2001-08-08August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was scheduled
for 5:30 p.m. on August 8, 2001, County Executives Conference Room on the Fourth Floor of the County
=
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from August 1, 2001.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles H. Martin.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, and County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. in the Fourth Floor Conference
Room, by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 6:04 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Certify Closed Session.
At 7:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session in Room 241. (Note: Officers present at this
time were: Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, Larry W. Davis, County Attorney, Ella W. Carey, Clerk,
and Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development.)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
=
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 5. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Bonnie McCauley spoke in support of the Ivy Landfill. She said the people in the County need
to stand up and support keeping the landfill open. She said everybody who pays County taxes need to have
a place to dump their trash instead of using others facilities, or someones back yard. Taxpayers need to
==
know the impact of not having a place to haul their trash. She and her husband own a small disposal
business and their business will be impacted by what happens at the Ivy Landfill. Why should they have to
truck their customers trash elsewhere?
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Item 7.1 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
__________
Item 7.1. ZMA-99-11 and SP-2001-006. Clover Lawn Village (Preston Stallings) (Signs #41 & 42).
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 2)
It was noted that the Planning Commission has deferred its public hearings on these petitions until
September. Since these items were advertised for a public hearing before the Board tonight, it is necessary
that the Board take action to cancel the public hearings.
By the recorded vote set out above, the public hearing on these petitions was canceled.
__________
Item 7.2. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes of June 26 and July 10, 2001, were
received as information.
__________
Item 7.3. Notice dated July 23, 2001, of application of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity for electric generation facilities in Louisa County. ODEC
proposes to locate generation facilities approximately one and a half miles southwest of the town of
Gordonsville in Louisa County. The proposed site is approximately 92 acres and would be located on
Klockner Road. The western side of the site is approximately 1100 feet from Virginia Route 231, and the
eastern side, which runs alongside the CSX right-of-way, is approximately 2350 feet from Red Hill Road.
The western portion of the site just crosses the county line of Albemarle County. The notice was received
as information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation by Jay James, Assistant to Operations Manager, Eure
Communications (WINA).
Mr. James informed the Board that Eure Communications owns Radio Station WINA which has
been a mainstay of the community since 1949. They want to audio-stream the Boards meetings via their
=
website as a service to the community, at no charge to the community, no charge to the Board, and no
charge to the County. They will incur all financial responsibility. They just need the Boards consent to do
=
this.
Mr. James explained that for meetings which are in an open forum, they want to give the people of
the County, and the people in the City, an opportunity to hear what is taking place over the Internet at home.
They will not be putting it on the air, but will include an icon on their website that would allow the citizens to
hear what affects their daily lives.
Ms. Thomas said her response, personally, is to suggest that Mr. James listen to a tape of an entire
meeting and see if it means anything to him. She said that as chairman, she does not identify the people
who speak. For the audience, she always asks for a name, but not for Board members or staff. Mr. James
said that regardless of content, they feel that the citizens are entitled to know what goes on when they
cannot be present at a meeting.
Ms. Thomas said she personally thinks this is a great idea. The Board has discussed televising
Board meetings, but that involves many technical issues. She urged Mr. James to listen to a tape of an
entire meeting, and see if he gets anything from it.
Mr. Dorrier asked if cost has kept WINA from doing this in the past. Mr. James said that as
technology has advanced, they are starting to use audio-streaming more. They want to give people a lot of
extra options through audio-streaming for things taking place in the community. It was an idea which was
brought up by their Operations Manager, Dan Miller, who could not be present tonight. In talking with Chris
Callahan, their reporter who is present at almost every Board meeting, Chris feels the content of these
meetings is fairly important. Even if the meetings are fairly difficult to listen to, they would still like to give
people the option to do so.
Mr. Bowerman asked if these meetings would be archived. Mr. James said he does not believe
they would. Mr. Bowerman said audio-stream means they would just be broadcasting on the web, live. Mr.
James said yes. The Board could decide which meetings are actually aired.
A@
Ms. Humphris asked if they would do the all-day meeting. Mr. James said yes. They have the
A@
capability through the website to do this.
Mr. Dorrier asked if WINA could determine how many people are listening. Mr. James said they
can determine how many people log onto their site. He believes they should be able to make that
determination also.
Mr. Bowerman said he likes the concept because the more light the public has on the Boards
=
proceedings, the better. He thinks it would need some value added on the website because many of the
things discussed are visual. Without the visual, and without identification of the Board member speaking,
the conversation loses value. It would be difficult for the public to visualize what is being talked about in the
absence of having something there. He offers this as a challenge to be addressed. Mr. James asked if he
was suggesting that WINA institute a camera along with the audio-streaming. Mr. Bowerman said he does
not know how to integrate the visual aspect of what is being discussed without it being on-line video. Mr.
James said he would have to check with his engineers, but believes they have the capability of doing that.
Mr. Bowerman said the live video would work if they were able to do it through regular
communications and get the band width needed to display it on their website along with the audio.
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 3)
Mr. James asked if the Board members are in agreement that WINA should probably provide a
visual picture in accordance with the audio-streaming for the public who decides to access this website. Mr.
Bowerman said he personally feels that is something that should be brought back to the Board for further
discussion so it can decide what to do based on what it learns. Mr. James said they will be happy to do it.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks the consensus would be that the Board members want to be open
and available to the public, but they do not want it to be a difficult, discouraging experience for them. They
do not want it to have a negative, boomerang effect. Mr. James said he understands the Boards position.
=
He thinks WINA needs to research its visual capabilities on the website in accordance with the audio-
streaming. Whenever it is convenient, he would like to come back to the Board with that information.
Ms. Thomas said if Mr. James has the time this evening, he might like to sit through this meeting
and imagine what he would get from it if he could not see what is going on. During the evening meetings,
the Board deals with zoning matters and often points to maps. He could then see if it is more frustrating
than elucidating.
Mr. Dorrier said a key issue will be the schedule. The average person will have to know what is
coming up in order to decide whether to tune in. Mr. James said WINA could easily put an agenda on the
website next to the audio site, as well as a possible visual site.
Ms. Thomas asked that Mr. James deal with staff when he has the information available for review.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-008. Elizabeth M. Peyton Bright (Triton PCS-CVR 350E) (Sign #26).
Public hearing on a request to allow construc of personal wireless communications fac w/ a 114.5' tall steel
monopole (approx 10' above the height of the tallest tree within 25'). TM 58, P 61A, contains approx 5.144
acs. Located on E sd of Tillman Rd (Rt 676), approx 1/2 ml N of intersec w/ Rt 250 W. Samuel Miller Dist.
(Notice of public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on July 23 and July 30, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report saying the proposal is to install a personal wireless
=
service facility which would be located on a self-supporting metal monopole approximately 25 inches in
diameter at its base and 10 inches at its top, and approximately one foot above the tallest tree within 25
feet. There would be two flush-mount panel antennas, nearly 4'8" in height, and a lightning rod would be
attached at the top of the pole which would allow the potential for the attachment of a third antenna in the
future. All ground-based equipment would be contained within a brown metal cabinet.
Mr. Cilimberg said the site of the proposed facility is a 900 square foot wooded lease area, situated
below and west of the ridge line of Turner Mountain. Access to the facility would be taken from a gravel
road within a 20-foot wide private access easement that begins at the east side of Tillman Road (Route
676) approximately one-quarter mile north of its intersection with Route 250 West. The gravel driveway
would extend approximately 113 feet to the east and then approximately 474 feet north over an existing dirt
road to the lease area. With an exception of the clearing for the dirt road, the hillside and area surrounding
the facility site are vegetated with a mixture of large, mature trees and dense underbrush. The nearest
house, with separate ownership from that of the property owner where this site is located, is approximately
385 feet away from this site.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff cited a number of factors which are favorable to the proposal including the
facility not restricting any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties, the design and siting of the facility is
such that it would have a limited visual impact on adjacent property and public roads, and the vegetation on
the side of Turner Mountain would provide an effective backdrop to the proposed monopole. Access to the
facility would be provided by placing gravel on an existing dirt path.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff also noted that there was a fence proposed as part of the screening for this
site, that would likely increase the visibility of the facility site. They noted that there are existing and
reasonable by-right uses that could be established on the subject property. It was staffs opinion that while
=
the site is in the Rural Areas, the existing trees and terrain surrounding the site would help to reduce the
visual impacts to such an extent that approval of this proposal would be consistent with the goals set forth in
the Wireless Policy. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the special use permit subject to 12
conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 26, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-2001-008 subject to the same 12 conditions.
