2002-11-13November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 16, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter
F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. John Martin said he lives in Free Union. He mentioned an editorial which was in the Daily
Progress on Tuesday, November 12, 2002, entitled Water Needs Can No Longer Wait Untended. He
A@
said the tenor of this editorial was to include insinuations and accusations that there are public officials,
elected or appointed, that are engaged in limiting the water supply by delay, etc., as a subterranean
A
weapon to stifle growth. He said to those who have been active in following the water supply project for the
@
past five years, this editorial was met with considerable dismay. It is clear to anybody who has been
following the process over this period of time and is acquainted with the final result of the recommen-
dations, that there is no factual basis for any allegation that there is an attempt through the water supply
planning process to stifle growth. However, in fairness to the Daily Progress, there are those who do not
understand the process. He said the whole concept which is the basis of the editorial is irrational. It is
tantamount to suggesting that there are public officials who would decide that to control growth the County
should just decide to stop building schools. Then classrooms overflow, quality of education goes down, the
word gets out and then people will not want to move to this area. That is not going to happen.
Mr. Martin said the editorial failed to recognize that there is a future water supply plan. It was
published in July, and recently updated with some things that have been learned during the drought. It is
clear that the plan in place now has a fifty-year planning horizon and will accommodate any growth that
occurs from now until the end of the planning horizon. As a citizen, he wrote a letter on September 3
suggesting a way to proceed, i.e., to engage in negotiations with City Council as a partner to water supply
planning, to work toward a concurrent resolution which sets forth the agreement between the City and the
County financially and with respect to what the outline of the plan will be and then proceed to execution of
the resolution with a public hearing. With that opportunity, all the people who have not had the time to be
involved during the past five years would have an opportunity to express their concerns, and then everything
can move forward constructively.
__________
Mr. Tom Loach, said he is a resident of Crozet. In a recent article in the Daily Progress it was
reported that the County is facing a deficit of $2.8 million. That article said two options for meeting the
deficit were a reduction in the School budget by $1.3 million and a reduction of $400,000 in the ACE
Program. If the County is in such dire financial straights, he said $4.0 million can be found in the land use
tax subsidy. He said a paper authored by Mr. Tucker in 1991 said property that is ineligible for use value
A
taxation does bear a greater share of taxes as a result of having a land use program. The cost of the land
use is not a hidden fact since it is implicit in the concept of land use taxation that the tax burden is shifted to
other taxpayers. The tax subsidy program costs the taxpayers in Albemarle County $4.2 million. Mr.
@
Loach said Mr. Tucker went on to state In addressing the charge that land use benefits developers and
A
speculators, as well as legitimate farm owners and foresters, it must be reemphasized that the use value
taxation levies a tax on the current use of the land and not on the owner. The land use program cannot
distinguish between property owners and the income level of the owner. The intention of the landowner to
sell or not to sell is not considered.
@
Mr. Loach said that is a long way of saying there is little control over the program. The tax subsidy
goes to some of the most affluent landowners in Albemarle County, owners who have little or nothing to do
with agriculture. Not only do the affluent get breaks, but a study done by the PEC in 1998 showed
$440,000 in tax breaks going to corporations and land trusts. More recently in another article in the Daily
Progress, a representative of the Farm Bureau stated that for farmers their land is their retirement fund. He
does not want to continue to subsidize anyones retirement fund. As a resident of a County growth area, he
=
supports the Countys ACE Program which purchases development rights and allows farmers to continue to
=
farm. The ACE Program is far different than the program currently in place where a landowner only pays
the last five years of back taxes when they cash out. He has heard from the committee (a committee which
has little or no representation from growth area residents) which is working on the Rural Area
Comprehensive Plan amendment that they are looking at clustering development rights of rural landowners
making it easier for them to exercise those development rights. He does not know how many people in the
growth areas know they are subsidizing the well-to-do and large corporations. If it is true, even less know
that the money the County pays to the City of Charlottesville is based on the full value assessment of the
County land and not the assessed value minus its land use subsidy.
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Loach said the cuts in the School budget and their untoward effects on the education of the
children will fall hardest on the sheer number of children who reside in the growth area. Not only should
the education of the children be adequately funded, but money will have to be found to implement the
Neighborhood Model. Those who reside in the growth areas will no longer be treated as second class
citizens, no longer waiting for sidewalks and new libraries, etc. Before cutting back on education and the
long-term protection of the rural area by the program that was proposed by growth area residents, he
suggested the Board look at the land use tax subsidy.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4 on the
Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: March 25(A), August 7, August 14, and September 4, 2002.
Mr. Perkins had read September 4, 2002 (Page 18 beginning with Item #11 to the end) and found
them to be in order.
No other minutes were read.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
__________
Item 5.2. Set public hearing for December 11, 2002, on proposed ordinance to amend Appendix
A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program pertaining to ACE regulations.
It was noted in the staffs report that the ACE program's regulations are set forth in Appendix A.1 of
=
the Albemarle County Code. The program is now in its third application cycle and the experiences from the
first two cycles (the second of which is now at the appraisal stage) have prompted County staff and the ACE
Committee to recommend changes to the ACE regulations. The substantive changes are narrow in scope,
addressing very specific issues. A number of minor non-substantive changes are also recommended.
The draft ordinance would make the following substantive changes to the ACE regulations:
1. Sections A.1-103(A)(2) and (9): The proposed amendment would replace the defined term
"development right" with "division rights" in order to eliminate confusion with the term "development rights"
as used in the Zoning Ordinance. The term "retained division rights" would be added and be defined to
mean the number of parcels into which a parcel under an ACE easement could be divided. In awarding
points to an application for ranking purposes, section A.1-108(B)(3) awards one-half point for each division
right eliminated, which is determined by subtracting the number of retained division rights (as determined
under section A.1-109(A)) from the number of division rights.
2. Section A.1-105(B)(3): The proposed amendment would expand the ACE Committee's current
authority to annually review the ACE program's eligibility and ranking criteria to enable it to periodically
review the program's regulations, guidelines, administrative procedures and promotion. This amendment is
recommended to more fully use the Committee's expertise and experience.
3. Section A.1-106(A)(1): This subsection currently requires that the Appraisal Review Committee
be comprised of three real estate professionals, the county assessor, and a member of the ACE
Committee. The proposed amendment would reduce the total membership of the Committee from five to
three by reducing the number of real estate professionals from three to one. By waiver from the Board in
prior years, the Committee has acted with three members and this size has proven to be practical.
4. Section A.1-108(C)(1): In awarding points to an application for ranking purposes, one point may
be awarded under the current regulations for each 1000 feet of mountain ridge. The proposed amendment
would award a point for each 20 acres within a "ridge area boundary," a term defined to mean the area that
lies within 100 feet below designated ridge lines shown on County maps. The change to this criterion is
recommended because it more accurately describes the resource having value.
5. Section A.1-108(C)(6): In awarding points to an application for ranking purposes, points may be
awarded for various class soils on a parcel. The proposed amendment would more accurately describe
the various soil classes.
6. Section A.1-108(C)(11): The proposed amendment would allow two points to be awarded to an
application for ranking purposes if the parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district.
Staff recommends that the Clerk be authorized to advertise the proposed ordinance for a public
hearing on December 11, 2002.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Clerk was ordered to advertise for a public hearing
on December 11, 2002, An Ordinance to Amend Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Easements Program, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
__________
Item 5.3. Request to transfer donation funds from General Fund to Fire and Rescue Department.
It was noted in the staffs report that in 1998 an account was established for donations received by
=
the Fire and Rescue Division for services rendered to County residents/public. Each year the County Fair
gives a $5,000 donation to the volunteer fire and rescue companies for their fire and medical services
during the week of the Fair. Normally the funds are given directly to the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue
Association (JCFRA), but due to officer changes within that organization and not having their financial
affairs in place, it was given to the Fire and Rescue Department to hold. JCFRA's officers now have their
financial matters taken care of and would like their reimbursement. Based on the identified needs for
JCFRA, staff recommends that $5,000 be transferred into the Fire Rescue Division operational budget code
(1-1000-32015-600000).
(Discussion: Mr. Bowerman asked if the budget code being used for this transfer is specifically
assigned to the JCFRA. Mr. Tucker said yes.)
A@
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the transfer of $5,000 into the
Fire Rescue Divisions operational budget, as set out on the following Resolution of Appropriation:
==
APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION: #2003-024
DATE: 11/14/02
EXPLANATION: TRANSFER OF DONATED FUNDS FROM COUNTY FAIR TO FIRE/RESCUE
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32015 600000 F/R MATERIALS/SUPPLIES J 1 5,000.00
2 1000 51000 512008 TRANSFER IN J 2 5,000.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J 5,000.00
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION J 5,000.00
1 8405 93010 930009 TRANSFER TO G/F J 1 5,000.00
2 8405 18000 181114 CONTRIBUTIONS J 2 5,000.00
8405 0501 EST REVENUE J 5,000.00
8405 0701 APPROPRIATION J 5,000.00
TOTALS 20,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
__________
Item 5.4. Authorize County Executive to execute deeds for Colonial Auto Regional Stormwater
Basin.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Colonial Auto Basin is located on an unnamed tributary to
=
the Woodbrook Channel west (upstream) of Route 29, east (downstream) of Berkmar Drive, south of the
Colonial Auto Center, and north of Rio-29 Self Storage. The drainage area is approximately 50 acres and
includes developed and undeveloped properties. The 1995 study of the Woodbrook Channel attributed its
flooding and erosion to the lack of stormwater controls for the runoff generated from upstream developed
properties by the more frequent storms (i.e., two-year storm) or high intensity/short duration storms. The
study also identified retro-fitting of the Colonial Auto Basin and the Rio Hill Basin (to provide additional
detention) as essential to controlling the downstream flooding and erosion.
