March 16, 2001), (Attachment A). The following conditions (2 through
5) are deemed additional elements to the Application Exhibit and must be included
on an approved site plan;
2.The applicant shall provide for pedestrian access in the following locations:
a.Pedestrian access shall be provided between the Fitness Center and the
planned Hike/Bike trail shown on the Open Space System Phasing Plan
(Exhibit 6.1 of ZMA 95-04). This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center;
b.Pedestrian access shall be provided along the full extent of the unnamed
driveway. The driveway is shown on the plan between the Qual Choice
building and the Fitness Center and connecting Lewis and Clark Drive to the
Fitness Center. This pedestrian access shall be completed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Fitness Center;
c.Pedestrian access shall be provided across the full extent of frontage and
completely around the Fitness Center building. The pedestrian access shall
provide access from Lewis and Clark Drive to the building's entrance, which is
planned to face the parking lot on the lower level. This pedestrian access shall
be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
Fitness Center;
d.The final building design shall provide an entrance facing onto Lewis and Clark
Drive. This entrance may be closed or used as emergency access while the
building is used for the proposed Fitness Center use; and
e.Pedestrian access between the Fitness Center and Town Center shall be
provided in a manner that encourages pedestrian traffic in an efficient and
inviting manner. This pedestrian access shall be provided either at the time of
construction of the Fitness Center or during the construction of the Town
Center's parking areas. The Agent shall approve this pedestrian access
between the Fitness Center and the Town Center if it meets the intent of
condition 2e;
3.The applicant shall provide stream bank stabilization along the remaining exposed,
natural stream. Furthermore, this stabilization shall occur in a naturalized manner
and shall be supplemented with additional plantings in sufficient enough quantity to
provide protection for the stream. The County's Water Resources Manager shall
certify that the intent of this condition is met;
4.All reconstructed slopes shall be at 3:1 or 2.5:1 slopes (with the use of 2.5:1 slopes
to be restricted to areas where a 3:1 slopes would either necessitate the excessive
use of retaining walls or would cause the fill slope toe to encroach into the "No
Grading Zone"). These reconstructed slopes shall be designed to allow for the
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
revegetation of the fill slopes with a mix of trees, shrubs and ground cover. If
retaining walls are utilized as part of the fill slope design, preference will be given to
a terraced design with series of shorter walls instead of a single, large wall. Special
consideration will be given to both screening the Hike/Bike Trail from the negative
aesthetic impacts of the fill slope and/or its retaining walls and to protecting the
stream from water quality impacts through the use of the aforementioned
revegetation. The County's Landscape Planner and Water Resources Manager
shall certify that the intent of this condition is met; and
5.The design of the building and/or site shall accommodate the concerns of the
Albemarle County Service Authority relative to the proximal waterline and thrust
block. Furthermore, if the building's redesign is significant enough to cause the fill
slope's toe to encroach closer than five (5) feet from the "No Grading Zone", which
is depicted on the Schematic Grading Plan, prepared by Draper Aden and dated
February 28, 2001 (revised March 16, 2001) (see Attachment D), this encroachment
shall cause the applicant to seek an amendment to this special use permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on Proposed FY 2001 Budget Amendments. (Public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 18, 2001.)
Ms. White said the Board is required to hold a public hearing to amend its current FY 2001 Budget
if the additional amounts to be appropriated exceed one percent of the original budget, or $500,000,
whichever is the lesser. This applies to all funds, i.e., Capital, E-911, School Self-sustaining, etc., and not
just to the Countys adopted operating budget.
=
Ms. White said the proposed FY 2001 Budget amendment totals $2,544,096.32. (See a listing of
the appropriations being requested, in the minutes of April 4, 2001.)
Ms. Thomas said she wants to be sure that thank you letters are written to the many people who
A@
have given donations. These are a major part of what the Board is dealing with today. She said it is
possible the School Board writes appropriate letters, but she thinks the Board can add its thanks also.