Mr. Humphris said she thought the fence was not included. Mr. Cilimberg said it is noted in the
applicants plan and referenced as part of what would provide for the development. There is a specific
=
condition which speaks to providing screening from the property line location to the east, that is Condition
No. 11. Within the plan document, there is shown the wood screening fence. Condition No. 2e states:
The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
A
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled
"Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001. Then Condition No. 3 states: The facility shall be
@A
located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001. He
@
said the plan is referenced and the fence is included in that plan. If there is not to be a fence, then that
should be made specific.
Ms. Humphris said she thought it was left very fuzzy because the staff had said they thought an
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 4)
eight-foot high fence would make the site more visible than without the fence. When she did not see a
specific reference to the fence in the conditions, she assumed there might have been a discussion of the
fence by the Planning Commission, but it was not in their minutes. Mr. Cilimberg said there actually was no
discussion at the Commissions meeting regarding that. He suggested the Board speak with the applicant
=
since occasionally they may want a fence for their own purposes of separation.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is staffs opinion that a fence would be more visible than the equipment
=
painted an earth brown color. Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted in its report that is likely the case.
At this point, Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Mike Fogerty said he was present on behalf of the applicant, Triton, PCS. The property owner,
Ms. Mickey Bright, and Mr. Dale Fanoke, a consultant to Triton, are also present tonight. He said in
response to a visibility concern, the applicant offered to put in a fence, and the staff said they would not
recommend approval of such a condition. That is fine with the applicant. Instead, the applicant is placing a
double staggered-row of screening trees. He understands a fence is not part of the Planning Commissions
=
recommendations and the applicant agrees as does the adjacent property owner.
Mr. Fogerty said he E-mailed photos to the Board members and if anyone was not able to see
them, he had some photocopies of the lease area with him tonight. He said the applicant been working in
this search zone for almost two years. During that process, the applicant worked closely with the
neighbors. The proposal tonight addresses all the various concerns that were raised throughout the
process. As the applicant is agreeable to the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning
Commission, he will address any specific issues the Board members may wish to address, or otherwise
reserve the balance of his time for use later in the meeting.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said this location lies in her district. She was impressed with the two-year effort to find
a site that was amendable to the wider community. To be absolutely clear as to the fence, there may need
to be some rewording of one of the conditions.
Ms. Humphris said Condition No. 2e mentions the ground equipment, etc. She asked how it could
be worded to make it clearer. Mr. Davis said an easier place to put it would be in Condition No. 11 that talks
about screening. At the end of the first sentence add the words ...in lieu of the wood screening fence.
A@
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant had just brought to his attention that Condition No. 10 reads: The
A
permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be
permitted. He thinks this condition covers the concern. Mr. Davis agreed.
@
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Humphris to approve SP-2001-008 subject to the 12
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed one
(1) foot above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility as
measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception
of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The metal monopole shall be painted a natural brown color;
b. The diameter of the pole shall not exceed thirty (30) inches at its base and
eighteen (18) inches at the top;
c. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
d. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by
condition number nine (9) herein;
e. 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 "Bright (Triton PCS)",
sealed and dated June 4, 2001;
f. 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;
g. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the permittee shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the
height of the tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole;
h. Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the
permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the
height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 5)
Above Sea Level (ASL);
i. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number one
(1) of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this
special use permit;
3. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton
PCS)", sealed and dated June 4, 2001.
4. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. The number of antennas shall be limited to three (3), at the sizes shown on
the attached plan entitled "Bright (Triton PCS)", sealed and dated June 4,
2001;
b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project
out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure,
shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from
the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets,
or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed
by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and
identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the
access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning
and Community Development for approval. All construction or installations
associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special
use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two
hundred (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 of the pole and identify each user that is a
wireless telecommunication service provider;
8. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be
created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed;
9. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the
light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing
of the lease area shall not be permitted;
11. The facility shall be screened from the property line located to the east with a
species of shade tolerant screening trees to be approved by the Planning
Department's Landscape Planner. Vegetation provided for such screening shall
consist of a double staggered row of trees, planted fifteen (15) feet on center; and
12. The permittee 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. 10. ZMA-2001-01. Redfields Phase 4 (Gaylon Heights) (Signs #54 & 55). Public
hearing on a request to rezone 9.4 acs from R-1 to PRD to allow for 14 add'l homes. Applicant has also
requested a rezoning of part of Redfields Open Space to PRD to allow 10 large lots & a water tower. TM
76, Ps 22B & 22D & TM 76R1, P1. Loc on Redfields Rd (Rt 1270) approx 1 ml from intersec of Redfields
Rd & Sunset Ave Extd. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in
Neighborhood 5.) White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
July 23 and July 30, 2001.)
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 6)
Mr. Cilimberg said he would first refer the Board members to all of the various plans which have
been approved for Redfields in the past. Those plans are posted on the wall of this room. He said the
Planning Department received a request several months ago for subdivision approval. That was rejected
as not being in compliance with the approved Application Plan. The applicant has now made application to
provide for a subdivision and for additional larger lots. The applicant, in the application before the Board
tonight, is asking for approval of the Bowen Tract, which is additional land the applicant has acquired, for a
total of 14 new dwellings, and for ten larger lots shown as Lots 116 through 125 in various locations which
are outside of the smaller lot subdivision. The request is to add this to the Redfields Application Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said this request has gone through two reviews by the Planning Commission. At the
initial public hearing in June, there were a number of complaints received from residents in both Sherwood
Farms and Redfields Phase 3. Some of the proposed ten new lots are in the new Phase 4-B. That area
was of concern because that was open space approved with the Redfields Application Plan. They were
worried that these lots would remove the open space that was either explicitly or implicitly intended to buffer
Sherwood Farms from the Redfields development. He said the Commission directed staff to determine
whether the Commission or Board during their original consideration had made any specific commitments,
so the request was deferred.
Mr. Cilimberg said staffs analysis found no explicit references to the open space in Phase 4 or any
=
requirement by Redfields to provide a buffer in the area of Phase 4. They did find exhibits shown at one of
the original public hearings which showed an area in Phase 4 adjacent to Sherwood Farms designated as
open space. When the Planning Commission took up this request the second time in July, they reasoned
that this gave the residents of Sherwood Farms an implicit guarantee that a buffer would be maintained.
Furthermore, they reasoned that this open space area allayed any Sherwood Farms concerns, and,
=
therefore, the neighbors did not raise the request for a buffer in Phase 4 at the public hearing. Using that
reasoning as a basis, the Commission recommended that Lots 117 through 120 be removed from the
Application Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said they also discussed providing an opportunity for a future interconnection
between Redfields and Route 29, since the lots as shown would preclude that from happening. They
recommended that sufficient right-of-way be provided to allow for future interconnection and asked staff to
analyze the feasibility of an interconnection. Staff looked at a full interconnection to provide vehicular
access around Sherwood Farms and ultimately to Route 29. There are a couple of options included in the
staffs report. They saw numerous obstacles which would make construction of that connector road
=
expensive, and the environmental impacts would be unavoidable. Estimated costs were $1.5 million for
either project, but that is only an estimate. It is not envisioned that the road could be built in the near term. It
also appears that viable options for construction of a road connecting to Route 29 could be made, if
deemed necessary, in the future. The Redfields developer is not being asked to construct this road
connection, but simply to provide for the right-of-way.