Rio Hill basin was dedicated to the County earlier. Outlet structure and basin modifications were
constructed during the Summer/Fall of 2002. A request to dedicate the Colonial Auto Basin was presented
to the Board on October 20, 1999, and the Engineering Department was authorized to proceed with the
dedication.
The plats and deeds conveying this basin to the County have been prepared, signed by the owners,
and are ready for execution by the County Executive. Since this stormwater basin is essential to the control
of downstream flooding, the Board is urged to complete the dedication. When completed, the Engineering
Department will design and construct the modifications necessary for flood control. In addition, the Water
Resources Manager will explore opportunities to include a water quality retrofit into the basin.
Staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to execute the deeds of dedication and
easement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to execute a Deed
of Dedication and Easement, for Tax Map 45, Parcel 105, with Bearwood Properties, LLC, and a
Deed of Dedication and Easement, for Tax Map 45, Parcel 94B, with CMA Properties, Inc.
Tax Map 45, Parcel 105
This deed is exempt from the tax imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1-801 under Virginia Code § 58.1-
811(A)(3).
DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
THIS DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT is made this ___ day of October, 2002 by and
between BEARWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, and the COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle County
that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the “Property;”
WHEREAS, the Grantor offers to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the County for public use,
and to grant and convey to the Grantee an access easement to the Property across Grantor’s lands; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept Grantor’s offer of dedication and grant and conveyance of
easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantor hereby grants, conveys,
and dedicates for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND
ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit:
All that certain parcel or tract of land situated in the Rio Magisterial District of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, containing 0.5022 acres, more or less, and shown and designated on
the plat of Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated August 28, 2000, which plat is
attached hereto and recorded with this deed of dedication (the “Plat”).
The Property is a portion of Tax Map 45 Parcel 105, which is the same land acquired by the Grantor by
deed from SUSA Partnership LP, dated November 1, 1999, recorded in the land records of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1870, Page 119.
FURTHER, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the Grantee the perpetual nonexclusive right
and easement of ingress and egress to and from the Property over and across the retained portion of the
Grantor’s lands identified as Tax Map 45 Parcel 105 for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining and
operating its facilities on the Property. The right and easement of ingress and egress shall be at a
reasonable location determined by the Grantor; provided, ingress and egress shall be over and across a
travelway within the easement located, sized and unobstructed at all times to allow Grantee’s personnel,
vehicles and other equipment to access the Property in order to construct, reconstruct, inspect, maintain
and operate the Grantee’s facilities located thereon; further provided, that Grantor shall have the sole
obligation to establish, construct and maintain at all times, at no cost to the Grantee, the easement
travelway (whether the easement travelway is relocated or not) in the condition, and for the purposes,
described herein. This easement shall run with the land of the Grantor and shall be binding upon the heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Grantor and of the Grantee.
These conveyances are made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and
easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive
notice in the chain of title to the properties conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect the properties,
which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise
become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication made by
this deed, as evidenced by the signature below.
WITNESS the following signatures.
BEARWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
_______________________________ _______________________________
Name:__________________________ Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Title:___________________________ County Executive
Tax Map 45, Parcel 94B
This deed is exempt from the tax imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1-801 under Virginia Code § 58.1-
811(A)(3).
DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENT is made this ___ day of October, 2002 by and
between CMA PROPERTIES, INC, a Virginia corporation, Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle County
that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the “Property;”
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
WHEREAS, the Grantor offers to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the Grantee for public
use, and to grant and convey to the Grantee an access easement to the Property across Grantor’s lands;
and
WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept the Grantor’s offer of dedication and grant and
conveyance of easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantor hereby grants, conveys,
and dedicates for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND
ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit:
All that certain parcel or tract of land situated in the Rio Magisterial District of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, containing 0.2575 acres, more or less, and shown and designated on
the plat of Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated August 28, 2000, which plat is
attached hereto and recorded with this deed of dedication (the “Plat”).
The Property is a portion of Tax Map 45 Parcel 94B, which is the same land acquired by the Grantor by
deed from William W. and Carol W. Stevenson and Alton P. Martin, dated October 24, 1986, recorded in
the land records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 904, Page 627.
FURTHER, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the Grantee the perpetual nonexclusive right
and easement of ingress and egress to and from the Property over and across the retained portion of the
Grantor’s lands identified as Tax Map 45 Parcel 94B for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining and
operating its facilities on the Property. The right and easement of ingress and egress shall be at a
reasonable location determined by the Grantor; provided, ingress and egress shall be over and across a
travelway within the easement located, sized and unobstructed at all times to allow the Grantee’s
personnel, vehicles and other equipment to access the Property in order to construct, reconstruct, inspect,
maintain and operate the Grantee’s facilities located thereon; further provided, that the Grantor shall have
the sole obligation to establish, construct and maintain at all times, at no cost to the Grantee, the easement
travelway (whether the easement travelway is relocated or not) in the condition, and for the purposes,
described herein. This easement shall run with the land of the Grantor and shall be binding upon the heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Grantor and of the Grantee.
These conveyances are made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and
easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive
notice in the chain of title to the properties conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect the properties,
which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise
become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication made by
this deed, as evidenced by the signature below.
WITNESS the following signatures.
CMA PROPERTIES, INC. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
_______________________________ _______________________________
Name:__________________________ Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Title:___________________________ County Executive
__________
Item 5.5. Draft Planning Commission minutes for September 10 and September 17, 2002, was
received for information.
__________
Item 5.6. Letter dated October 31, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Admini- stration,
to Allan and Ada Kindrick, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 20,
Parcel 10A and Tax Map 32, Parcels 1&2 (Property of Allan and Ada Kindrick) Section 10.3.1, was
received as information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked if it is a legal requirement that this and the letter under 5.7 be a
part of the consent agenda. Mr. Tucker said the Board had asked years ago that this information be
provided to it. Ms. Thomas said as a matter of cost savings, if no Board member is reading these letters,
she wonders if the letters could just be noted as being received and filed instead of photocopying and
mailing each to the Board members.
Mr. Martin said he only looks at letters concerning properties in his district. Mr. Tucker said at the
time staff began issuing these letters, it was suggested that the information be shared with Board members.
Several Board members indicated that they do read these letters. Ms. Thomas said the copies
should continue to be mailed to the Board members.)
___________
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Item 5.7. Letter dated October 31, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration,
to J. T. Henley, Jr., re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 6, Parcels 15
& 17 (Property of Henley Forest, Inc.) Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Appeal: SDP-02-022. Pavillion at Riverbend Preliminary Site Plan. Request
to construct 2,770 sq ft bldg & parking for purposes of operating vehicle rental & maintenance fac (i.e.
U-Haul) w/in Rt 250 EC. Two SUPs (one for motor vehicle sales & rental in urban area) & the other for
outdoor storage & display were recently approved by the BOS. TM 78, P 17A, contains 2.478 acs. Znd C1.
Loc on Newhouse Dr just off Rt 250 by Rivanna River. Rivanna Dist.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is an appeal of two conditions that were part of the approval of the site
development plan for the Pavillion at Riverbend. The site plan, at the request of this Board, was sent back
to the Planning Commission after approval of the two special use permits which apply to the property.
Essentially, staff had recommended 11 conditions for approval of the preliminary site plan. The Planning
Commission added two additional conditions. One calls for an alternative solution to the riprap to be used
to channel runoff from the property. Second, they required a minimum of 40 to 50 native trees at least six
to eight feet in height be planted on the edge of the pavement and on the new property line to protect the
greenway from the parking lot and the vehicles that will be parked there. The applicant has taken issue
with those two conditions. He thinks 40 to 50 trees are more than are necessary in this location, and
second, the riprap channels conveying the stormwater are primarily an aesthetic issue.
Mr. Cilimberg said he has talked with the Greenways Coordinator regarding the plantings. He
thinks 40 to 50 trees may be excessive for this location, but he did not know the number that would be
necessary. He feels the most appropriate way to address this issue would be to meet with the applicant on-
site after the leaves are off of the trees. Mr. Cilimberg pointed to a conceptual site plan drawn up and
reviewed by the ARB. He said the Greenways Coordinator, Dan Mahon, is present and can speak to the
issue.
Mr. Cilimberg said he also spoke to the County Engineer about the riprap channel. Mr. Mark
Graham said he thinks it is purely an aesthetic matter, so he has no recommendation for an alternative to
the riprap.