At this point, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Ms. Humphris offered motion to approve the FY 2001 Budget amendments as presented,
including the nine pending appropriations, by adopting the following Resolutions of Appropriation #20047,
#20054, #20055, #20056, #20057, #20059, #20060, #20061 and #20062. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20047
FUND: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PHONE SYSTEM AND CONSULTANTS FOR
RADIO SYSTEM
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 4100 31042 800301 Phone System$409,259.63
1 4100 31041 312210 Contracted Services28,000.00
1 4100 31041 312700 Consulting-800 MHz117,287.50
1 4100 31041 800100 Audio Visual Equipment4,500.00
1 4100 31041 800200 Furniture20,000.00
1 4100 31041 800712 Reverse 91116,000.00
TOTAL595,047.13
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 4100 24000 240424 Wireless E911 Board$130,000.00
2 4100 51000 510100 Fund Balance465,047.13
TOTAL$595,047.13
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20054
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2206 61101 312500 Prof Svc Consultants$700.00
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies370.00
1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies279.00
1 3502 60606 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies4,694.82
1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Svc Consultants6,000.00
1 3104 60252 550400 Travel-Education1,500.00
1 3103 61101 112100 Salaries-Teacher6,955.00
1 3103 61101 132100 PT Wages-Teacher7000.00
1 3103 61101 210000 FICA1,067.56
1 3103 61101 221000 Retirement897.36
1 3103 61101 231000 Health Ins439.60
1 3103 61101 232000 Dental Ins16.00
1 3103 61101 241000 Group Life Ins55.90
1 3103 61101 312000 Tuition Fees465.00
1 3103 61101 520100 Postal Services100.00
1 3103 61101 520302 Telephone-LD200.00
1 3103 61101 550100 Mileage200.00
1 3103 61101 580500 Staff Dev200.00
1 3103 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies720.00
1 3103 61311 115000 Salaries-Office Clerical1,085.00
1 3103 61311 210000 FICA82.44
1 3103 61311 221000 Retirement142.64
1 3103 61311 231000 Health Ins110.40
1 3103 61311 232000 Dental Ins4.00
1 3103 61311 241000 Group Life Ins9.10
1 3103 61311 601700 Copy Supplies250.00
1 3142 60410 312700 Prof Svc Consultants24,168.00
1 3116 63348 132100 Salaries-Teacher7,000.00
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA535.50
1 3116 63348 550100 Mileage500.00
1 3116 63348 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies2,670.00
1 3145 62420 301210 Contract Svcs(77,000.00)
1 3145 64600 331200 R&M Equip-Buildings(2,518.71)
1 3145 93010 930000 Transfer-AIMR Fund235,117.33
1 3122 63349 800710 ADP Software7,500.00
1 3002 93010 930000 Transfer-AIMR Fd Svc49,882.67
1 3002 63115 600200 Food Supplies(10,882.67)
1 3002 63115 800100 Machinery & Equipment(4,000.00)
1 2115 62190 800700 ADP Equipment15,000.00
1 2211 61131 112100 Salaries-Teacher21,065.00
1 2211 61131 210000 FICA1,611.00
1 2211 61131 580000 Misc Expenses500.00
1 2301 61101 580000 Misc Expenses7,500.00
1 2302 61101 580000 Misc Expenses7,500.00
1 2303 61101 580000 Misc Expenses1,000.00
1 2304 61101 580000 Misc Expenses30,000.00
1 2410 60100 999981 Transfer-School Bd Rsv(73,176.00)
1 2410 62120 134300 PT Wages-Other9,289.00
1 2410 62120 210000 FICA711.00
1 2410 60100 999981 School Bd Reserve191,500.00
1 2430 62150 520100 Postal Services300.00
1 2430 62150 350000 Printing/Binding700.00
1 2420 62140 580000 Misc Recruiting Exp9,000.00
1 2433 62420 800550 Mobile Classrooms40,000.00
1 2433 62420 800700 ADP Equipment9,000.00
1 2433 62420 800710 ADP Software6,000.00
TOTAL$544,015.94
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$1,070.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation279.00
2 3502 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance4,694.82
2 3104 18000 189900 Donation1,000.00
2 3104 18000 181221 Upton Grant6,500.00
2 3103 24000 240257 Migrant Ed Grant20,000.00
2 3142 24000 240360 ISAEP Grant24,168.00
2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed10,705.50
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
2 3145 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance155,598.62
2 3122 51000 510100 Transfer AIMR Rental7,500.00
2 3002 16000 161247 AIMR Summer Food Srvs35,000.00
2 2000 51000 510100 Transfer AIMR Rental277,500.00
TOTAL$544,015.94
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20055
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2203 61101 132100 Salaries-PT Teacher$4,617.50