Mr. Cilimberg said that since the Commissions meeting, a concern arose regarding water service
=
for Redfields, both existing water as well as water service for future phases. Staff talked with the Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) to find out where they stood regarding the provision of water for any
additional development in Redfields. Late today he received an E-mail from Paul Shoop (he handed a copy
of the E-mail to the Board members). He said Mr. Shoop indicted that the ACSA is working with the
developer on a regional solution to meet future water delivery needs in that area. While the concept of a
water tank on, or near, Redfields property was presented to the ACSA on May 17, there was no specific
design. The concept is supported by ACSA staff and its Board to provide for water through that means or
another means that would be equivalent. Mr. Shoop said when water for Phase 4 is provided, it will also
improve service to the homes in the area that currently only meet minimum standards. Mr. Cilimberg said
the solution may not be a water tank, or it could be a water tank in a different location than was originally
anticipated. He said Mr. Shoop indicated that final site plan approval of any part of Phase 4 requiring
additional pressure will be held until such time as design of these improvements is complete. Mr. Cilimberg
said he does not think that from the ACSAs standpoint, this zoning materially affects how they will work with
=
the applicant to meet the needs.
Ms. Humphris asked who determines the site location of the water storage tank. Mr. Cilimberg said
it will ultimately be determined by the ACSA based on the design and engineering provided by the applicant
in the actual development of any additional lots.
Ms. Humphris asked if the ACSA holds public hearings so the public can speak about the location
of the water storage tank. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know how that is handled.
Ms. Humphris said this was a problem earlier with the proposed site location which is directly
adjacent to Sherwood Farms. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Shoop indicated that the ACSA is looking for a
location which would not be visible from those affected areas that had concern about the original water
tank.
Ms. Thomas said the staff report suggested that the Board not proceed with this rezoning until the
water issue was resolved. That is not either staffs or the ACSAs advice at this point. There is nothing
==
about this rezoning which affects the water issue one way or the other. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Shoop
indicated to him that the ACSA believes there are solutions.
Ms. Thomas said that today in Redfields there is inadequate water pressure in the parts which
already exist. Mr. Cilimberg said he asked Mr. Shoop about that and was told that the improvements the
ACSA will require for any new lots will have to also address that deficiency.
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 7)
Mr. Bowerman asked if in the absence of any additional lots, if the ACSA can bring the water
pressure up on the existing lines. Mr. Cilimberg said that is separate business and is not connected to any
of this rezoning.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that could be required in the absence of this rezoning. Mr. Davis said those
are ACSA lines. That would the ACSAs problem absent new development.
=
Ms. Thomas said if this rezoning is approved, this would go through final site plan approval
process. She asked if that process would deal with the possible visual impacts of a water tower. Mr. Davis
said if the location of the water tower is on this site, it would be located and be part of that approval process.
If it is located off site, it may not be a part of that approval process. It would be something the ACSA would
propose, and the water tank would have to be found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Other than
that, it would not require any additional approvals. Mr. Cilimberg said such requests go to the Planning
Commission for a finding of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked what discretion the Planning Commission has at that point. Mr. Cilimberg
said it would depend on the proposed location. There are a number of areas of the Plan which must be
satisfied, and they are not just about land use. As an example, there is a section which relates to location in
relation to ridge lines. He does not think these elevations would affect that section. He does not want to
say a water tank will be the final solution. Mr. Shoop indicated that while they are looking for an alternative
location for a tank, there could be other solutions as well. Mr. Davis said that at the elevations involved, the
water tank could be lower, even underground.
Ms. Thomas asked if the water tank location will have to go through a site plan approval process.
Mr. Cilimberg said either that or a subdivision process.
Ms. Humphris read from Mr. Shoops letter: If ZMA-2001-01 is approved, final site plan approval
=A
for any part of Phase 4 requiring additional pressure will be withheld until such time as design of this
improvement is complete." She thinks it should say any part of Phase 4 in this ZMA, and not any part of
A@A
Phase 4 requiring additional pressure.
@
Mr. Cilimberg said this conversation with Mr. Shoop was pretty straight forward. That is, if there is a
rezoning, they develop providing public water, which they will do. Provision of public water will have to meet
not only the water requirements for that section being developed, but also address the existing problems in
Redfields. He said the same would hold true even if there were no rezoning. The developer still has the
right to develop lots which have not yet been developed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant had provided a letter to the individual members of the Board in a
direct mailing in which it is indicated that they are not agreeable to the Planning Commissions
=
recommendation for removal of the four lots he referred to earlier, and provision for the 50-foot right-of-way
to provide an interconnection. They have provided proffers which have been reviewed by the County
Attorney and which meet the requirements for proffers for their request. Their request is still the same as it
was before the Commission to allow for all of the lots and the Bowen Tract inclusion.
Ms. Thomas asked what will happen if the Board of Supervisors comes to the same conclusion as
that of the Planning Commission. She said the Board cannot put any conditions on this. Mr. Davis said that
under the Planned District section of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors has the authority to
require changes to the Application Plan which could be done to impose the recommendations of the
Commission. However, if the Board does that, the proffers which have been made by the applicant would
not be binding unless the applicant agreed the proffers would be binding and accepted those changes.
When the Planned District ordinance was adopted, there were no proffers in effect because the law had not
been adopted. At that time, the requirement in the ordinance was set forth to allow the Board to require
changes, and it allowed the applicant to either accept them or not. Given the change in the law over the
years, proffers are only given voluntarily for the zoning request at that time. They are asking for the specific
plan that has the lots without the interconnection, and unless the applicant agreed to the Boards request
=
that those lots be removed, the proffers would not be in place.
Ms. Thomas said it seems the applicant either changes the proffers or the Board applies conditions
and the applicant agrees that the proffers as offered, except as they may be contradictory, remain, or the
Board turns down the application. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Since the proffers reference the specific
plan, the proffer have to be amended to reflect a revised Application Plan to be consistent with the Boards
=
conditions.
Ms. Thomas said the Board could always approve the rezoning as proposed by the applicant; but
she thinks the Board has four options. Mr. Bowerman asked that Ms. Thomas state the four options. Mr.
Thomas said the Board can: 1) approve the request as proposed by the applicant; 2) the Board can reject
the proposal; 3) the applicant could change the proffers; 4) the Board could apply conditions and the
applicant agrees that the proffers remain; or, 5) The Board applies conditions and the proffers disappear.
Mr. Davis said even No. 4 would require a deferral to allow the proffers to be amended to reflect the
amended Application Plan that would result from removal of those lots and the addition of the right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman said the proffers were just submitted today, so the Board has not had a chance to
even read them. Ms. Thomas asked if the proffers are the same as those included in the Boards packet
=
for todays meeting. Mr. Davis said the proffers submitted today are the same in substance as those seen
=
by the Planning Commission.
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 8)
With no further questions for staff at this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and
explained the Boards procedure for holding hearings. She then asked the applicant to speak first.
=
Mr. Frank Cox, of The Cox Company, said they have had the pleasure of representing Redfields
since the late 1980s when they gained approval of the initial PRD. Over the past years, they have had a
half dozen minor modifications to the PRD. He handed to the Board members a sketch of the Phase 4
section of the development. They ask the Board to follow through with what County staff originally
recommended to the Planning Commission. He said they have spent about a year working on the
engineering plan submission for the full section 4, the remaining section of Redfields. During this time, the
applicants had the opportunity to enter into a contract with Clarence Bowen for purchase of his 9.4 acres,
the last piece of property which could go with this development. The Bowen land would have been
landlocked by this development. His acreage had a private access easement which went out through and
under the railroad tracks to Route 29 South.