Mr. Davis said this is preliminary site plan approval. Those issues would be addressed as part of
the final site plan, and that is when the Planning staff would determine whether the landscaping plan was
sufficient to meet the special use permit condition. This appeal is basically just an argument about what the
applicant needs to submit for final site plan approval.
Mr. Martin said the condition requiring 50 trees seems to be specific. The applicant either meets
that condition or he does not. Also, saying there cannot be riprap is very specific. That is not negotiable at
the site plan level. Mr. Davis said as the conditions stand now, the applicant would need to submit a site
plan showing 40 to 50 trees, and then have to submit a site plan that does not show riprap.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cilimberg to point out the proposed location of the riprap. Mr. Cilimberg said
the applicant has noted in the appeal that the locations would be behind the dumpster fence and in the
vehicle storage area. He said it would be at the lower end of the slope of the parking area and would send
the water through the bio-filter.
Mr. Rooker said this was a highly debated request. He thinks the Commission recommended
denial, but the Board granted approval. The Board debated the visual impact of this use on the River and
the greenway. He wonders if the view from the other side of the River is being adequately considered with
respect to the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg referred the Board to Attachment D in the staffs report which sets
=
out the original conditions of approval by the Board. Mr. Rooker said regardless of what the Board decides
today, it needs to make sure that original Condition No. 4 is addressed with the planting plan.
Mr. Martin asked if the applicant will be allowed to speak.
Ms. Thomas said this is not a public hearing, but she invited the applicant to speak at this time.
Mr. Clark Gathright from the firm of Daggett & Grigg Architects was present to speak for the
applicant. He said that the Board had requested that the Planning Commission reconsider the site plan
after it approved the special use permits. The applicant feels the 40 to 50 trees is excessive. They had
worked with County staff which recommended 20 trees. The site below the developed area will be covered
with a heavy thicket. One cannot walk through it or see through it. They are considering planting red cedar
trees since there are quite a few already in place in that thicket. In trying to stay out of the existing canopy
area they would be preserving the existing screen. Putting in 40+ trees would require the cutting of some
existing trees in order to do so. Putting in 20 trees would most likely plug all the holes in the existing thicket
and would satisfy Condition No. 4 to screen the greenway.
Mr. Gathright said concerning the condition for riprap, he thinks the Planning Commission went too
far. The riprap cannot be seen from the greenway or the Route 250 corridor because it is in a closed swale
and will not be large rock. The plan has been submitted for final site plan review without showing any riprap
and the Engineering Department noted that riprap is needed. He thinks staff is very competent and is
aware of the conditions. Ultimately, the site is so small that there will not be a great deal of runoff. It can be
designed not to have any riprap. The greenway will be designed to go under Free Bridge which has a
riprap apron to protect the abutments that is about 50 feet by 100 feet long, and the riprap is huge in size.
In the five-foot wide ditch on this property, the riprap would be baseball size. He feels the applicant put forth
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
a good faith effort to work with County staff in a proactive manner, and that agreeable working relationship
gets lost when conditions such as these are imposed. It also diminishes staffs work as well.
=
Mr. Dorrier asked how many trees already exist on the property. Mr. Gathright said the thicket is so
thick and there are so many trees on the property, that they cannot be counted. Also, those trees have
been growing on that bank which was developed for the shopping center over 20 years ago. The trees are
mature enough that they are an excellent screen.
Ms. Thomas asked if any of the slope on which the thicket grows will be disturbed. Mr. Gathright
said no. Ms. Thomas said she does not want to discuss the aesthetics of riprap, but in talking with Dan
A@
Mahon he mentioned that it can look less or more visually intrusive depending on what material is used.
She would like to have some assurance that something other than gray granite would be considered for this
purpose. Mr. Gathright said he had proposed a grass swale which would contain reinforced mess and
allow vegetation to grow through. He said there is not that much runoff. It is only something to slow down
the water as it enters the bio-filter and allow it to absorb. That can be adequately done with a grass swale.
There is not a velocity or quantity issue involved.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that should be left up to the applicant and staff to work out. She is
impressed with Dan Mahons interest in making sure the greenway is worthy of the gift this applicant is
=
giving, and also that the view from the greenway is protected.
Mr. Martin said when the Greenways Planner is in agreement with the staffs original conditions, he
=
thinks the Board should go back to staffs recommendations and move on.
=
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Martin said he would move that the Board approve the original four conditions of staff
concerning SP-2002-010 (Note: see Attachment E). Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas suggested looking at the letter in the packet dated September 19, 2002. Mr. Davis
suggested the Board look at pages 9 and 10 which set out staffs recommended conditions of approval for
=
SDP-02-022, the preliminary site plan for the Pavillion at Riverbend. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had actually
acknowledged in Condition No. 1 of the original recommendation that the words and the conditions of the
A
special use permit be added at the end of that condition. Mr. Davis said that is a requirement whether it is
@
a condition or not. Mr. Cilimberg said it also addresses Mr. Rookers concerns. Mr. Rooker gave second.
=
He said the motion is basically to grant the appeal. Ms. Thomas said that is correct.
Mr. Davis said it would be clearer to just readopt the conditions of approval because this was not an
appeal of a denial, but appeal of an approval which is a little different procedurally.
Mr. Martin read into the record the following conditions:
1. A landscape plan in conformance with Section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance and
the conditions of the special use permit;
2. Provide standard water and sewer general plan notes on the cover sheet;
3. Provide plumbing fixture information for sizing the water meter;
4. Provide a note stating that a backflow prevention device is required on the domestic
water service;
5. Reference the special use permit numbers on the site plan and note all conditions
of the special permit on the site plan;
6. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations;
7. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management;
8. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must
include water quality
9. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee;
10. Drainage computations; and
11. Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls
over five (5) feet in height.
Mr. Bowerman gave second. He said the Board has spent 20 minutes on an item that he does not
believe should have come before it at all. He does not think it is fair to the applicant to do this type of detail
work or design work beyond staff recommendations by the really qualified people on staff. He is concerned
because this is not the first time this has occurred.
Ms. Thomas said that Mr. Cilimberg always describes to the Planning Commission what the Board
has done, and perhaps he can carry that message back to them from at least two members of this Board.
Mr. Martin said he is not sure Mr. Cilimberg should carry that message. Perhaps Mr. Tucker should
do so. Mr. Cilimberg and his staff are the brunt of a lot of the criticism the Commission hears when they
present their work. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission members are this Boards appointees. Mr. Rooker
=
said if a Supervisor feels as if his appointee is in some way not proceeding appropriately on a particular
item, they should talk to that member directly. The Board got the Commissions minutes on their discussion
=
of this item.
Mr. Martin said he agrees, but Mr. Bowerman brought up Mr. Martins thoughts also.
=
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Ms. Thomas said instead of having the applicant stand while the Board carries on this discussion,
the Board should go ahead and vote on the motion.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she speaks for the whole Board when she says they are delighted with the
donation of the property for the greenway. They appreciate the complexity of dealing with the gift. She
personally was devastated that this particular use will be on that property, and voted against the special
permit. However, she thinks the site plan will be worked out to everyones satisfaction.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2002-40. Central Telephone Company of Virginia - Alltel (Sign #89).
Public hearing on a request to allow replacement of microwave dish on existing personal wireless service
facility by amending a special use permit condition (SP-98-21) that prohibits the attachment of additional
dishes, in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.3. TM 61, P 129C, contains approx 1.366 acs Znd CO. Loc on S sd of Rio
Rd E (Rt 631), approx 1/8 ml E of intersec w/Rt 29 N & near Fashion Square Mall. Rio Dist. (Notice of this
public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the proposal is for the replacement of an
existing grid microwave dish which is mounted at 120 feet high on an existing 250-foot tall self-supporting
tower, with a new high performance dish which was originally proposed to be at a height of 100 feet. The
amendment of the special use permit for the existing personal wireless services facilities (SP-98-21) which
was approved to allow the collocation of additional antennas on the existing structure but prohibits any
additional microwave and satellite dishes, is necessary due to those restrictions.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is some history associated with review of this request. Ultimately, after the
first Planning Commission meeting and a deferral, the applicant worked with staff and they came up with
revised conditions meant to address the concerns of the Commission and to resolve some differences
between what staff was recommending and what the applicant actually wanted in the conditions. He said
the applicant did bring back technical information regarding the sizes of the proposed high-performance
microwave dish and mounting brackets. In reviewing schematic drawings, staff determined that the full
depth of the dish proposed is approximately four feet. The schematic drawings show that the distance
between the face of the pole and the back of the dish would be 18 inches. The proposed mounting would
have the same appearance as the existing six-foot high performance dish. That was included in a
photograph which is part of Attachment A. It is basically a drum-type of design.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff then added conditions that reflected the discussion at the Commissions
=
first meeting. The bulk of the conditions that applied to this particular application were under recommended
Condition No. 4, a through f. He said the Commission modified Condition 4a as recommended by staff.