1 2203 61101 210000 FICA382.50
1 2210 61101 135000 PT-Wages230.87
1 2210 61101 210000 FICA19.13
1 2302 61411 580000 Misc Expenses1,000.00
1 3104 60209 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies10,000.00
1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Srv-Inst 1,000.00
1 3209 61101 112100 Wages-Teacher42,695.44
1 3209 61101 210000 FICA3,700.00
1 3209 61101 221000 VRS6,700.00
1 3209 61101 231000 Health Ins3,000.00
1 3209 61101 232000 Dental Ins500.00
1 3209 61101 241000 Life Ins563.32
1 3209 61101 420100 Field Trip Mileage500.00
1 3209 61101 520100 Postal4,025.54
1 3209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies14,637.45
1 3209 61101 601700 Copy Expenses3,748.56
1 3209 61101 800100 Mach/Equip-Addl500.00
=
1 3129 61104 113000 Prof-Other3,000.00
1 3129 61104 120310 Overtime-Sp Events600.00
1 3129 61104 210000 FICA276.00
1 3129 61104 520100 Postal150.00
1 3129 61104 580000 Misc Expenses1,500.00
1 3129 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies2,904.08
1 3104 60211 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies5,400.00
1 3104 60216 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies900.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies2,980.00
1 3104 60253 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies1,785.00
TOTAL$117,315.39
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$6,250.00
2 3104 18000 181254 Kluge Foundation Grant10,000.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Donation1,000.00
2 3209 24000 240299 Business Ed Partnership80,570.31
2 3129 16000 161260 DI Reg Fees2,500.00
2 3129 18100 181109 Contributions200.00
2 3129 18000 189918 Proceeds-Sales4,500.00
2 3129 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance1,230.08
2 3104 24000 240355 Grant-Stony Point5,400.00
2 3104 24000 240344 Grant-Woodbrook2,980.00
2 3104 24000 240328 Grant-Murray Elem900.00
2 3104 24000 240356 Grant-Jack Jouett1,785.00
TOTAL$117,315.39
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20056
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies$150.00
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies310.07
1 2302 61411 580000 Misc Expenses2,000.00
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
1 2302 61105 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies2,000.00
1 2304 61105 580000 Misc Expenses2,682.50
1 3115 63322 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies4,240.44
1 3122 63349 112100 Wages-Teacher3,986.28
1 3122 63349 210000 FICA304.95
1 3135 60605 580500 Staff Dev3,475.42
1 3135 60605 800100 Mach/Equip94,321.38
1 3104 60202 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies2,969.50
1 3143 61101 540410 Rental-Instruments8,405.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies300.00
60205 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies296.00
60255 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies600.00
TOTAL$126,041.54
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$7,142.57
2 3115 16000 161233 Misc Revenue682.50
2 3115 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance3,557.94
2 3122 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance4,291.23
2 3135 24000 240324 Goals 2000 Award96,284.23
2 3135 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance1,512.57
2 3104 24000 240232 Forestry Grant2,969.50
2 3143 51000 500000 Approp Fund Balance8,405.00
2 3104 24000 240344 Grant-Woodbrook300.00
2 3104 24000 240367 Grant-Hollymead296.00
2 3104 24000 240368 Grant-Sutherland600.00
TOTAL$126,041.54
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20057
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2215 61101 800700 ADP Equipment$250.00
1 2302 61105 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies5,000.00
1 2201 61411 601300 Misc Expenses9,613.05
1 2202 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies6,571.29
1 2203 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies8,374.43
1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies10,948.23
1 2205 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies3,726.62
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies10,233.98
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies5,749.60
1 2209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies762.02
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies10,703.50
1 2211 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies1,051.01
1 2212 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies9,395.54