Mr. Cox said as they have worked on this plan for the last year, County staff was very pointed about
the applicant abandoning that right-of-way. It is with a little bit of apprehension that they have heard
discussion about the Route 29 connection which was discussed a decade ago. At that time, the Board
wanted to be sure this development would not try to exit in that direction, although there were some
compelling reasons why it might have been a good idea if it could have been accomplished. He said the
context of Redfields has been that of a suburban subdivision. During this process, staff has tried to turn
Phase 4 into an area that is more interconnected than it was originally proposed. As a part of their proffers,
they assuaged some of the concerns of the Nettle Court residents who were concerned about being
hemmed in. On the original general development plan for this section, there was another cul-de-sac off to
the right of Nettle Court. Their development plan shows a pedestrian easement which provides an open
space connection. It also provides other open space which was not programmed in immediately to the right
of Nettle Court where a cul-de-sac has been eliminated due to staff concerns and environmental
considerations.
Mr. Cox said staff insisted on the interconnections. The Redfields Road/Courtyard Drive
intersection was not originally planned, but while doing the engineering for Phase 4 and concurrently
processing the zoning map application, some staff members felt Redfields Road should not end in a cul-
de-sac but should connect to a court yard. The applicants reluctantly agreed to that change and also to
access easements to the open space system that were not otherwise proffered. He said one asset of this
application is that the applicants have worked with the ACSA over the last year to take the concept for this
section, which originally mandated construction of two sewer pumping stations, and instead of that have an
extension of the Moores Creek Interceptor through the Granger property to Redfields which will allow for
gravity sewer service. That particular line will also open up sewer service to one of the other remaining
parcels in the approved development area.
Mr. Cox said that in addition there is a proffer to add a pedestrian path along Redfields Road. Mr.
Michael Barnes liked the County Greenbelt and found a way to get it from one side of the road to the other,
and it is now on this property, and that has been proffered. That greenbelt will be graded as part of their
construction of the sewer line, and they will stabilize the open space area which will need some landscape
enhancements. Mr. Cox said the Planning Commission wanted to remove some of the lots from the plan,
but they ask that the Board approve those lots. Lots 117 and 118 are lots where the home sites will be a
distance approximate to that distance between Lots 4 and 5 in Sherwood Forest. They do not believe that
by virtue of the location of these lots they are doing anything injurious to what should be a bona fide
interface between the Rural Area and the Development Area. He said the development area boundary that
goes to their property line is concurrent with Sherwood Farms. It does not stop at the end of the cul-de-sac.
They do not want to create the impression that they are contributing land to the rural area by virtue of the
open space. They are providing 89 acres of open space. The Bowen property will have ten to 14 lots on
9.4 acres which leaves about 60 percent of that tract in open space. That is an additional contribution to
open space. They do not believe the lots of most concern to residents in Sherwood Farms will have a
noxious effect from a viewshed standpoint. They propose to leave a 30-foot open space buffer between the
Redfields property line and the lots lines of 117 and 118. There is no requirement in the Ordinance to have
a buffer between adjoining residential districts, but they have added one. They believe the lines of sight will
be adequate.
Mr. Cox said they believe this plan is more environmentally suitable than the one originally
proposed. He said Redfields was originally planned for 656 lots. But, this is not an easy site to develop.
They believe they have taken advantage of the best pieces of the property to get to the 440 lots total that
will finish the development. He said they have adhered to all of the proffers to date, and he encouraged the
Board to approve this request.
Ms. Thomas then opened the public hearing.
Ms. Norma Diehl mentioned a letter she submitted to the Board earlier tonight. She is one of many
residents of Sherwood Farms who are concerned about this project. When this development was originally
approved, it was their understanding that there would be a wooded open space buffer maintained between
Sherwood Farms and Redfields. It was also understood that there would be no access through Sherwood
Farms from Redfields to Route 29 South. She asked the Board to maintain those provisions when it
approves this plan. She is also concerned about a stormwater detention device or water management
project where the land has already been cleared, and what is happening to one of the ponds in Sherwood
Farms. There have been several rains since the vegetation was removed from that area and there has
been a great deal of runoff. The pond, which had a nice aquatic community, now after it rains, for weeks it
looks so thick with red clay that one could walk across it. Apparently there has been no kind of temporary
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 9)
retainment made to slow that flow down. It is her understanding that permanent structures do not have to
be put in place on that stream at this time. She is concerned about the impact of that on the waterways in
Sherwood Farms. She asked that the Board look at these things carefully.
Mr. Steven VonStork said he is a resident of Sherwood Farms. He said the residents looked at the
complete Application Plan and many years ago there was a green buffer extending along the majority of the
boundary between Sherwood Farms and Redfields. Back then, as now, they were supportive of Redfields
in this location, but their conversations quickly shifted to Phase 5 because they were happy and satisfied
with the buffer that had been offered and which was shown on the Application Plan. They took this
document as a promise that had been negotiated between the County and the developer as to green
space. Today, they see the map posted on the wall, and it includes the possibility of a water tower
somewhere on the property. Quite frankly, they understand the need that the public be served by water at
an adequate pressure, and are open-minded about discussing any one of these components. But add
them all up: the water tower; the lot which was approved administratively a few years ago and which is
served by a private drive; two more lots approved administratively a number of years ago served by a
private road presumably complete with a road maintenance agreement; the stormwater management pond
which is already constructed and which was not part of the original application plan, but was negotiated and
included in the final approved rezoned plan; and, the lots that are before the Board today. He would like to
point out that all of the lots the Board is being asked to consider today are served by either private driveways
(essentially pipestem lots) or private roads with road maintenance agreements. He said this is in direct
contradiction to a specific condition on the site plan which said that all lots be served by Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) standard roads.
Mr. Jack Stoner said he is a resident of Sherwood Farms who was also there ten years ago when
the original project was proposed. He said that as the general public and neighbors, they see roads, they
see lots, and they see exactly how the border interface with Sherwood Farms will work. He has heard that
there is no dialogue representing that as a promise. If that is the case, it should be made clear to the public
that this is an idea of what the developer might do, but it is not what he is going to do because he does not
have to. The residents in Sherwood Farms assumed that is what he had to do, and supported the
application based on that assumption. The applicants wanted neighborhood support, and the residents
wanted to be good neighbors, so that is what they did. The idea that there were 650 units approved and
now there will be only 400+ is because they decided to not put in townhouse units. That was voluntary on
the part of the developer, and it has reduced the density of the development. He does not think they should
go into the open space and create more density because it is a growth area. That does not make sense.
The developer voluntarily decreased the density. He then asked for a show of hands of those who had
come tonight in opposition to this proposal; there were about 30 people present.
Mr. Ted Forbes said he is a resident of Sherwood Farms. He said in the larger context in which this
question is being considered, this is not the only instance of interface between the rural area and the urban
growth area the Board will face. The residents would like to say this decision should be taken carefully
because the Board will be setting a precedent for other interfaces in the urban area. They ask that the
Board think carefully about what those interfaces will look like. Not in every instance will they be farms and
fields, but will be neighborhoods where the people have become accustomed to their way of life.
Ms. Leslie Diehl said she also lives in Sherwood Farms. She had heard that there was an implicit
statement to the people in Sherwood Farms that there would be a buffer zone between the two
developments. If that is true, she thinks the developer should remain true to their word, and the Board
should take that seriously. She is bothered by the nebulousness of the water issue. Before they start
developing this area, she suggested that they solve the water delivery problem.
Ms. Jennifer Van Winkle said she is a resident of Sherwood Farms. She will reiterate what the rest
of the community has said about supporting the open space. She asked if Board members have visited the
area to look at the land. She said that it is a forested area which is very hilly. One of the things this open
space can offer both for Sherwood Farms and the Redfields residents is an area that could bring the two
neighborhoods together. Her home is located near Lots 119 and 120. The proposed plan encroaches
upon the original open space in that area. There is a very steep slope and stream in the area. To maintain
the aesthetics, she encouraged that the Board not let this area be deforested; that the land be kept in its
natural state.
Mr. Percy Montague said he is one of the applicants. As to the water situation, they are working
with the ACSA. Once it was surveyed and they saw the scope of what was proposed for a water tower, they
were not happy with the location so they are looking at other alternatives which involve pumps or off-site
storage facilities. They are not interested in building the storage tower shown on the plats which most
people have seen. In terms of a private road, there is another private road in Redfields; Pintail Lane. It was
in the first phase of Redfields, Phase 1C, and it supports 17 home sites, it is located at the head of the lake.