A@A@
That change was to require that the High Performance dish height be not more than 95.5 feet rather than
100 feet. This essentially puts the two drum-type antennas at the same elevation on the pole. He offered
to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas commented that the Board did not receive the October 22 minutes. That is when they
talked about putting the two drums closer together. She thinks that is an example of the applicant having
approved things which to her eye, slightly improves the impact.
Mr. Bowerman said he is surprised that so much stuff can be hung on one antennae.
At this time, Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Peter Caramanis was present to represent Alltel. He said Mr. Cilimberg gave a good summary
of the history of this petition. One thing that was not mentioned was the reason for replacing the dish. He
said the new dish will allow better use of new technology, the capacity to handle a greater volume of calls,
and the existing grid dish is of a type that the FCC is discouraging because they want to free up the
frequencies used by that type of dish. This new dish will accomplish all of those purposes. He emphasized
that Alltel, the Planning staff, the Zoning Administrator, and the County Attorneys Office worked together to
=
work out the conditions before the Board tonight. He thanked all County staff for that work in coming to an
agreement on this application.
Mr. Caramanis said the original proposal was for 100 feet. The Commission preferred that it be
lower and Alltel was able to work out those technical aspects. He asked that the Board approve the
application, and offered to answer questions.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved approval of SP-2002-040, Central Telephone Company of Virginia - Alltel,
subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 22, 2002, by
a vote of 7:0. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The tower shall not be increased in height;
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for
personal wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height
or seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two
(2) feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
c. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall
project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting
equipment, and in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12)
inches from the existing structure. The replacement of omni-directional, whip,
directional or panel antennas in existing antenna arrays shall be subject to this
condition;
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with
brackets that separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may
remain. Provided, however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time,
they shall be flush-mounted as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall
not pertain to the maintenance and/or replacement of a single panel antenna
that malfunctions or is in need of repair.
4. Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at
one time, and only as follows:
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be
replaced by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a
height that is not more than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by
the same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does
not exceed the diameter of the dish being removed, the color of the
replacement dish matches the tower, and the mounting height does not
exceed that of the dish being replaced;
c. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by
a different type of dish if the mounting height is no less than twenty (20) feet
below that of the dish being removed, the diameter of the replacement dish
does not exceed that of the dish being removed, and the color of the
replacement dish matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different
type of dish if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not
satisfy the height requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the
Zoning Administrator. This approval shall only be granted after the submission
of a microwave path survey indicating that the proposed replacement dish will
be mounted at the lowest possible height that allows the system to function. In
such a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the reason(s) why the
proposed height is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the
replacement be higher than the dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the
face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case,
shall the distance between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be
greater than eighteen (18) inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant
shall provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the
existing dish to be removed and its replacement dish, and additional
information demonstrating the mounting distance between the pole and the
dish to the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
5. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by
not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower
and that each user is a personal wireless communications service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance; and
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days
of the date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is
discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is
required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee
shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety
satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an
amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of
surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the
County Attorney.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he would like to mention something that came up during discussion of the last
application. He thinks this is a good example of the Planning Commission spending a lot of time working
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
through something and coming to a good result. He said the Commission meets four or more times a
month, and the meetings go on for hours. Often, the Commission members make judgments the Board
does not agree with, but that is the nature of human beings. For one, he would not want to send a general
message to the Commission commenting on their work.
Ms. Thomas suggested discussing this at the end of the meeting and see if a consensus can be
reached.
Mr. Martin said he does not believe there will be a consensus. He thinks Mr. Rooker was right in his
first statement that each Board member talk with his appointee. He said the record will note what he and
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Rooker said. He does not think the Board members should get into anything
because it will just make a spectacle.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not mean to do that when he brought up the subject.
Mr. Rooker said he wanted to leave it as it was.
Mr. Bowerman said he firmly believes that this Board, like the Commission, takes care of itself.
Whatever they do is a community project.
Ms. Thomas said if anyone wants to make further comments, they can do so at the end of the
meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2002-014. Habitat Services - Garden Center (Sign #25). Public hearing
on a request to allow outdoor storage, display & sales of landscaping materials, including mulch, compost,
topsoil, firewood, fence rails, posts, lumber, trees, shrubs, plants & various garden & landscape products, in
accord w/Secs 30.6.3.2 & 24.2.2.8 (SP-2002-42) contractors office & equipment storage yard of the Zoning
Ord regulations in the HC & ECOD. TM 78, P 33B, contains 2.219 acs. Loc on Rt 250 E, S of I-64 &
adjacent to Seminole Produce. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2002.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2002-42. Habitat Services Garden Center Contractors Storage (Sign #33).
Public hearing on a request to allow contractors office & equipment storage yard, in accord w/Sec 24.2.2.8.
A special use permit (SP-2002-14) is being processed concurrently for outdoor storage, display & sales of
landscaping materials, including mulch, compost, topsoil, firewood, fence rails, posts, lumber, trees,
shrubs, plants, & various garden & landscape products, in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2. TM 78, P 33B, contains
2.219 acs. Loc on Richmond Rd (Rt 250 E), S of I-64, & adjacent to Seminole Produce. Znd HC. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as RA & it is w/in an ECOD. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this
public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has requested two special use permits on one parcel. The first is
for a retail garden center in the Entrance Corridor, and the second is for a contractors storage yard.
=
Access would be provided from an existing driveway shared with the adjacent property that is now occupied
by Seminole Produce. The area contains a mixture of rural and agricultural uses, as well as highway
commercial uses. It is bordered by Shadwell, an historic property owned by the Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Foundation. He said the ARB reviewed the proposed uses within the Entrance Corridor and has
not opposed the uses. They did establish conditions of approval.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted several factors which are favorable to the request. It is a transitional
use and is limited in size, scale and scope. It would be an area adjacent to rural area properties where a
tree protection buffer would be provided for the operation adjacent to that rural area, as well as providing
for the shared use of the driveway for access. It could support the local rural area as an outlet for products.
Mr. Cilimberg said unfavorable factors are: the parking spaces as proposed would abut the
proposed buildings and would cause a pedestrian-vehicle conflict in the driveway. He said that was
addressed by recommended Condition No. 4. Also, it would be a use in general considered more
appropriate in a commercial zone, but existing zoning does allow for this use. He said the Planning
Commission recommended approval at its meeting on October 8, 2002, subject to 12 conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked about Condition No. 12 The use authorized by SP-2002-014 shall only operate
A
during daylight hours. The Commission minutes say that SP-2002-042 does not need Condition 12, so
@
that condition can be deleted. She asked if Condition No. 12 is out, or in. Mr. Cilimberg said there are two
special permit requests involved. The Board can put the same conditions on both permits, or there can be
two separate sets of conditions, and No. 12 can be left off of SP-2002-042. He suggested that the same
set of conditions be used on both permits. The applicant had expressed some concern about his
landscaping business, i.e., the contractors aspect needing some activity before daylight. That was
=
acceptable to the Commission. Ms. Thomas said that means the word operate refers to retail sales. Mr.
A@
Cilimberg said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak at this time.
Ms. Stewart H. Stevens was present. He offered to answer questions. He brought with him tonight
an enlargement of the site plan which he also submitted to the ARB. Also, he brought a photograph of his
wayside stand as it exists.
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2002-014 and SP-2002-042 with the
12 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the site layout plan titled,
"SP-2002-014 Habitat Services Stewart Stevens Phase 1 and Phase 2" and dated
May 28, 2002, and revised July 22, 2002;
2. The wayside stand permitted under SDP-2002-42 shall be voided upon the
commencement of SP-2002-014 and/or SP-2002-042;
3. No tree removal or clearing shall be permitted beyond that expressly stated in the
site layout plan titled "Site Layout Plan SP-2002-014 Habitat Services Stewart
Stevens Phase 1 and Phase 2" and dated May 28, 2002, and revised July 22, 2002;
4. A separation of a minimum of four (4) feet between parking stalls and structures
shall be required;
5. A final site plan approval shall be required;
6. Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the equipment storage
area shall be screened to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor;
7. The height of stored equipment shall not exceed the screening;
8. Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the piles of landscape
material shall be contained and displayed neatly and/or screened from the Entrance
Corridor;
9. The area for the storage/display of non-plant materials (other than the five [5] piles)
shall be appropriately screened from the Entrance Corridor as determined by the
Architectural Review Board;
10. Subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board, the storage of landscape
materials shall not occur within thirty (30) feet of the front property line and must be
appropriately screened;
11. The plant materials may be displayed within thirty (30) feet of the front of the
property line with the display approved by the Planning Department Design Planner;
and
12. The use authorized by SP-2002-014 shall only operate during daylight hours.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2002-043. Crown Orchard (Signs #26& 27). Public hearing on a request
to allow construction of digital broadcast television facility 250-foot tall tower structure mounted with 50-foot
tall antenna, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 91, P 28, contains 234.165 acs. Znd RA. Loc
on Carter's Mountain Trail, approx 1 ml S of intersec w/Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Rt 53). Scottsville Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicants proposal is for construction of a
=
digital broadcast television facility using a 250-foot tall lattice tower structure mounted with a 50-foot tall
antenna at a site maintained by the Virginia Broadcasting Corporation for its WVIR-TV television station. It
will include the removal and replacement of the existing equipment building at the site. Approval will enable
WVIR to undertake the transition from its current analog system to the Federally-mandated digital
broadcast that must be functional no later than December 31, 2006.