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies5,583.81
1 2216 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies12,287.96
1 2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies9,849.67
1 2252 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies15,034.53
1 2253 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies13,756.28
1 2254 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies7,612.62
1 2255 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies13,138.91
1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies42,084.73
1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies3,525.61
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies51,290.37
TOTAL$256,543.76
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$5,250.00
2 2000 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance251,293.76
TOTAL$256,543.76
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20059
FUND: GRANT
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF SECTION 8 HOUSING
GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1227 81920 579001 Housing Assistance Payment$105,305.00
1 1227 81921 579001 Housing Assistance Payment50,967.82
Total$156,272.82
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1227 51000 510100 Fund Balance$156,272.82
TOTAL$156,272.82
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20060
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1525 31013 600100 Supplies$429.94
1 1526 31013 800700 ADP Equipment628.08
1 1530 31013 800700 ADP Equipment797.00
1 1533 31013 120000 Overtime1,269.83
1 1538 31013 120000 Overtime24,692.31
TOTAL$27,817.16
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1525 51000 510100 Fund Balance$429.94
2 1526 51000 510100 Fund Balance628.08
2 1530 51000 510100 Fund Balance797.00
2 1533 51000 510100 Fund Balance1,269.83
2 1538 51000 510100 Fund Balance24,692.31
TOTAL$27,817.16
______
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20061
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FEDERAL AND STATE DRUG SEIZED ASSETS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1234 39000 580902 Drug Seized Assets$792.52
1 1235 39000 580902 Drug Seized Assets118,742.42
1 1236 39000 580902 Drug Seized Assets4,591.53
TOTAL$124,126.47
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1234 51000 510100 Fund Balance$792.52
2 1235 33000 330205 Federal Revenue107,921.68
2 1235 51000 510100 Fund Balance10,820.74
2 1236 24000 240403 State Revenue1,435.25
2 1236 51000 510100 Fund Balance3,156.28
TOTAL$124,126.47
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20062
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FIRE/RESCUE ADVERTISING GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1555 32020 360000 Advertising$5,150.00
TOTAL$5,150.00
April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1555 24000 240000 State Grant$2,575.00
2 1555 51000 512004 Transfer From G/F2,575.00
TOTAL$5,150.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: March 14 and March 21, 2001.
No minutes had been read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Humphris said the Clerk had given the Board members a list of graduation dates of all the high
schools. Albemarle High School is set to have its graduation on a regular meeting night, so she will miss
graduation at that school for the first time, so she is sad about that.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Martin will be meeting with Mayor Blake Caravati and Mr. Maurice
Cox on Friday to discussion the directions to be given to CHART. They both received by E-mail listing some
proposed directions and common visions. She will be happy to forward it to anyone else who wants to look
at it and provide feedback.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Foxfield event is coming up Saturday. Some people met with the Police and
the organizers a while ago, and were told about the plan they are going to use. There will be many more
police on the roads, as well as the State Police who will help with traffic particularly where Owensville Road
meets Route 250 which is a bottleneck. However, the magistrates will not be there to issue warrants
because they refused to do that. Now, when an arrest is made, the officer has to take someone all the way
to Charlottesville to find a magistrate, so essentially that officer is lost to law enforcement for the rest of the
day.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 10/17/2001
Initials: LAB