In terms of erosion control, there is an erosion control permanent facility that has been erected. It was
inspected by the County recently and found to be sound and working. They are somewhat mystified as to
why the pond has been filling up, and think there may be some underground springs with water passing
through the pond in that way. They are working with Mr. Morris to straighten that out. They had similar
problems in the earlier phase, and it is a mystery to them, their engineers and to the County as to how that
siltation is taking place. They made arrangements with Mr. Morris that when they are finished and when the
siltation is finished, they will clean out his pond. To clean it out now would probably just create another
problem in the future.
Mr. Montague asked any residents in Sherwood Farms who are in favor of any connection between
Redfields and Sherwood Farms to raise their hands. There was no one present in favor of a connection.
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 10)
He thinks everybody is in favor of a pedestrian connection with the greenbelt path, but the applicant
proffered 12 years ago that they would not connect through there. They studied seriously the idea of
connecting to Route 29, not going through Sherwood Farms, and it was their understanding based on two
engineering firm studies that a road cannot be built. The amount of traffic that would be necessary and the
curvature and gradient change to come off of Teal Lane and get up 20 feet over the railroad track and then
tie in to the slope going up to the plateau in Redfields is not a buildable solution. While, on the one hand he
can understand some concern about closing that opportunity, on the other hand he does not see any
reason to leave that opportunity open for something that is not feasible. If the Board would like for that
opportunity to stay open and have VDOT look at it, that is okay.
Mr. Cox said the stormwater management basin that is in question on the property was shown on
an approved Application Plan some years go. During the Phase 4 engineering process, they made an
effort to locate that pond off site on the downstream property owners property for the sole purpose of being
=
able to cooperate with that owner who was interested, at that time, in having his on-site pond rebuilt. After
they did the entire engineering effort for that and submitted it to the County, the owner elected not to move
forward with putting the pond on his property. At the same time, County staff came back with comments
that by virtue of the types of easements they would need from this person, they would just as soon it be
back in the original location. For a point of clarification, for the water tank site shown on the January and
April applications for this particular rezoning, they worked with the ACSA to select that location. It was the
location at the 750 elevation which was mandated by the Authority for a tank in this area if the pressure
enhancements were just going to be improved by a tank. There are other ways of doing it. He said citizens
in both Redfields and Sherwood Farms objected vehemently to it because of the location. They tried to
develop a site plan to make the location as obscure as possible. It still could be seen from a residents
=
home in Sherwood Farms, and from some of the lower level lots in Redfields. As part of their concessions
to staff, they elected to voluntarily drop off the request for that lot to be included. That is not part of the
application before the Board tonight, although it did appear in the advertising for this meeting. A tank on the
Redfields property is not required. They are working on engineering solutions. He offered to answer
questions.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks Mr. Cox has said they do not yet have a solution to the water problem.
They are not, at this time, asking for a water tank. She does not think he can say that a water tank will not
be part of the solution because that solution is not yet known. Mr. Cox said what they have done as part of
this application is not to pursue a water tank at the site which was found objectional by the citizens. There
are engineering solutions for the water pressure which do not involve a tank. The owners do control other
properties in the area that have elevations where a tank could be located off of Redfields property if that is
the solution favored by the ACSA.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the development of Phase 4 would take place. Mr. Cox said there is a
preliminary plan and a final plat before County staff now asking for approval of construction on lots in
Phase 4B. Mr. Dorrier asked if that section already has water and sewer hookups. Mr. Cox said they have
done an engineering analysis, and the ACSA pressures in that section can be met. There are deficits in
subsequent phases and in existing phases to which the applicant is seeking a solution to correct.
Mr. Dorrier said there could then be no building in those phases until the problem is solved. Mr.
Cox said that is correct. Mr. Dorrier asked how many homes are affected. Mr. Cox said there are probably
less than 10 houses at elevations that cannot meet minimum ACSA requirements.
Ms. Thomas suggested that Mr. Cox go door-to-door as she has done. Mr. Cox said he knows
there is dissatisfaction with domestic pressures. The builders have been supplementing existing ACSA
pressures by installing booster pumps in individual residences. That will get the pressures up in some
instances to 60 psi.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board at 8:25 p.m.
Mr. Perkins asked if the ACSA has the power of eminent domain. Mr. Davis said yes. Mr. Perkins
A@
said they could then put a tank anywhere they want to in that area. Mr. Davis said its location would have to
be approved by the Planning Commission or Board as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Humphris said after she made her way through this stack of documents giving the history of
Redfields, and then read the Planning Commission minutes for their meeting on July 10 in which they made
their final decision, on the subject of eliminating sites 117 through 120 she agrees completely. Everything
she saw told her the people in Sherwood Farms, as well as the people who now live in Redfields, had a
right to think that those areas which were labeled open space were indeed going to be open space. It was
obvious why the people in Sherwood Farms did not make noise. They were looking at open space, and
they were pleased with open space. She thinks that putting Lots 117 and 118 on private drives, as well as
119 and 120, is breaking a promise by the Board and the developers. She agrees that Lots 121 through
125 could be left because they bother nothing but the Norfolk and Southern Railroad.
Ms. Humphris said the developer is getting a good deal. There are 14 new lots in the Bowen tract
and then there will be six other new lots in what was open space. She is not sure what to do about the
thought of allowing a right-of-way for a future road through there. Her thoughts on it are this: if she had
purchased a piece of property on Redfields Road and found in August, 2001, that the Board of Supervisors
decided that should be a throughway, she would be very upset. She agreed with the DISC Neighborhood
Model, that there should be interconnectivity, but not at the price of cutting and pasting things that have
already been done and already planned in another way. She thinks there needs to be a very good bicycle
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 11)
connection and pedestrian connection that goes through there to Route 29. That would make it possible
for people to have a nice short cut to the Fontaine Research Park and other places at the University. For
the reasons she has stated and also because it has been pointed out by the applicant that it is very difficult
engineering and a very costly thing to bridge the railroad tracks and possibly a creek, she cannot see
anytime in the future when the County would have that as a priority.
Ms. Thomas said Redfields is located in her district (Samuel Miller - it was accidentally advertised
as being in the White Hall district) so she has met with a lot of people and appreciated all of the input she
received through every available source. She thinks there are some good things in this plan. She is
enthusiastic about the pedestrian way and its connection to the Greenway. There is only one lot where
there is not a designated way and that lot backs up to the Virginia Power line so there is essentially
somewhere to walk. She is enthusiastic about the proffer for the sidewalk. She thinks people will ask that it
go all the way to Sunset Avenue because of the walking path that people take. She thinks it will be a liability
if it does not go all the way. But, she is distressed at the incursions into what appears on maps to be green
space. There was an expectation raised for people to have the green space. She is distressed at the
Countys administrative incursions into that area, but she thinks at the very least the Board should do what
=
the Planning Commission suggested and not have Lots 117 through 120. If the Board were to hold to what
the neighbors had been led to expect, it would care about lots on the other side. She views removing Lots
117 through 120 as a compromise, not as an extreme statement, but it still gives the developer lots that if
the County were holding to the expectations for green space it would not allow at all. She has written to
people that no one wants connections between these two subdivisions. People in Redfields do not want it;
they bought houses in a development that was to be completely a dead end. She lives on West Leigh Drive
that was at one time completely a dead-end road, but now it goes through. The residents are now trying to
put in traffic calming devices. At one point in time, one of the residents, on his own, installed stop signs at
all of the intersections. The next day they were torn down, so she has gone through those wars and knows
the situation. She does not want that to happen in this neighborhood.