Mr. Cilimberg said the facility is located within an existing tower farm at the top of Carters Mountain
=
on property owned by Crown Orchard Company. There are existing facilities with towers that range
between 60 and 300 feet in height located on this property. He said staff has estimated that there are 12
existing towers in this tower farm. That includes the existing WVIR tower. There is an additional tower
A@
which has been approved for that mountaintop location for the Emergency Communications Center (ECC)
facility.
Mr. Cilimberg said while the Countys Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy does not apply
=
directly to this proposal, it does encourage other types of facilities to adhere to the policy to the extent
possible. Staff attempted to address some of the concerns that are set forth in the manual for mitigating
visual impacts through several suggestions. One is collocating the digital antenna on the existing guyed
tower. The applicant responded that engineering studies have determined that the 30-year old tower which
currently holds the 4000-pound analog antenna is incapable of also accommodating the additional 4000-
pound load of the proposed digital antenna.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that is because they must have two antenna at the same time while the
transition takes place.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. He said the other possibility is accommodating both on the new
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
tower. It would be sound enough to support both, but the applicant said undertaking that option would
require that they cease their television broadcast and they could lose their license for that transition period.
Staff also discussed the possibility of requiring the removal of the existing tower once the analog signal
antenna is no longer needed. The applicant said they are bound by a contractual agreement on the
property which allows the property owner to assume control of the existing guyed tower once it is no longer
used for the analog antenna. Staff did not pursue that idea further.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant of this petition is Crown Orchard. Mr. Cilimberg said Crown Orchard
is the owner. It is the applicants point that the tower reverts to Crown Orchard. Staff did not pursue that
=
because of its location among a number of towers. Staff thought the existing tower might be used for other
activities that would be allowed through the Wireless Policy. It was a point of a rather long discussion by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff found some factors which are favorable to the request. First, it would allow
WVIR to meet its requirements with the FCC, renovation of the ground equipment building would not be
visible from areas outside of the facility, and no additional clearing of vegetation would be necessary. Staff
did note that the proposed digital broadcast tower would be skylighted, and that was an unfavorable factor.
Staff recommended approval subject to nine conditions. During the Planning Commissions consideration
=
of this request on October 8, 2002, by a vote of 5:2, they recommended approval subject to eleven
conditions, rewriting staffs condition No. 7, and adding Condition No. 10 and Condition No. 11.
=
At this time, Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Greg Duncan said he represents WVIR-TV. He said he would like to make a couple of
corrections to Mr. Cilimbergs presentation. There are currently eleven towers on the mountain, with the
=
twelfth to be added soon. Also, WVIRs proposed tower will not hold two antennas. He knows Mr. Dorrier
=
has visited the site, spoken with their engineers, and spent a good deal of time on this issue. He said the
television station is being required to make the transition from analog to digital in order to better serve the
citizens. In order to do so, they need a new tower on which to put the digital antenna. They are required
to broadcast both digital and analog at least until December 31, 2006, or until 85 percent of the market is
digital capable.
Mr. Duncan said that in 1972 when they first got permission for the analog tower, there were no
conditions of any nature placed on their ownership or disposition of that tower. Accordingly, they felt they
could dispose of it as they chose. When they cease using that tower, it will become the sole property of
Crown Orchard, LLP. They will have no control over it at that time.
Mr. Rooker said he had a question. Once the new tower is in operation, will WVIR be using the old
tower at all? Mr. Duncan said they will be using the tower until December 31, 2006. The FCC will tell them
when they have to go off of the air on the analog side. It will not be done prior to that date. He believes it is
in the best interests of the citizens of Albemarle to allow that station to continue to operate. The station has
done a lot for the community over the past 30 years. They also provide access to the emergency alert
system which was designed to alert the citizens of the County in the event of a national, state or local crisis.
In light of the current situation around the world, he does not think access to that emergency service should
be underestimated. Sadly, if this petition is denied, most likely the TV station would have to relocate. Their
license depends on their changing to digital transmission. He reiterated that staff recommended approval
subject to conditions, as did the Planning Commission. He asked that the petition be approved with the
conditions of the Commission.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing at this time.
Mr. Jeff Werner was present to represent the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC). He said he
was not present to voice either support or opposition to the proposal. He wishes to introduce three issues
for possible discussion. First has to do with removal of the old tower. The staff report offers a rather
confusing reason for not removing the old tower. The applicant provided certification that the exiting tower
must be replaced as it is 30 years old, it was designed and built under different standards than those
existing today, and it is unable to accommodate significant additional loading. The applicant also asserted
that the tower should be left standing to eliminate the need to build a new tower in the future as others
needing tower space could rent it. The applicant also contends the old tower cannot be removed due to a
contractual agreement between the same two parties on the application. He understands that the new
tower will replace the existing tower. Why would the County allow an obsolete, unused tower to remain
standing? Are the Countys land use regulations subordinate to this private agreement?
=
Mr. Werner said his next point has to do with visibility. The tone of the staff report seems to suggest
two conflicting views on the visual impact of the proposed tower. On one hand, the site is in a tower farm.
On the other, staff notes that the clustering of towers may result in an unsightly mess. The conclusion is
that this area has already been altered, so what is one more unsightly intrusion? The impact of this single
additional tower was considered inconsequential when compared to the cumulative impact of all the other
towers already there. PEC must voice concern for this rationale. It is important to determine what initiated
the dismissal of this place. Was it when there were ten existing towers, or fewer? This is an important
question as there are other sites and places in Albemarle that might also be deemed altered when
something is proposed there. How close are those sites to being considered already altered?
Mr. Werner said his third point concerns opportunity. If approval is granted, is there any way that
this 250-foot tall tower could be used for the 800-MHz transmitter slated for another new tower on Carters
=
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mountain? As a means to save some money, could there not be some condition of collocation for that
transmitter on this new tower?
Ms. Thomas said she had not thought about Mr. Werners last point, and all of a sudden it makes a
=
lot of sense.
Mr. Davis said staff contacted Mr. Wayne Campagna today, and asked him to look at this issue. He
thinks timing is a major disconnect because there is no guarantee that this tower will be in place at the time
the County needs to enable the 800 MHZ system due to license requirements. He said there may be an
opportunity to further discuss this.
Mr. Tucker said he must look at the structural integrity of the tower to see if it could handle that
transmitter. That is a good point, and something that should be looked at.
Ms. Thomas said she remembers the Board was told there were no existing towers on Carters
=
Mountain which could handle this request, but this will be a new tower. She asked if the applicant knows
what the Board is talking about. She asked if this is anything which they had investigated.
Mr. Harold Wright, Vice President and General Manger of WVIR, was present. He wondered at the
time the discussion of the ECC tower was going on why they did not contact anyone with facilities located on
Carters Mountain and ask if the equipment could be mounted on an existing tower. He was never
=
contacted, but at the present time because there is a 4000-pound antenna on a tower built to support a
4000-pound antenna and to support a few microwave dishes, more weight cannot be placed on the tower.
Once WVIR abandons use of the tower and the 4000-pound antenna on the top is removed, the tower
could support lots of other structures. He thinks there is some confusion in the Countys requirements. The
=
Planning Commission in granting approval of the new tower said nothing else could be placed on the tower
except WVIRs own equipment. He does not think that is in the Countys best interest. Their plan was to
==
build a new tower that could support some additional weight. There is no reason for them to build such a
tower if they cannot put anything on it except their own equipment. When
WVIR ceases analog broadcasting, if the 4000-pound antenna on top of the old tower is removed, that
tower could support a lot of light weight microwave dishes.
Ms. Thomas asked about the new tower. Mr. Wright said the new tower, since it is not yet
constructed, can be built to support anything. He has authorization from the owners of WVIR-TV to
construct the tower with capacity beyond what they require. But, if the Board approves the request with the
Planning Commissions recommendation, he is limited in what he can do, and the landlord also has to
=
approve what is put on the property.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to amend the special use permit at some future time with
respect to an addition to the tower. He said that generally collation has been allowed where it makes
sense. He asked if the analog antennas could be moved to the new tower once it is in operation. Mr.
Wright said that under the best conditions (without wind), it would take two weeks of being off of the air in
order to move that 4000-pound antenna which is also 55 feet long. When they went to high power in 1993
and replaced the antenna, it took about a month to do the project. Neither economically or under FCC
regulations can they sign off for two weeks and go dark and leave the community without television service.
Mr. Davis asked when WVIR plans to build the tower. Mr. Wright said it will occur as soon as
possible. He has a six-month extension from the FCC and that expires on December 1. The FCC was
behind in granting construction permits. Originally, they granted the construction permit in March, 2001,
giving one year to construct. It took a year to reach an agreement with the landlord. Then, the FCC, in
June, 2002, gave a six-month extension, and that runs out December 1. He has to put a low power, 1000-
watt temporary transmitter in operation before December 1 with a tiny 60-pound antennae which sits on the
side of the present tower so he can meet the FCC regulation that says he has to be on the air by December
1. He said this is a Federally-mandated thing. This will only serve about 10 miles out of Charlottesville.
When the main antennae is in place, it will radiate 1,000 kilowatts and reach the present coverage area.