Ms. Thomas said she would like for the County to reserve a 50-foot right-of-way to the edge of the
property. She has several reasons for making this recommendation. When she was going door-to-door in
Redfields, the second house she went to was on Nettle Court. The man there with his three small children
said if anything ever happens to Redfields Road, we are totally cut off. There are a couple of hundred
A@
houses which could not get any emergency vehicles to them. There are two entrances to the subdivision,
but they are both close together. Once one passes Swan Ridge Road, all houses are isolated. The second
reason she would like for the County to reserve the 50-foot right-of-way is that she does not believe the
road will ever be built. The Board has just adopted the DISC principles in which a lot of neighborhoods will
be asked to provide connections. If the County does not ask this developer to even preserve a 50-foot right-
of-way, it will be much more difficult to ask the next developer to do the same thing. She realizes the
developer has written saying it is an onerous matter. She does not see that because it is a 30-foot right-of-
way now for a private road to four houses. If the Board follows the Planning Commissions
=
recommendations, two of those lots will not be built on leaving plenty of room for a 50-foot right-of-way to
the edge of the property.
Ms. Thomas said her last reason is that it is not that far away from the edge of the property to the
gravel road that now goes to the Bowen Tract. It is possible that bicyclists could find a way to make that a
bicycle trail. They could go under the railroad. They would not be going through Sherwood Farms. That
might be something that in the future the bicycle community would like. She would like for the Board to
accept two major things the Planning Commission did which was to disallow the four lots and to have a 50-
foot right-of-way where there is now a private road with a 30-foot right-of-way.
Mr. Cilimberg said looking at the site plan, the 30-foot right-of-way does not go through to the edge
of the property. Ms. Thomas said that is the reason she said it should go to the edge of the property. Mr.
A@
Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas was saying it should be conditioned as recommended by the Planning
Commission. They said a connection to the west side of the property line to allow for a connection to the
A
west sometime in the future.
@
Ms. Thomas said that does not create a road, and she does not think a road will ever be built
because it would be an expensive road. VDOT does not build those roads. The County has been begging
VDOT to build the Southern Connector for a number of years. They do not build urban roads. The
developer has no responsibilities once the subdivision is completed. No one will build that road, but if ever
there is a disaster and everyone wishes there had been a way to get an emergency vehicle, she does not
want to be the one who kept that from happening in the future. Ms. Humphris agreed.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it is consistent with what the County is trying to do with other DISC
type sites under current review. The County has to begin some place, and he agrees it is likely the road will
not be built, but there will be an easement for public use. He has a question. If the Board were to approve
this rezoning as recommended by the Planning Commission (elimination of the four lots and the
easement), does the applicant have a position as to the status of the proffers that have been offered? He is
simply asking for information.
Mr. Montague said that without more thought he does not know if he can answer that question now.
If Lots 119 and 120 are eliminated, then the need for a 30-foot private road is also eliminated, and they
would only need a 15-foot common driveway. Instead of going from 30 feet to 50 feet, they would be going
from 15 feet to 50 feet. He thinks the proffers that have been offered are reasonable. They support
connecting to the Greenbelt. Most of the other proffers were simply a fine-tuning of existing proffers. Under
those circumstances they could, but he still is concerned about a 50-foot right-of-way being reserved for a
road that will never be built.
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 12)
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board approved this application as recommended by the Planning
Commission, would it be in the absence of the proffers? Mr. Davis said the proffers go with the Application
Plan that the applicants submitted. If the Board approves something more restrictive than that, unless they
consent, the proffers are not binding. Mr. Bowerman said the Board might not have that consent tonight.
Mr. Davis said if the Board wants to explore that option, it should defer this request and let staff consult with
the applicant.
Ms. Humphris said if it were the Boards desire to adopt a plan according to what has been outlined,
=
but wanted to make sure that if Phases 4A and 4B get built there are the amenities (the five-foot wide path,
the pedestrian trails in particular), then there is no way that can be done tonight unless the applicant says
he is willing to amend the proffers. Ms. Thomas said even if he agreed, he would need to rework them with
his planners and lawyers. Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Thomas if she had a consensus of the Board
members.
Ms. Thomas said it has been very silent. Mr. Perkins said he can support that. He had the same
question Mr. Bowerman just asked about the proffers. Mr. Davis said there are two options. First, the
Board could work out the proffers they are agreeable to. The second option is to decide which part of those
proffers the Board could require anyway, and staff would have to go back and analyze which proffers are
things which could be required under the master planning process.
Ms. Thomas said she would rather deal with the proffers than have the proffers turned into
conditions.
Mr. Perkins asked if the terrain is such that a road is not buildable, is there a need for 50 feet of
right-of-way? Why not have something less than that which would serve as a public access point, foot trail,
bike trail, of whatever it is called?
Ms. Thomas said that is a good question. County staff drew a couple of lines and could not decide
how buildable it was, and put a very high price tag on it. She does not think the Board knows the full
answer to whether it is buildable or not. Mr. Perkins said anything is buildable if it is not prohibited by cost.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels that in light of everything which has been said, the first part of the
Commissions recommendation (elimination of the four lots) is the most important part of the
=
recommendation, even absent the proffers. The elimination of those four lots make the application more
consistent with what the Board (at the time of the original approval) and the community felt was going to
happen on this parcel. He would not reject the application absent the proffers, as the Planning Commission
recommended. He would approve it with the Commissions recommendations holding the question of 50
=
feet or 30 feet, and even losing the proffers.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think she would because she thinks the sidewalk is very important.
There is no way the County could make them retrofit an existing subdivision with a sidewalk. Mr. Bowerman
said the alternative is to reject the petition or defer it.
Ms. Humphris said there is no need to defer action on this request if the applicant does not let the
Board know he is willing to discuss it with staff. The Board wants the elimination of those four lots, but it
also wants the five-foot wide asphalt footpath and the pedestrian trail. To her, if they are not willing to come
to a meeting of the minds with the Board, then she thinks the proposal must be rejected.
Mr. Dorrier said it seems this situation goes back ten years; this site has been a problem and the
developer has been working with the County for a number of years on this development. He thinks that four
building sites is a sticking issue between the developer and the Board. There are water problems, road
problems, and a neighborhood which feels like it has been sold a bill of goods it no longer wants. He said
the proffer is supposed to be the developer giving up something for the public good. It is supposed to be a
process that works out a compromise that benefits the public and benefits the developer. It appears to him
that the best thing to do, rather than scrap the whole project, would be to let the developer and the staff
work together to rework the proffers.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that this request be deferred to allow that to happen. Mr. Dorrier said
there is too much water over the dam to just sabotage the project.
A@
Ms. Thomas said she would entertain a motion to defer. Mr. Bowerman asked if this request would
need to come back to the Board because of the proffer, or could it be on the Consent Agenda if the Board
felt it was consistent with its intent. Mr. Davis said the public hearing has been closed, so it is possible for it
to be a Consent Agenda item if there is no need to discuss it further, and the proffers are clear.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant had indicated a desire to speak.
Mr. Montague said he would like to offer a compromise. If one looks at the original Application
Plan and then looks at the Plan which has been proposed, the brown line on the proposed plan reflects the
boundary between open space and development area as originally considered. Looking at Lots 119 and
120, the Plan shows that a vast majority of both of those home sites was originally in the area that was
considered to be developed. He would suggest that those two lots be left in the Plan, take the 30-foot road
that was to serve those four lots, reconfigure that to a 50-foot right-of-way that would extend to the property
line, and agree to all the proffers.
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 13)
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Montague would be reducing the site by two lots, rather than four lots. Mr.
Montague said they would waive Lots 117 and 118. The other two home sites look like they extend from
ten to 30 feet into what was originally conceived as open space, the majority of that area would be in the
rear yard building setback area anyway so it would remain unbuildable. He thinks that would be workable,
but is saying that without having their engineers look at it to see if they could add ten feet on either side of
that road without compromising the building sites. He thinks they can do that.
Ms. Thomas said her reaction is that Lots 121, 122, 123, 124 and 125, are already the
compromise, so she is not willing to regard 119 and 120 as compromisable. Ms. Humphris agreed.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees. He then offered motion to defer ZMA-2001-001 to allow staff to
discuss with the applicant anything they may wish to offer, but it is the intention of the Board that at either a
deferred meeting or on a Consent Agenda, the Board would be looking for the elimination of the four lots
(117, 118, 119, 120). He still is not sure about the 30-foot versus the 50-foot.
Ms. Thomas said the Board needs comments from staff and the applicant on that issue. Mr.
Bowerman said he would like to make it clear that the Board is looking at the Planning Commissions
=
recommendation. Ms. Humphris said that is correct, and she would second the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to have a clarification. The 30 feet is to essentially accommodate
what might be pedestrian, bicycle and even emergency access. The 50 feet could accommodate a
hypothetical full roadway if the Board wants to reserve the opportunity for a full roadway. If the Board does
not believe that will happen, or if the Board does not want to reserve that possibility, then 30 feet is sufficient
for the other uses mentioned. Staff needs to know so that the applicant is working in a direction to satisfy
the Boards wishes.
=
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Perkins had mentioned that if it is not a buildable road then 30 feet is
adequate. She needs some more staff input. Mr. Perkins said more than 50 feet would be needed for cuts
and fills. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a potential. If a full connection were made, traffic might increase the
road width and right-of-way requirement.
Ms. Thomas said 50 feet assures the possibility of a 30-foot road some day. A 30-foot right-of-way
with only a ten-foot setback on either side does not necessarily assure that there could be a 30-foot access.
Mr. Cilimberg said a 30-foot right-of-way would not make a road for any connection other than for
emergency use. Mr. Bowerman asked if there could be temporary easements for construction beyond the
50 feet. Mr. Cilimberg said there would be easements necessary for cut and fill work. A right-of-way of 50
feet would accommodate a two-lane road with sidewalk and probably a bike path. If something more than
a two-lane road were necessary, 50 feet would not suffice. The need for more right-of-way would be driven
by traffic and VDOT requirements.
Ms. Thomas said the Board does not want a full-fledged road through there now, and also does not
want to preclude the option for something that may be needed or wanted 30 years from now. She thinks a
50-foot right-of-way would go beside the lots, and would be a 50-foot right-of-way into the green space, and
it is probably not going to even be a driveway today.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not see it as an economic loss to the applicant to go from 30-feet to
50-feet because the Board is eliminating two lots. Ms. Humphris said it would only be a line on a map. Mr.
Cilimberg said he thinks the Board is saying that it should not be 50 feet. Mr. Bowerman said that would be
intent of his motion. Ms. Humphris said that is the intent of the second.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
__________
Ms. Thomas said in the event the audience is confused, the petition is deferred to allow time for
staff to discuss with the applicant the following items: elimination of Lots 117 through 120 from the
Application Plan; and reserving a 30-foot vs. a 50-foot right-of-way. The Board is not willing to forego the
proffers in exchange for conditions. If the staff and the applicant are able to work out all the issues
satisfactorily, this item can come back to the Board on the consent agenda. That will be decided at another
meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code
3-208 Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District. TM 35, P 28A & portions of TM 35, P 29. Znd RA. Loc E of
'
Rt 641, approx 1.25 mls SE of intersec w/ Rt 20. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on July 23 and July 30, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District
=
was created on June 18, 1986, and will be reviewed by June 18, 2002. The district is located on the east
side of Route 20 North just south of the Greene County border. The district contains 3718 acres in 24
parcels. This proposed addition contains 174.337 acres. The owner, Mr. Harold Young, is one of the
founding members of this district. This application is intended to ensure that all of Mr. Youngs property in
=
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 14)
this area is included in the district. The A/F Districts Advisory Committee, at its meeting on June 18, 2001,
voted unanimously to approve this addition to the Blue Run A/F District, and staff also recommends
approval of the request.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis noted that there was a corrected ordinance sent to the Board members dated August 3.
That is the ordinance the Board should consider for adoption.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt An Ordinance to
Amend and Reordain Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 3-208, Blue Run Agricultural
and Forestal District, draft ordinance dated August 3, 2001.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 01-3(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By amending:
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 17, 17A, 22, 22A, 23, 24A, 26,
26A, 26B, 26C, 28A, 29, 29B, 31, 32A, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49,
parcels 4A, 4A5, 24; tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 7, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51,
parcel 13. This district, created on June 18, 1986, for not more than eight years and last
reviewed on July 13, 1994, shall next be reviewed prior to July 13, 2002.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3),
'
8-8-01)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments. Ms. Thomas said the Board will take up this item after holding
a closed session. She suggested that the Board finish the regular agenda before holding that session.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 21(A), April 18, April 25, May 9 and June 6,
2001.
No minutes had been read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Tucker had mentioned recently the situation with the Meadow Creek
Parkway project, and it appeared that this Board would need to hold a public hearing on the project. Today,
the Board received a copy of a letter dated August 2, 2001, from Mr. C. F. Gee, Acting Chief Engineer,
Virginia Department of Transportation, in which he concurs with that approach provided all state regulations
are followed. She wanted to make sure those wheels will turn.
A@
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is working with VDOT now to be sure that all state public hearing
requirements are met. It is not as simple and concise as a public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Staff is going ahead with the Planning Commission and holding the Comprehensive Plan
amendment with them, and will hold a Comprehensive Plan public hearing and the VDOT hearing with the
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 15)
Board in the interests of time. There has to be 30 days notice given before holding the public hearing. Staff
will try for September 12, but it may need to be held on September 19. Staff will get it done as soon as it
can. It is a very different process and the process includes the Federal Highway Administration.
Mr. Bowerman said the County needs to do everything possible to expedite the Boards final
=
approval, and VDOTs final approval of the Countys section of the Parkway.
==
Ms. Humphris said the County does not want to give VDOT any reason to say it is holding up the
process. Mr. Cilimberg said it has to also be done in accordance with their requirements. Staff is walking a
fine line being sure it is done right, and done timely.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has talked about purchasing lap top computers for Board members. So
far, nothing has happened. He has trouble getting his E-mails from the County. It is affecting his
communication with the County. He would be willing to pay part of the cost to have a proper computer
system. He asked if the other Board members think that is a good idea.
Mr. Bowerman said that will not solve the problem. The problem is one of not being able to
communicate with the Countys E-mail system, and not his computer. When he thinks about what the
=
School Board did, he does not think it is the money it would cost to buy the computers, but the huge cost of
buying all of the visual aids that go along with the computers so the public is informed of what the Board is
seeing. It is all of the ancillary parts needed to make what the Board has available to the public when an
item is being discussed. He said that requires audio visual displays that are not contemplated in the
purchase of the laptops in and of themselves. He would suggest that is the cost which should be looked at
if the Board is going to look into the question of purchasing laptop computers.
Ms. Humphris said the Board had this discussion recently. Several Board members said they take
their materials with them and read whenever they can find a few minutes, they also like to look at the hard
copy while in Board meetings. She said the Board members did not feel laptops were necessary at this
time, or would function in a way that this Board functions in doing its work.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Dorrier should have E-mail capabilities with the County.
Mr. Dorrier said if there is an option where he as an individual could work out a cost-sharing
arrangement where he would pay some of the costs, and the County would pay some of the costs, he could
get a better communication system. Now, he has to come to the County Office Building every week or so
and download his E-mails in order to catch up with his work. That is not a good system. He would like to fix
that with a cost-sharing arrangement, individually. Mr. Davis said the County could probably loan Mr.
Dorrier a computer until such time as he has his own capability.
Mr. Perkins said the membership of the Board will change. What if a new member says if you
A
want me to be on County E-mail, etc., then the County has to provide me with a computer. He said all of
@
the present members have supplied their own computers, and the County person came to individual homes
to install the necessary software on that computer. Most of the costs to this point have been borne by the
Board members. Mr. Davis said that under those circumstances, the County could look at providing a piece
of equipment that could be loaned while the Board member needed its use. Mr. Foley said staff will discuss
some options with Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Mr. Perkins mentioned the comments made at the beginning of this meeting about the Ivy Landfill.