Mr. Bowerman asked what signal will be given to the cable companies. Is that independent of the
air signal? Mr. Wright said the cable company is not required at this time to carry his digital signal. They
have to carry the analog signal. The FCC has chosen to require WVIR to get on the air, but they have
chosen not to require the cable companies to carry it.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the cable companies pick up the signal off of the air or is it a different
signal. Mr. Wright said they pick it up off of the air just like the antennae on someones roof.
=
Ms. Thomas said when those in local government complain about unfunded mandates, they will
remember this case. Mr. Wright said this is a $2.5 million unfunded mandate for WVIR.
Ms. Thomas said combining the 800 MHz radio system with this new tower is an intriguing
possibility. Yet, the timing is very tight. How fast can Mr. Campagna get an answer to this question? Mr.
Davis said that can probably be done quickly, but there may be a timing problem if WVIR does not need the
tower until 2006.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County has a lease at this time with Crown Orchard. Mr. Davis said
there is a ground lease.
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen to that lease if there was collocation on WVIRs tower.
=
Mr. Wright said if WVIRs request is approved, he has been instructed to immediately design the tower and
=
get it built next summer. That would give time if some agreement were reached, but he does not know
what would be required.
Mr. Bowerman said Crown Orchard would have to agree. Mr. Wright said they would have to agree
to it under his lease. Mr. Bowerman said he does not think the Board would be saving the $60,000 per year
for its lease anyway. Ms. Thomas said the construction money would be saved.
Mr. Bowerman asked what new negotiations would do to WVIRs contract. Mr. Wright said under
=
his contract with Crown Orchard, putting tenants on that tower requires him to give 75 percent of any rental
fees to them, and he has to have their permission first. That has always been the requirement under his
lease. He has never rented any space because he will not pay the landlord 75 percent.
Mr. Rooker said the County would need to work out something with Crown Orchard first.
Mr. Davis said the Board might want to consider amending the conditions of the special use permit
to allow the collocation of the 800 MHz system so that if by any chance it could be worked out, there would
be no need to go back through the special use permit process.
Ms. Thomas said that Condition No. 7 would need to be changed. There is also something about
the size. Mr. Wright said it calls for a 25-foot footprint because that is what WVIR requested. If the weight
of additional equipment were too great, that footprint would have to grow.
Mr. Martin asked if it would hurt WVIRs process if this petition were deferred until the Boards first
==
meeting in December so the Board might rework these conditions. Mr. Wright said that would be
acceptable. He can only do design work during the wintertime. Mr. Martin said he will say right now that he
is in favor of approval, and would be willing to have it placed on the consent agenda with modifi-cations.
The only thing that would be changed would be to allow WVIR to build the tower in a way so it could handle
collocation.
Mr. Rooker asked if there would be any problem with a condition that requires that the old tower
come down when it is no longer being used for analog broadcasts. Mr. Wright said he does not have the
power to consent to such a condition. He can take the antenna down, and that is all. It is WVIRs tower
=
until they cease using it, and then it becomes the property of Crown Orchard.
Mr. Rooker said WVIR would have to use the tower until the FCC no longer requires it to provide an
analog signal. Mr. Davis said the condition does not require that the tower be dissembled until the analog
signal is discontinued.
Mr. Martin said he heard Mr. Wright clearly say that WVIR will no longer own the tower at that point.
Mr. Davis said if this proposed condition is added, the landowner could simply say he will not let WVIR build
a new tower if the condition requires that the old tower be taken down. Mr. Martin said the landowner is
clearly expecting that the tower can be used for other uses when WVIR no longer uses the tower.
Mr. Rooker said the counter argument to that is: when the Board has dealt with a tower which does
not conform to its policy, it has required that the old tower come down. In fact, in the Ashcroft case, the
Board also required that the height of the new tower be reduced. Here, the only issue is that if the old tower
continues to stand after the new tower is built, it is a non-conforming tower. He does not think it is a good
precedent to set. The Board should require that when the tower is no longer being used for analog
purposes, the tower come down.
Mr. Martin said he just heard Mr. Wright say that if that condition is placed on the request, they
cannot continue.
Mr. Rooker said Crown Orchard is the applicant, and they would have to come forward and say
they will not accept that condition. Then, the Board would have to deal with it. In most tower situations,
there is the person who owns the tower, and then there is the landowner who has to be the applicant. If that
were the case, the Board could never require that an old tower be removed. The incentive for Crown
Orchard is that they are getting a new tower which would last longer and produce revenue longer. Right
now, if a non-conforming tower comes down, they would need a new special use permit. The landowner
will get revenue from this new tower, so he has an incentive to have the tower built. If the old tower is
allowed to remain standing, the landowner gets a windfall. In this case that windfall is at the expense of the
Countys policy to avoid having skylighted large towers on top of mountains.
=
Mr. Martin said if he is being told that what Mr. Rooker is suggesting cannot happen without the
possibility of WVIR shutting down, then he thinks that is ludicrous. Mr. Wright said it would put him back to
square one. It took him one year to get permission from the landlord to build the new tower. To do what
Mr. Rooker suggests, wipes out their agreement. If the County does not allow WVIR to build a tower in
Albemarle County, they will have to go elsewhere and find a County which will allow them to build.
Ms. Thomas said she believes Crown Orchard is betting that there will be another use for the tower
and rental fees will be collected for that use. It is just as possible that a new user will not want to use that
old tower, but will want a new tower. At that point, could the Board deny the applicant approval of a permit
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
if the old tower were not removed? Mr. Davis said the Board could require that the old tower be removed in
order to put up a new tower. Legally the Board could do that for this application, but the Board would be
putting this applicant at the mercy of the property owner.
Mr. Wright said the reason there is some urgency is that the FCC wants WVIRs old analog
=
frequencies back. When they cease to use Channel 29, the government will sell it, so there will be some
service that will want to use that frequency. He said it is the intent of Congress to sell off all the analog
television frequencies in the United States.
Mr. Rooker said being at the mercy of the landlord is true of all the recommended conditions. If he
does not like these conditions, he could say no. Mr. Davis said unless their lease covers the condition
A@
otherwise. Mr. Rooker said the landlord doesnt have to do anything. Mr. Wright said the lease contains
=
one caveat which protects him. If he is unable to get permission from any governing authority to build the
tower, he can cancel the lease.
Mr. Martin said he would MOVE approval of SP-2002-043 with the 12 conditions recommended.
He is making the motion because he has heard that the Board cannot do what Mr. Rooker wants to do. He
is putting a motion on the floor and if it is seconded and there is a vote, he does not think the Board can
beat this issue any further. Whatever the Board tries to do at this point, it is locking Mr. Wright down in a
way so Channel 29 will not continue to exist.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Ms. Thomas said there are two separate issues. She said the Board can discuss getting rid of the
old tower, but then there is the issue of the 800 MHz system.
Mr. Martin said he is not sure now that he is even willing to defer the request until the December
day meeting. He feels that if it is deferred, the Board may get bogged down and caught up into further
attempts to impose a condition about tearing the other tower down.
Ms. Thomas suggested discussing the issue of taking down the tower in order to reassure Mr.
Martin about that point. Personally, she thinks the 800 MHz opportunity is one that the Board would regret
not pursing.
Mr. Martin said he agrees, but he does not want to go through this whole discussion again about
removing the existing tower.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the Board try to tie the motion down.
Mr. Bowerman asked if WVIR removes the antenna from the tower and somebody else comes in
with a request to put up a different antenna on that tower, does that have to go through the special use
permit process? Mr. Cilimberg said it would depend on the type of tower. The ordinance allows for up to
three array of personal wireless antenna, by right, on an existing structure. If the request were for
something other than that, there would be a special use permit process required. Mr. Davis said the only
exception is if there is an existing special use permit for the existing tower that limits the number of
antennas.
Mr. Bowerman said if that were the case, the request would have to come to the Board and the
Board could require that things be done to the tower at that point. He said the Board has some discretion if
it is other than personal wireless. Mr. Cilimberg said for personal wireless, the request would probably be
for the flush-mounted antenna. He said that is why staff held out the possibility that the old tower might
provide that option in lieu of other locations for personal wireless facilities. Mr. Davis said those by-right
arrays have very specific requirements that they have to meet in order to locate on a tower. Mr. Cilimberg
said all of that is spelled out in the supplementary regulations.
Mr. Bowerman said he understand Mr. Wright has no incentive to build a tower for 6000 pounds as
an economic venture because he would not get much of the revenue, so the only reason he would build it is
because he had agreed to.
Mr. Martin asked if the County would be able to negotiate something before Mr. Wright puts in a
request for his specs. Mr. Bowerman said it will cost money to put that 6000 pounds on the tower. Mr.
Martin said it is possible for the ECC to collocate.
Mr. Bowerman said he is looking at it from all the different angles. Mr. Wright said it would require
knowledge of everything the ECC wishes to put on the tower. That would be submitted to the tower design
company and they would say how the structure had to be designed to hold whatever is required to be put
on. Mr. Bowerman said it would cost more than a 4000 pound tower. Mr. Wright said it would, but would
not be a significant increase in cost. The cost of the tower, not including the assembly, is about $120,000.
Strengthening the tower is probably only $20,000+ in additional costs.
Mr. Bowerman asked who would actually sign a lease with the ECC. Would it be Crown Orchard or
would it be WVIR? Mr. Davis said WVIR would give Crown Orchard 75 percent of the rental fee, and the
ECC already has an agreement with Crown Orchard which provides Crown a rental fee for another site.
Ms. Thomas asked the length of the lease. Mr. Davis said it is a long-term lease.
Mr. Rooker said he will withdraw his interest in having the second tower removed as a condition for
approval of this permit. He is in favor of approval of the application with the conditions recommended.
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Hopefully, a condition can be worked out between now and December 4 concerning accommodating the
ECC.
Mr. Martin said he will modify his motion to defer SP-2002-043 until the Boards first meeting in
=
December. This is being done by agreement of the Board members that an agreement is still to be worked
out which would possibly allow the County to collocate the ECC equipment, along with this special use
permit.
Mr. Davis said staff will report to the Board in December whether that is feasible or desirable based
on Mr. Campagnas analysis.
=
Mr. Dorrier said if it is not compatible, then the Board will vote this petition up or down on December
4. He gave second to this motion.
Mr. Tucker said that hopefully this matter can be included on the consent agenda for that date.
Mr. Perkins wondered if the ECC could be located on the new tower, and then when the analog
tower is no longer in use by WVIR, if the ECC could be moved to that tower.
At this time, Ms. Thomas asked for a roll call on the motion, which passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Mr. Perkins reported on his attendance at the VACO Annual Conference. He attended a session
on Rural Rustic Roads and heard about a pilot program in Augusta County. They did six roads at just a little
over ten percent of normal construction costs. He has asked Mr. Tucker to make a report to the Board at
the December 4 Board meeting. He suggested that the County look at this with VDOTs assistance, and
=
identify roads in the County where this program would work. It is a tremendous savings of money. There
are many benefits. There was the Pave-in-Place program which did not work, but this program may work.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he attended another session where the legislative package was adopted. The
session included the reports of the Resolutions Committee that will go to the General Assembly. He will
share the information with anyone who requests him to do so.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he attended a session at the VACO conference concerning natural resources.
They discussed the Governor's emergency water measures. The person making the presentation used to
work for State government in the area of water quality. He now works for the Governor strictly on water
management. He talked a lot about groundwater runoff and groundwater needs. He said the Central
Virginia area has been the hardest hit by the drought. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this gentleman, Mr. David
Paylor, should be invited to speak at a Board meeting on water-related issues.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Paylor has met with Larry Tropea and staff members. Ms. Thomas said the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority had a thorough meeting with Mr. Paylor, but if the Board members would
like to meet with him, that can be arranged.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he also attended a session on economic development where they looked at
Hanover County policies and Washington County policies. He was impressed by the head of economic
development for the state. He had a booklet of recommended economic development policies for all
localities in the state. He gave his copy to Mr. Tucker so it can be shared with others. The information
contained therein is very thorough and informative.
Ms. Thomas said there are already several pages concerning economic development in the
Countys Comprehensive Plan.
=
__________
Mr. Rooker said the University of Virginia will be undertaking about $90.0 million in construction
over the next few years. Hopefully, this will take up some of the slack in employment due to closings of
some facilities in the area. They also plan to add 4000 to 7000 new students over the next five or more
years. He recently spoke with Mr. Blake Caravati and the City thinks this means an additional 15,000 to
20,000 people in the community. That could result in significant growth in both population and economics.
Mr. Martin said he hopes that anything the County wants to build is advertised before this
construction begins. The County will be in serious competition for workmen at that time.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said he has been asked if anything is being resubmitted for the proposed Buck
Mountain Creek reservoir. Mr. Tucker said no. It is still part of the long-range plan, but it is not part of
A@
Rivannas initial phasing. It is probably out beyond 2025. RWSA can move more quickly on installing the
=
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
bladder on the SFRR, and on the dredging than on the other process.
Mr. Bowerman asked if RWSA should seek approval now. Mr. Tucker said nothing in the regula-
tions has changed since the time when the project was stopped. There is a different administration in office
now, and that might make a difference, but there have been no changes in the actual regulations.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that RWSA should proceed with something. He does not think the
opportunity, if there is one, should pass without making a resubmittal. Mr. Tucker said RWSA has been
pushed by some people to return the land if it is not to be used. They are not prepared to do that.
Mr. Bowerman said something should be done now, even though construction costs are deferred.
Ms. Thomas said raising the height of the SFRR would capture the same water as Buck Mountain
Creek because the creek runs into the South Fork. Raising the height and dredging provides much more
storage capacity.
Mr. Bowerman said there is another issue. The watershed in which Buck Mountain Creek lies does
not have active farming or a lot of things which degrade the South Fork. He understands it is high quality
water. He is not suggesting building. He is suggesting that RWSA see if it can get around the thing that
A
shot it down before so it is in the arsenal of things that can be done.
@
Mr. Tucker said RWSA would need to change its plans because it just went through an adopted set
of plans on how to move forward.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it was assumed that the possibility was forever dead. Mr. Tucker said no.
A@
It is in the next phase of possibilities, but not in the current plan.
Mr. Rooker said RWSA approved a 30-year capacity plan. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr.
Rooker said there is a 50-year plan, and after that time period nothing has been settled yet. Mr. Tucker
said there are several alternatives, one being Buck Mountain, one the James River. Mr. Rooker said
another proposal is to raise the bladder from four feet to eight feet and that has a cost. He said the
committee has not gone through the study of the 50-year alternatives yet.
Mr. Bowerman said he now has the information he needed to answer the questions he is receiving.
Mr. Tucker said the answer is that RWSA is not disposing of that land. There are people who live in the
area who want the land returned to the original property owners. Mr. Davis said the legal issue has always
been that you have to build the least damaging, environmental, practicable alternative to meet the needs. If
the other projects are less damaging to the environment, and they are practicable, not necessarily cheaper,
then those alternatives have to be used first. That was the hurdle RWSA faced when they started listing all
of the alternatives.
Mr. Martin said it is because of that regulation that he saw some interest in selling the property and
using the proceeds to start buying up property to build toward the James, or moving into Phase 2. Mr. Davis
said the law may change. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to see the recommendations in the
50-year plan first. If that is low on the list of recommendations, that might be the time to decide whether to
sell the property to finance some of the other alternatives. Mr. Tucker said RWSA will be making that
decision when it starts to talk about the four-foot bladder. The bridges across Woodland and the one at
Earlysville will probably have to be raised at that time. It is an inflatable bladder, so they might be able to
add two feet without raising the bridges. One bridge will definitely have to be raised in order to do the four
feet.
__________
Ms. Thomas said at the MPOs meeting yesterday, it made a momentous decision that is only good
=
for one year, but they did not remove the Route 29 Western Bypass from the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). They put a lot of conditions on it. They are putting a lot of trust into the Secretary of
Transportation and the local CTB member that they are actually working on alternatives and will be
arranging for funding of the study of the interchanges or however they can get traffic moving in the present
corridor without a bypass. This is a trust level that has not been had with VDOT in the past, and some are
saying they will be sorry. There has been a lot of unique interest in this matter by these two people. The
unique part was that there was an unanimous vote. The VDOT person who sits on the MPO has not voted
with the rest of the members on the TIP in the past.
Mr. Rooker said after the TIP was approved, he got an E-mail from Mr. Butch Davies indicating that
he would try to get that funding. Mr. Tucker asked if it is funding for the interchange at Hydraulic or other
studies all along Route 29. Mr. Rooker said the study will go from the Route 250 bypass to Rio Road.
There is a second and a third phase. Mr. Tucker asked if it is looked at as a connector from the bypass to
the North Grounds. Ms. Thomas said that was not part of the MPOs conditions. Mr. Rooker said the CTB
=
member is interested in the connector from the North Grounds to the 250 bypass being a grade-separated
interchange and not at grade. Originally, a stop light was proposed on the bypass.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the UnJam Round 2 workshop will be held on Wednesday, November 20, 2002.
This is a hands-on road planning exercise for the public.
__________
Ms. Thomas said at the VACO meeting there was a lot of discussion about the cigarette tax.
VACOs Finance Steering Committee said they did not want to get into the specifics of what taxes the
=
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
General Assembly should raise. Isle of Wight County has requested an endorsement from other counties
for a local cigarette tax option, the same as that afforded cities. They would like to know if Albemarle is
interesting in joining that effort. She asked if any Board members have a problem with the request.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not. Mr. Martin said it is probably one of the easiest taxes to pass. He
does not necessarily want to go on record as supporting it, but would rather wait and see what the General
Assembly does.
Mr. Davis said the TJPDC legislative packet includes a request that counties have the same taxing
authority as cities which would be inclusive of this request. He suggested mentioning it to local legislators if
the Board members support this request.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Land Use Tax lists various categories but aqua-culture is not one of them.
There will be a move in the General Assembly by Stafford County to add that category (fish farms).
Referring to the speaker who spoke at the beginning of the meeting regarding the land use tax, Mr.
Perkins said every problem has a solution, but he does not think that is the solution. In the past the Board
has been committed to land use. There is not one in the County. He thinks it is an important part of how
we do things. He does not see changing. If it costs that much, how much does it save? The savings are
more than the cost because if we didnt have it, there would be development all over the County.
=
Mr. Bowerman asked if it could be reduced and fund the ACE Program with the difference. Mr.
Perkins said people take advantage of the program, but you cant make laws for rich people and poor
=
people.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Perkins. Mr. Martin said that basically the taxpayers are paying
for both the land use program and the ACE Program for what they identify as one of the things they want,
and that is the beauty of Albemarle County. If you are going to live in a growth area, one of the benefits is
being able to go out into the County and enjoy the open space. He talked to a lot of people on election day
who were very intent on controlling all they can see from their one-quarter of an acre. One of the things
that allows some of that is the land use taxation and ACE programs. If you get rid of those programs, and
the person who is complaining about not being able to control all they can see from their property, they will
have less control over what they can see.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with everything Mr. Martin said. With the budget deficit, and with the
staffs statement that budget revenues next year may be flat, and with the pressure for increasing salaries,
=
the Board will have to look really hard at how to balance the budget next year.
Mr. Martin said the Board may not be able to catch up on the salary compensation issue. He
apologizes for not being present at the Boards meeting last week when this matter was discussed.
=
__________
Ms. Thomas said she spent a few days working with people from Hampton Roads and Northern
Virginia on the referenda. Some people think this will create an increased interest by some legislators in
growth management tools. Senator Chichester is going to offer an affordable public facilities bill and
Delegate Bill Howell is also interested. Most would say it will not go very far in the upcoming session, but
just introducing legislation is further than it has gone in the past.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there was discussion at the VACO conference having to do with whether to urge
the General Assembly to abolish the State Compensation Board which announced that it will no longer
work with the budgets of the constitutional officers. They intend to just pass-through the money. If that is all
they intend to do, maybe they should be put out of business. This was suggested as a cost-savings move.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there will be a push in the next Session to take away telecommunication taxes
from the localities because Virginia is a high tax state. The telecommunications industry does not like the
complexity of dealing with all the local taxes. Ms. Thomas said Virginia is actually a very low tax state in the
overall.
__________
Ms. Thomas said three of Albemarle County's requests for legislation got a boost at the VACO
meeting. The request concerning unfunded mandates was put back in VACO's program. There was
interest in subdivision road standards and the Transportation Committee has endorsed that request.
Albemarles County Engineer is going to be appointed to VACO's task force looking at subdivision road
=
standards. Third, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations endorsed a request by
Albemarle for visual quality overlay district enabling legislation. It was a split vote. There were many
strange ideas put forth concerning local zoning by people who had been members of boards of supervisors
for many, many years. She did get Mr. Davis to explain, if not educate, these people about zoning
regulations.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she raised the issue though an E-mail about whether the Board should remove
the message being stamped on building permits about the drought. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bill Brent is
removing the stamp from the building permits the ACSA issues for connections. He said that when it was
done initially, a lot of developers and lenders were concerned, now it is not that big of an issue. He has not
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
heard many complaints. He said the problem is that there is no easy way to measure groundwater, and no
way to know when it is recharged. If the Board thinks this should be considered, it could be
removed temporarily until the Governor decides what he will do with the restrictions he has placed on the
state.
Mr. Rooker said he concurs with what Mr. Tucker has suggested.
Ms. Thomas asked if a motion is needed to do that. Mr. Tucker said yes.
A@
Mr. Rooker moved that the Board temporarily stop placing the legend on building permits
concerning ability to hook up to a well. Mr. Bowerman gave second to the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Tucker said that two or three months ago, the County was notified that the Wachovia Opera-
tions Facility on Fifth Street Extended was on the market for sale. Staff has been reviewing the long-term
space needs of the County, and this particular facility would provide space to meet the Countys present
=
and long-term operational needs at a substantial savings compared to other alternatives studied. The cost
of the property is $7.0 million, and it would provide an additional 100,000 square feet of space for County
operations. It would eliminate the need for a new public safety building which had already been
programmed in the Countys Capital Improvements Program in 2004-05 at a cost of $11.6 million. This will
=
also provide the flexibility of relocating other services within the County identified as needing more space.
Mr. Tucker said the purchase of the Wachovia property would meet the Countys space needs for
=
the next 25 years for substantially less money than any other proposed alternative. Estimated capital costs
to purchase and renovate the Wachovia property for current needs are estimated to be approxi-mately
$10.5 million. That figure reflects a total estimated savings in construction costs of at least $10.0 million
through 2025 compared to other alternatives. He said this is an excellent opportunity for the County not
only because the debt service has already been programmed in the capital program and it is a perfect time
to finance a project such as this because of the extremely low interest rates.
Mr. Tucker then requested approval to move forward with acquisition of the Wachovia Operations
Center property which would allow the County a 60-day study and inspection period with anticipated closing
within 90 days.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin and seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this will be financed through a lease/purchase agreement. Mr. Tucker said
yes. Mr. Bowerman asked if the motion should make mention of this because it is not going to the voters
A@
for approval of financing. This is a big chunk of money. Mr. Tucker said staff is looking at having the IDA
finance this project through bonds. Whether it has to come back for this Board to take action, he is not
sure. Mr. Davis said that ultimately this Board would need to adopt a resolution in support of such an IDA
bond issue. If the Board is willing to support that concept, there are a lot of things which must take place
first in order for that financing to occur, and there is some urgency in moving forward with those steps
including a bond rating and other financing documents.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Mr. Breeden did an analysis of the alternatives for financing this
purchase. The IDA route saves the County a tremendous amount in interest payments. Mr. Tucker said it
is between $70,000 and $90,000 per year.
Mr. Davis said that after approval of the motion on the floor a separate motion authorizing staff to
go forward with an IDA financing would be helpful.
Ms. Thomas said there is a motion on the floor. She suggested that the Board hold a public
hearing at some point in this process. She is comfortable going ahead with the motion at this point. She
then asked for a roll call. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Martin then made motion that staff move forward with IDA financing for the Wachovia property.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Ms. Thomas asked if that motion was useful to staff. Mr. Tucker said it was adequate. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Davis said there is one more related matter. As part of the purchase agreement, there is a
proposal for Wachovia to lease back 30,000 square feet of space for up to one year. While the County is
November 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
planning for its use and conversion of the building for County purposes, this proposal would allow the
County to generate substantial revenue. One of the legal requirements before entering into a lease is to
hold a public hearing. Staff requests the Board to authorize that public hearing to be set.
Ms. Thomas asked if that would be the proper time to have a public hearing on the whole proposal.
Mr. Martin said he was not at the last closed session about the purchase of property, but he is
concerned about having a public hearing when we've basically approved the purchase.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned about that also. The Board has basically authorized the purchase
of the property. The financing arrangement that has been suggested is probably the way 75 percent or
more of public projects are financed. He is not sure what the Board would be having a public hearing on
since it has authorized the purchase of the property.
Mr. Dorrier said the Industrial Development Authority has a public hearing on its issuance of the
bonds.
Ms. Thomas said the Board could stop the whole process since it has not put out any money. She
thinks it is a good opportunity, but is uncomfortable doing something this major without any public
discussion.
Mr. Rooker asked if the contract has a study period. Mr. Davis said there is a 60-day inspection
period where the County can cancel the agreement. There might be circumstances where the County
could cancel the agreement if something significant were found to be wrong with the property. In order to
meet deadlines, some substantial costs would be incurred in architectural costs, in studying the property, in
title search fees, and for the financing process. By the time, the Board held a public hearing, there would
have been significant costs incurred.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think it is necessary to hold a public hearing, although he does not
object to holding one. The expenditure of these funds is already included in the capital improvements
budget. The CIP budget never specifies a property where a school will be built, or whatever. In fact, what is
seen here is a savings of millions of dollars from what was already included in the CIP which went to public
hearing and was unanimously approved by this Board. He does see this as being different from any other
item in that budget. It is certainly a unique opportunity to fulfill an approved capital project. There are
actually several projects combined into this one project and it saves a huge amount of money.
Ms. Thomas said she just thinks the Board needs to let the public make comments.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Cilimberg just reminded him that the Planning Commission will have to review
this project for its compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. That will require a public hearing. Mr. Davis
said that will be scheduled before the Commission during this 60-day period.
Ms. Thomas said that is helpful, because that is more the issue.
Mr. Rooker said that is a good point because the spending of the money in effect has been
approved. The land use issues have not been studied.
Ms. Thomas said that is a good reminder that she should have thought about. A motion is needed
to approve the setting of a public hearing for the lease agreement.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to approve setting a public hearing on a lease agreement with
Wachovia which would bring the County about $360,000 a year in income. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 11/13/2002
Initials: EWC