He said he talked to Ms. McCauley for a long time on the telephone today. She feels the public does not
know what has been going on. He explained that Board meetings are open to the public, but the Board did
have closed sessions because of the legal matters involving the landfill. She and a lot of other people are
frustrated by what has happened and they dont understand what is going on. Particularly these people
=
who just started a business. Mr. McCauley worked at ConAgra and started this business last year after
ConAgra went out of business.
Ms. Thomas noted a statement just handed to the Board members about the Ivy Landfill. She said
that the County made a joint statement with the City yesterday. City Council has not had the presentation
the Board had recently by the Rivanna Authority. They wanted to talk directly to DEQ. The Boards
=
consensus did not include that step. She had to decide whether to agree with that, and decided that the
Board will certainly have questions from a lot of taxpayers next year if the Board has to add one cent to the
Countys tax rate because there is no longer the revenue needed for the burial of construction debris. On
=
the Boards behalf, she went along with the City, and that is why the last sentence in the third paragraph
=
states: Because of this, city and county officials feel obligated to discuss with DEQ the impact of its
A
September first deadline and to make sure there are not any possible alternatives. She does not think
@
there are any possible fiscally intelligent alternatives with what DEQ has given the County and City to work
with. The Board is constrained as to what discussions can take place in public because there are a couple
of lawsuits; there is one threatened, and one actual. That makes it difficult for public discourse to take
place. It has been frustrating for the last three years because of the lawsuits on the landfill issue. She said
this handout is the statement made to the press. The article in the newspaper was fairly straight forward.
She did not see the television coverage.
Ms. Thomas said the hurry for the statement was because the trash haulers needed to know what
they will do September 1, where they will take their trash. Mr. Cole Hendrix wanted to have notices to give
to the trash haulers. That is the reason the statement was made. What is new in the statement is that a
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 16)
contract has been signed with BFI for construction debris to be handed by BFI at its transfer station at Zion
Crossroads. It will make the tipping fee more expensive at Zion Crossroads plus the expense of getting the
CDD there.
Mr. Bowerman said since the contract has been signed, that means the County is committed. Ms.
Thomas said that is true. The Rivanna Authority could find no cheaper alternative. As soon as Rivanna
stops burying construction debris, it loses 25 percent of its business. It is the most financially damaging
thing that has been done, although it seems simple. The other financially damaging thing that has been
done is the refusal to extend the life of Cell 2.
Ms. Humphris said one thing which causes a problem and may continue to cause a problem is that
when Luc Ducey gave his six oclock news, he said that people would still be able to take their CDD to the
=
Ivy Landfill, it would just cost more. But, they gave a different story on the eleven oclock news, but that was
=
already said. It has never been said that pickup trucks can still go to the landfill, but everybody else has to
go somewhere else. It was interesting that she heard in another news program, that people would also be
able to go to Augusta County. She said those two things got to the news media incorrectly.
Mr. Perkins said it is not any closer to Augusta County than to Zion Crossroads. Ms. Thomas said
she tried to get Ms. McCauley to say whether that would be helpful to her, but she did not want to discuss
anything other than going to Ivy. She said the McCauleys actually only have a pickup truck for construction
=
debris so will probably be able to continue to do that. Ms. Humphris said that has not been made clear yet.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned that there will be visitations by both of the Countys twin communities in the
=
near future. Pacific County, Oregon, in September, 2002, and the Italians will be coming in March. She
has tried to E-mail all the Board members about the Italian visit, but has had computer problems.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition is developing with the shelter industry three work
groups that will work as subgroups to a legislative committee that is looking into the impacts of growth. The
Board can make suggestions as to individuals who might serve on these three work groups -- one is
economic development/infrastructure needs and revenue needs; the second is revitalization/brown fields
(which is where DISC appears to fit into this); and, the third is open space preservation/property rights.
VACO asked if she would like to have her name put forward for that third group, and she said she does not
think she is the proper person to be on the committee. She thinks the Board can find another person to
serve.
__________
Ms. Thomas said on the Consent Agenda last week was a letter from the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) saying VDOT will abandon the service roads concept because of the financial
considerations and public reactions. She thinks the Board should respond to that letter because the
concept has valuable aspects. VDOT said it was evident that the citizens and the local government officials
do not support the frontage road concept. She said that is not true. The Board did not want these roads to
go through neighborhoods, but there were parts of them on the western side of Route 29 which the County
was working into its plans and on which it was depending.
Mr. Perkins said the Rio Road Extension is an example of that concept. The Board did that one, so
why would it be opposed to these other roads.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Cilimberg to draft a response for the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board could get more information about service roads in terms of when
they are used and how they are used. He does not know enough about service roads. Ms. Thomas said
the Board amended the Comprehensive Plan to say these parallel roads would not be big service roads,
but in essence would be parallel roads which fit in with Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Mr.
Cilimberg said VDOTs service road concept is what ultimately went into the Comprehensive Plan as
=
parallel roads on the west side of Route 29 North. The County did not want VDOTs true service road
=
concept.
Ms. Humphris said she will reiterate her cynical view of the letter mentioned by Ms. Thomas. After
last weeks meeting, she made a chart which showed that this concept had been in VDOTs plans for 12
==
years. It was in the TIP and everything else. VDOT had $13.0 million in the plan for preliminary
engineering and construction. Then, all of a sudden the money disappeared. In May, 2000 SELC became
part of the lawsuit about the western road which was part of the Bypass proposal. She thinks that was
when VDOT dropped the western road, and, then the whole project. They just did not let the Board know
until now. There is no reason not to write the letter, but VDOT is not going to put anything back until that
lawsuit is over.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission recently received a grant to
do a regional greenway plan. They did not redo Albemarle County's plan, instead just inserted what the
Board had already adopted. It shows that the greenways which have been talked about can go throughout
the Planning District. Some places end right at county lines, so when the County is working on its greenway
plan, it will want to look at the regional plan. If Board members want a copy, they can get one from the
Planning District Commission. It is nice to know that something this Board has worked on is being worked
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 17)
on throughout the Planning District.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked if the sentence in the Ivy Landfill statement Because of this, city and county
A
officials feel obligated to discuss with DEQ .... indicates it will be a private discussion because it is litigation.
@
Ms. Thomas said the City would like to go to DEQ and make sure Mr. Tracy understands the
implications of all of their decisions for Charlottesville and Albemarle.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there would be officials going to talk with him. Ms. Thomas said it would be
sometime between August 20 when City Council has its next meeting, and August 27 when the Rivanna
Authority has its next Board meeting. She does not know who will set it up. It would be making sure they
understand the financial implications. Also, Mayor Caravati feels this community has an ethic where it tries
to deal with its environmental problems locally and not ship them out someplace else. He feels strongly we
are shipping our problems out to someone else by this decision. That is what is behind the Mayors strong
=
feelings about this issue.
Mr. Bowerman said other than venting, the contract is signed. Ms. Thomas said the contract with
BFI is signed. The Rivanna Authority is not appealing the decision. Mr. Davis said there is a possibility they
will be noting the appeal. Ms. Thomas said she thought the date for doing that had passed. Mr. Davis said
the deadline is actually tomorrow. In order to preserve City Councils options, they may be noting the
=
appeal which does not require anything more than to simply say we note our appeal. Mr. Bowerman said
A@
the contract has been signed. Mr. Davis said the contract with BFI simply allows BFI to accept Albemarle
County and Charlottesville City CDD, which cannot be disposed of at the Ivy Landfill.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to have a closed session. At 9:25 p.m., motion was offered by
Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session in the County Executives Conference Room on the
=
Fourth Floor pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider
appointments to boards and commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
__________
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:10 p.m. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge
=
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to appoint Mr. Raymond L. Carey,
to the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors, with term to expire June 30, 2005.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn to August 15, 2001, 5:30 P.M.
With no further business to come before the Board, at 10:11 p.m., motion was offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adjourn this meeting until 5:30 p.m. on August 15, 2001.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
August 8, 2001 (Adjourned and Night Meetings)
(Page 18)
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials