2003-05-07(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 7,
2003, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire 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, Chief of Community Development, David W. Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman,
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. Eric Morris was present for residents of Route 672 (Blufton Road). He had a petition signed by
property owners and residents of the road asking that the Board consider this road for the Rural Rustic
Roads Program. He said this is a dead-end road of about 1.8 miles in length. Residents have met with
VDOT concerning maintenance of the road, and learned that VDOT's recent financial woes caused them to
cut back on staff, thus making maintenance harder. Also, recent Virginia Department of Conversation and
Recreation (VDCR) regulation changes now limit VDOT's ability to clean ditches without an erosion and
sediment control plan. Ms. Theresa Butler, Assistant Resident Engineer, told them that if the road is paved
it would cut VDOT's maintenance costs by about 66 percent. He asked that the Board consider putting this
road into the Six-Year Plan for the Rural Rustic Roads Program.
Mr. Charles Anson said he lives in the Redfields development. He came this morning on behalf of
their homeowners' president to read a letter addressed to Ms. Thomas (see letter which is on file in the
Clerk's Office). He expressed concern that infrastructure and roads are lagging behind current and
pending development within the immediate area. The Redfield Homeowners' Association asks that the
Board utilize and develop resources to make the upgrading of Sunset Avenue Extended and the completion
of the Southern Parkway a simultaneous top priority. They also ask that the Board negotiate with the City
and the University on an extension of Sunset Avenue Extended to Stribling Avenue Extended. As soon as
Redflelds is completed, it will be followed by the development of Mosby Mountain with 120 dwelling units.
In addition, there is development of hundreds of dwelling units at the termination of Sunset Avenue
Extended north of 1-64, and the Granger property is on the threshold of development of another 1100+
dwelling units. With a substantial portion of this new traffic going to the University, Old Lynchburg Road will
have more traffic than it can handle. The Sterling housing development for the University will immediately
add 300 dwellings serving tenants with multiple cars for each apartment. That will impact Old Lynchburg
Road more than Fifth Street Extended and will create a crisis situation on Old Lynchburg Road.
Ms. Thomas said upgrading Sunset Avenue is slated for the year 2011, but VDOT has limited
funds. This will be discussed when taking up the Six-Year Plan, and the Area "B" Study.
Mr. Charlie Trachta asked when the Board is going to talk about the water issue and expanding the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Last year families came before the Board begging to get water. Now
with development going farther out the 29 North corridor, the Board is going to talk about expanding the
water authority for the developers. Also, later, at a work session where the public cannot speak, the Board
will be talking about the North Pointe Development. Many people came to the Planning Commission in
opposition to this request. They have heard that there is a 157-page report on all the corrections made to
that request, but the Commission is not looking at the report. He asked that the Board send it back to the
Commission for another look.
Mr. Tom Olivier came to present the Board with a report published by Defenders of Wildlife which
includes an accounting of the emergence of the bio-diversity protection movement in Albemarle. The
report is based on a meeting held early last year at Wide River, Maryland. There were about 35 planners
and conservationists from around the country to discuss their experiences integrating bio-diversity protection
with local government land use planning and to consider how it can be related to State level bio-diversity
planned development. Defenders of Wildlife were aware of the effort in Albemarle County at the time it
organized the meeting and he was invited to offer thoughts there from local experiences. He gave a copy
of the report to the Chairman. He noted that Scott Clark, Planner, is listed as a contact for Albemarle
County. He said the County's innovative actions in bio-diversity protection, including the willingness of the
Board "to go out on a limb", has been recognized at a national level by a national conservation organization
and is being used as an example of one path by which a community can take steps to deal with this subject.
Mr. John Coleman said he lives at 3635 Preddy Place off of Gilbert Station Road. He came to
express his support for the Rural Rustic Roads Program. It is an excellent opportunity for government to
solve ongoing road problems. He knows this is a type of pavement, but thinks it would actually beautify
roads in the County by eliminating the dust, etc. in the summertime which falls on everything growing along
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
roads. There is a section of Gilbert Station Road being looked at as a candidate for this program. He
asked that the Board consider continuing that onto the bridge at the railroad crossing just before Preddy
Creek.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.14 and 5.17 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining
items for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: December 16(A), 2002; January 8, January 15(A), February 5 and
February 12(A), 2003.
Mr. Dorrier has read the minutes of December 16, 2002 (Afternoon) and found them to be in order
as presented.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of January 8, 2003 (Page 23 beginning with Item 20 to the end)
and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of January 15, 2003 (Afternoon), and February 12, 2002
(Afternoon), and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved. The
minutes of February $, 2003, will be moved to another meeting for approval.
Item 5.2. Proclamation recognizing Senior Center Accreditation.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the following proclamation:
Proclamation
First Nationally Accredited Senior Center in Virginia
Whereas, seniors are an integral aspect of our community, providing wisdom and
lifelong experience that people of all ages can benefit from;
Whereas, Senior Center, Inc. has involved, enriched, and empowered seniors in
Albemarle County since 1960;
Whereas,
Senior Center, Inc. through a wide variety of programs in lifelong learning,
fitness, arts, recreation, travel, and volunteer service has enhanced the ability
of seniors to remain independent so they may remain an asset for all
citizens;
Whereas,
Senior Center, Inc. has facilitated the dignity and self-esteem of seniors, thus
tapping their experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities and enabling them
to continue to contribute to our community; and
Whereas, The National Institute of Senior Centers (NISC) is the accrediting body for
15,000 senior centers nationwide;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors congratulates Senior Center, Inc. for becoming the First
Nationally Accredited Senior Center in Virginia, as awarded by NISC in
November 2002; and
Further Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors calls upon all
citizens to recognize the special contributions that Senior Center, Inc. makes
in enhancing the well-being of seniors and all our community.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier recognized the local senior center as the first nationally accredited senior
center in Virginia. The award was made in November, 2002. He then presented the proclamation to Mr.
Peter Thompson, Director.
Mr. Thompson thanked the County for recognizing them during National Senior Center week for
their accreditation. He said people are living longer and that presents a challenge. Research shows that
seniors need to be kept independent. Staying independent means staying involved and productive, staying
mentally fit, and staying physically fit. The Senior Center offers many programs to help people do this, and
does so without any government support. They have over 2100 members and had almost 46,000
participant hours last year with almost 1000 people a week using the Senior Center. The impact they have
cannot be overestimated. They also do a lot of outreach. Their impact is much larger than the people who
come to the center. They impact the entire community, and appreciate the Board's support.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Dorrier asked how many other senior centers are accredited. Mr. Thompson said there are 84
centers accredited nationwide. This is the only one to achieve this in Virginia. He said there are 15,000
senior centers in America. Next week, May 13, at 3:00 p.m., during National Senior Center Week,
Constance Todd, National Director of the National Institute of Senior Centers, will be here to present their
accreditation and Gov. Mark Warner will also be present.)
Item 5.3. Proclamation recognizing May 2003 as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved.
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH
WHEREAS,
the consequences of teen parenthood tend to lead to a greater chance of
the mother's dropping out of school, obtaining a poorer job and becoming
dependent on welfare; and
WHEREAS,
the children born to teen parents tend to have less supporting and
stimulating home environments, poorer health, lower cognitive development,
worse educational outcomes, more behavior problems, and are more likely
to become teen parents themselves; and
WHEREAS,
eighty-five percent of all pregnancies among adolescents are unintended,
and sexually active teens using no contraception over the course of a year
have a 90 percent chance of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher
Institute; and
WHEREAS,
the teen pregnancy rate in Albemarle County has now decreased for two
years in a row, due in part to effective community prevention efforts that
require ongoing support; and
WHEREAS, teens sexual activity leads not only to unwanted pregnancies but increasingly
to sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS; and
WHEREAS,
forty percent of Albemarle County students who took the 2001 Youth Risk
Behavior Survey reported having had sexual intercourse, and one-third of
those students reported engaging in unprotected sexual activity; and
WHEREAS,
there is an urgent need to increase knowledge and awareness of issues
related to teen pregnancy prevention among young people, parents, youth
leaders and others;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize
MAY, 2003 as
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH
in Albemarle County, Virginia, and call its importance to the attention of
all our citizens.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and presented same to Ms. Laurie
McDade who said she was delighted to receive the proclamation.)
Week.
Item 5.4. Proclamation recognizing May 10 through May 16, 2003, as National Police Memorial
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the following proclamation:
NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK
WHEREAS, May 15 of each year was proclaimed "Police Officer's Memorial
Day" by President John F. Kennedy on October 1, 1962, in honor of those peace officers
who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or become disabled in the
performance of duty; and
WHEREAS, the calendar week in which it falls was proclaimed "Police Week" in
recognition of the service given by the men and women who night and day protect the
citizens through enforcement of our laws; and
WHEREAS, these days of increasing fear, rising crime, reckless acts of violence,
recall to our minds President Kennedy's words of praise for these officers as "truly men
and women of courage, judgment and dedication"; and
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
WHEREAS, we share his sentiments and agree that it is time to remind the public
of the day-by-day heroism of our officers, both those on active duty and those who have
given their lives in the line of duty;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby declare and set aside the week of
May 10 through May 16, 2003, as
NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK
and call upon all citizens to recognize the significant efforts and accomplishments of
these officers.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and then presented it to Mr. Greg
Jenkins, who thanked the Board for its support of the Police Department.)
Week.
Item 5.5. Proclamation recognizing May 11, through May 17, 2003, as Business Appreciation
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following proclamation:
BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK 2003
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is pleased to have a thriving base of business and industry
to support the local economy; and
WHEREAS, these businesses provide essential employment opportunities for the citizens
of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, these businesses provide local revenues from which the entire local citizenry
benefit; and
WHEREAS,
these businesses also make significant contributions in our communities to
promote educational opportunities for our children and promote a variety of
activities which increase the quality of life of the area; and
WHEREAS, we recognize and appreciate these businesses;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on
on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby
recognize our existing businesses, and by virtue of this proclamation give
notice to our citizens that the overall quality of life of our community is
directly and substantially related to the continued vitality and success of
private enterprises;
FURTHER RESOLVED that May 11 through May 17, 2003 is hereby proclaimed as
Business Appreciation Week in the County of Albemarle and we extend our
appreciation for the many businesses that strive to help make this a better
community.
Item 5.6. Resolution to accept road(s) in Ashleigh Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Ashleigh Subdivision described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 7, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference, is
shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in
Ashleigh Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May
7, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts,
fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Ashleigh Way Road (State Route 1094) from the intersection of Route 640
to the intersection of Route 1095 (Priddy Creek), as shown on plat recorded
10/31/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1966, page 337, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for
a length of 0.12 mile; and from the intersection of Route 1095 (Priddy
Creek) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 10/31/2000 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1966, page 337, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.20 mile.
2)
Priddy Court (State Route 1095) from the intersection of Route 1094
(Ashleigh Way Road) to the intersection of Route 1096 (Priddy Place), as
shown on plat recorded 10/31/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1966, page 337, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.18 mile; and from the intersection of
Route 1096 (Priddy Place) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
10/31/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1966, page 337, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for
a length of 0.15 mile.
3)
Priddy Place (State Route 1096) from Route 1095 (Priddy Court) to the
cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 10/31/2000 in the office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1966, page 337, with
a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.12 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.67 mile.
Item 5.7. Resolution to accept road in Blue Ridge Meadows Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in Blue Ridge Meadows Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 7, 2003, fully incorporated herein by
reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in Blue
Ridge Meadows Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 (A)
dated May 7, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts,
fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5 (A) is:
1)
Snowy Ridge Lane (State Route 1568) from the intersection of Route 666
to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 8/28/2002 in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2258, page
590, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.15 mile.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Total Mileage- 0.15 mile.
Item 5.8. Bleak House Road (Route 662) Partial Abandonment and Relocation.
It was noted in the staff's report that Jonathan and Alice Cannon have requested that the Board
adopt a resolution abandoning a portion of Bleak House Road (Route 662) that runs between the main
house (Bleak House) and the barn on their property (Tax Map 30, Parcel 10A) and to approve a new
location for the road. This proposal has already been determined by the County to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan under Virginia Code §15.2-2232. Bleak House is potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The barn dates to the early twentieth century. The proposed abandonment
would not only relocate a public road that separates these two cultural resources, but also would eliminate
a blind curve on the road.
The proposed project is about 1.5 miles north of the intersection of Bleak House Road and Reas
Ford Road (Route 660) in Rural Area 1. The road forms the boundary between the White Hall and Rio
Magisterial Districts. The new road has not been constructed. The Cannons must first purchase a small
portion of the parcel to the north of their property to allow for the new road alignment. The Cannons state
that this purchase will be finalized if the Board adopts a resolution.
Virginia Code §33.1-155 allows a public road to be abandoned by resolution when the abandoned
road will be replaced by a new road that will serve the same citizens. Staff has determined that the new
road would serve the same citizens. The proposed resolution would abandon the existing portion of Bleak
House Road and request that VDOT add the new portion of Bleak House Road to the secondary system of
state highways. These events are conditional upon the new road being constructed and approved by the
Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed
resolution.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY ABANDONING A PORTION OF
STATE ROUTE 662 AND REQUESTING THAT ANOTHER PORTION
BE ADDED TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
WHEREAS, a plat entitled "Plat Showing Survey of Parcels X and Y," dated
March 31,2003, prepared by Gloeckner Engineering/Surveying, Inc. (hereinafter, the
"plat") depicts the proposed relocation of State Route 662, including those portions of
existing State Route 662 to be abandoned and new portions to be dedicated for the
relocated roadway; a copy of the plat is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road
identified to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of
state highways those portions of road depicted on the plat as the right-of-way and
drainage easements to be dedicated for relocated State Route 662, pursuant to Section
33.1-229, Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors abandons
as part of the secondary system of state highways those portions of road depicted on the
plat as the existing right-of-way and sight easements to be abandoned on State Route
662, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the foregoing shall be conditional and shall
not take effect until the new road is constructed in the location shown on the plat and
approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner;
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Item 5.9. Lifting of Water Emergency Declaration that authorizes Albemarle County Service
Authority to impose water restrictions.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Board declared a water emergency for the Urban Service
Area on September 7, 2001. On October 2, 2002, the emergency declaration was extended to Crozet and
Scottsville. This declaration authorized the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) to issue and
enforce water use restrictions under the provisions of County Code §16-500. Phase 1 and 2 restrictions for
ACSA customers went into effect during the late summer and fall of 2002 in response to severe drought
conditions. These restrictions were lifted by the ACSA in late November, 2002 due to increased
precipitation and improved conditions in the area's reservoirs.
The critical "groundwater recharge" months of October, 2002, through March, 2003, have seen
above average precipitation (eight inches more than the long-term average). This is in contrast to
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
below-average winter precipitation for the previous four years. In response to increased precipitation, water
levels have reached more normal conditions in streams and monitored wells.
While a water supply crisis is not forecast for this summer, continued importance of water
conservation should be emphasized for both public water customers and well users (Governor Warner's
restrictions on well users were also lifted last fall). Individual wells will respond quite differently to climatic
conditions, and wise use and conservation are ethics that are needed to ensure a sustainable water supply
into the future.
Staff recommends that the emergency declaration be lifted, and that all relevant agencies continue
with water conservation efforts on an educational basis.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board lifted the emergency declaration requesting
that all relevant agencies continue their water conservation efforts on an educational basis.
Item 5.10. Authorize County Executive to sign Three-Party Agreement for Southern Area "B"
Study.
It was noted in the staff's report that in the original Three-Party Agreement signed by Albemarle
County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia on January 31, 1986, the parties agreed to
participate in a Southern Urban Area "B" Study addressing the Fontaine/Jefferson Park Avenue area and
adjacent properties under County and University jurisdiction. Each party agreed to contribute $25,000.00 to
the project budget. The County will serve as the procuring officer. A Request for Proposals was
advertised, applicants were interviewed, and the Renaissance Planning Group selected as a consultant for
the project. The study is scheduled to be completed within one year. An agreement has been drafted by
the County Attorney's office providing for the sharing of costs for the study by the three parties.
The consulting contract is being procured for land use planning and urban design purposes. It is
anticipated that the Area "B" Study will be adopted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The cost-
sharing agreement provides for pooling and expenditures of the contributions from each jurisdiction. The
County's portion of the project budget has been appropriated by the Board, but approval is needed to
authorize the County Executive to sign the cost-sharing agreement on behalf of the County.
Representatives from the City and University have already signed the agreement.
By the vote recorded above, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
following Agreement with the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia:
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into in triplicate this __ day of __
2003, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision
of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter, the "County"), the CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE, a Virginia municipal corporation (hereinafter, the "City"), and the
RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, an educational institution
of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter, the "University"), also referred to herein as
the "party" or "parties."
WITNESS
WHEREAS, the parties desire to obtain the services of a consultant to provide
planning services for the Southern Urban Area B Study Area identified in the "Three Party
Agreement" entered into by the parties in 1986;
WHEREAS, the Area B Study Area contains portions of the County, the City and
certain properties owned by the University;
WHEREAS, through a competitive procurement process conducted in
compliance with the Virginia Public Procurement Act, Renaissance Planning Group has
been selected to provide the planning services described herein;
WHEREAS, the cost for the planning services will be seventy-four thousand nine
hundred sixty-five dollars ($74,965); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire by this Agreement to expressly authorize the
County to enter into the planning services agreement with Renaissance Planning Group
and to administer that agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants
contained herein, the County, the City and the University hereby agree as follows:
1. The County is authorized to enter into a planning services agreement with
Renaissance Planning Group for the Southern Urban Area B Study Area (hereinafter, the
"RPG Agreement"), and to administer the RPG Agreement.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
2. Each party's pro rata share of the cost of the RPG Agreement shall be
one-third (approximately twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)).
3. The County's share has been appropriated. By not later than May 21,2003,
the City and the University each shall deposit the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000) with the County. These sums are based on each party's respective pro rata
share identified in section 2, but is exclusive of any future amendment to the RPG
Agreement that requires additional appropriations and deposits by the parties, based on
the same percentages identified in section 2. Any unexpended portion shall be refunded
to the parties pro rata.
4. The County shall not consent to an amendment to the RPG Agreement that
requires additional appropriations and deposits by the parties in this or a subsequent
fiscal year, unless the parties have first appropriated their pro rata shares.
5. Each person signing this Agreement acknowledges that he is authorized to
sign this Agreement on behalf the entity he represents.
Item 5.11. Adoption of Consolidated Plan for the Thomas Jefferson Home Consortium and the City
of Charlottesville.
Mr. Harrison Rue, Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, had
forwarded to the Board a copy of the draft Consolidated Plan which guides the use of Federal HOME funds
in the region. The Plan identifies both regional and local goals for the use of these funds. TJPDC worked
closely with staff of the Albemarle Office of Housing and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program in
developing the draft goals for Albemarle County. Beginning July 1,2003, Albemarle will receive $129,302
in HOME funds from the Planning District for the partial implementation of these goals. Because of the
length of the documents, he recommended that the Board simply adopt the goals for Albemarle County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the Albemarle County local goals for
the Year 2003 Consolidated Plan for the City of Charlottesville and the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District, as requested {Copy of total plan is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records
of the Board of Supervisors.).
Item 5.12. Colthurst Subdivision Child-at-Play sign.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Colthurst Property Owners Association, Inc. requested that
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) install a "Child-At-Play" sign on Colthurst Drive (Route
1001). Staff and the Association concur that the sign should be located on Colthurst Drive near the
entrance to Colthurst Subdivision, and recommends that the Board adopt a resolution supporting the
installation of a Child-At-Play sign on Colthurst Drive (Route 1001).
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Colthurst Subdivision are concerned about traffic in
their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play
in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a Child-At-Play sign would help alleviate
some of the concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the necessary
"Child-At-Play" signs on Colthurst Drive (Route 1001).
Item 5.13. Adopt resolution accepting landowners' offers to sell conservation easements under
ACE Program.
It was noted in the staff's report that ACE regulations require each landowner who desires to sell a
conservation easement to submit a written offer to the County to sell the easement for a fixed price,
determined by an appraisal and subject to an adjustment based on adjusted gross income. Said easement
is also subject to the terms and conditions contained in a proposed deed of easement negotiated by the
parties. The regulations also require that, if the Board accepts the offer, it must do so in writing and only
after an action by the Board authorizing acceptance. The Board is not required to accept an offer to sell a
conservation easement. Either the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority (PRFA) or the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) may be co-holders of the easements though none of the properties
from this year's class have designated VOF as an easement co-holder. Regulations also require that the
ACE Committee recommend which parcels, from an initial pool of applicants, the Board should invite to
submit offers on which to sell conservation easements. In the event a higher ranked applicant(s) drops out
of this initial pool, the Committee may slide down the ranking list and substitute another parcel(s) that is
lower ranked provided it is still eligible.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
The County has received an additional offer to sell a conservation easement on the following
property:
Owner(s) Tax Map-Parcel Numbers Price Co-holder
Millwood LT TM 65 Parcels 84A & 86 $185,000 PRFA
(108.880 acres)
At its meeting on April 16, the Board adopted a resolution to purchase conservation easements on
Byrom, Hughes and Pollock, all applicants from the 2001-02 pool. Since this last meeting, one applicant
(Clarke) has dropped out of the ACE Program and another, Millwood Land Trust (Gildea), has submitted an
offer to sell a conservation easement to the County on two contiguous parcels in Cismont. Since a total of
two landowners from the 2001-02 applicant pool have dropped out, their defection has created a budget
surplus of approximately $455,000. As a result, the ACE Committee passed a motion on April 23
recommending that the Board slide down the ranking list and substitute, for purchase, two lower ranked
properties from the initial applicant pool - Hart and Scharer. Though neither applicant initially scored high
enough to warrant an "Invitation to Offer to Sell", the defection of McCaskill and Clarke warrants such
action. It has always been contemplated that in the event a higher ranked applicant dropped out, the ACE
Committee could designate a substitute applicant(s). In the case of Hart and Scharer, each scored
sufficiently close to make them practicably inseparable in terms of final ranking order. Therefore, the
Committee's recommendation to the Board is to extend both landowners an invitation to offer to sell a
conservation easement.
In addition to the defections from last year's class, DeFalco and Sudduth of the 2002-03 applicant
pool have also dropped out of the ACE Program. Since it won't be necessary to appraise these properties,
the ACE Committee recently passed a motion recommending that the Board approve the appraisals of
three substitute parcels from the 2002-03 applicant pool - Marshall, Crawford and Swanson. Since the
likely cost of these and all the remaining properties should leave a budget surplus in 2002-03, there should
be additional carryover for 2003-04. Any carryover available for FY 2003-04 will allow ACE to pursue a full
complement of properties for the upcoming year, a year in which the ACE budget will be reduced by 20
percent.
Staff has the following recommendations:
Adopt the resolution accepting the landowners' offer to sell a conservation easement to the
County for the price specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained in the
proposed deed of easement, and authorize the County Executive to sign the final deeds of
easement for each of the properties.
2. Approve the ACE Committee's recommendation to invite Hart and Scharer to submit offers to
sell conservation easements to the County.
3. Approve the ACE Committee's recommendation to have the Marshall, Crawford and Swanson
parcels appraised this year.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS TO SELL
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received offers to sell conservation easements
under the ACE Program from the owners of the following properties:
Tax Map 65, Parcels 84A & 86 (Millwood Land Trust - Gildea)
WHEREAS, each owner offered to sell conservation easements on the
respective properties to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and
conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County's
invitation to offer to sell, subject to any further revisions deemed necessary by the County
Attorney and agreed to by the owner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby
accepts the offers to sell conservation easements described above, and authorizes the
County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
County Attorney to send copies of this resolution to the owners of the properties identified
herein, or their contact persons.
Item 5.14. Approval of FY 2003 Appropriations to provide funds for various General Government
and School programs.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Code of Virginia. 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000.00, whichever is less,
must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
amending the budget. The total of these requested additional FY 2003 appropriations is $378,548.56,
which is below the threshold level for a budget amendment on its own. It is anticipated that a budget
amendment will be proposed in June, 2003, and these appropriations would be incorporated into it.
This request involves the approval of nine new FY 2003 appropriations as follows: two
appropriations totaling $36,221.98 are for the pass-through of additional dedicated State revenues to the
County's Volunteer Rescue Squads and for the SPCA sterilization program; one appropriation totaling
$137,000.00 is for funding of an air conditioning system at the Scottsville Community Center; two
appropriations totaling $46,908.30 are for School programs and projects; one appropriation of $15,000.00
is for repairs at the Emergency Communications Center building; two appropriations totaling $53,418.28
reappropriate grant fund balances; and, one appropriation of $90,000.00 is for a loan from Crozet
Crossings Trust Fund to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriations No.2003-049, No. 2003-050, No. 2003-052, No.
2003-053, No. 2003-054, No. 2003-055, No. 2003-056, No. 2003-057 and No. 2003-058.
Appropriation No. 2003-049, $34,426.50. In September 2003, the County received its 2001-02
Two-For-Life funds from the State and in January, 2003, the County received its 2002-03 Two-For-Life
funds. These funds are dedicated State revenues that are passed on to each of the County's volunteer
rescue squads to provide additional funding for their operations. Due to the delay in receiving the prior
year's moneys, two years of funding have been received in the same fiscal year, requiring an additional
appropriation of $34,426.50 to receive and disburse these additional funds.
Appropriation No. 2003-050, $137,000.00. The FY '04 adopted Capital Improvement budget
approved $137,000.00 funding for air conditioning at the Scottsville Community Center. However, in order
to have the air conditioning in place for the summer months, the renovation project must begin now. This
appropriation uses $137,000.00 from the current CIP fund balance to complete the project prior to July 1.
Funds appropriated for the project in the FY '04 CIP budget will be returned to the CIP fund balance after
July 1,2003.
Appropriation No. 2003-052, $39,408.30. Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation
in the amount of $908.30 from the Broadus Wood PTO. This donation will be used to help pay the salary of
the Spanish teacher at the school.
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from New Dimension LLC.
This donation will be used to purchase athletic equipment for the school.
Ten family support workers provide a wide range of direct and indirect services that support
children and families in all of our elementary schools. Family support workers have frequent contact with
school staff regarding children and families on their caseload. They engage with the child and family in
support of regular school attendance and homework planning and preparation. They involve the child and
family in home literacy activities and often attend school meetings with the child and family. Family support
workers are classified local government employees funded by the Albemarle County Department of Social
Services (ACDSS) through Federal Title IV-E money. Due to an anticipated reimbursement reduction in
Title IV-E funds in FY '03, the School Board approved $37,500.00 to ensure continuity of family support
services through the current year. It is requested that $37,500.00 be transferred from the School fund to
the Family Support Program to ensure the continuity of family support services for FY '02-03.
Appropriation No. 2003-053, $15,000.00. At its November 19, 2002, meeting, the Emergency
Communications Center Management Board approved the appropriation and transfer of $29,668.06
received from the E911 Wireless Board into the ECC operating budget to be used to upgrade and repair the
air conditioning system and sewage system within the ECC building. At the same time they also approved
the appropriation and transfer of $25,000 from the ECC Fund Balance account, if needed, for the same
project. The upgrade and repair of the air conditioning system and sewage system totals $44,668.06. The
Board of Supervisors approved the appropriation of $29,668.06 from the E911 Wireless Board on January
8, 2003, leaving an additional $15,000.00 to be funded from the ECC Fund Balance to complete this
project.
Appropriation No. 2003-054, $7,500.00. At the March 20, 2002, joint meeting of the Charlottesville
City and Albemarle County School Boards, a proposal was submitted to have both Boards authorize the
expenditure of $7,500.00 to provide money to begin the process of developing a joint foundation.
Charlottesville's Board approved the request in the course of that meeting. The Albemarle County School
Board approved this expenditure at its April 3, 2003, meeting.
Appropriation No. 2003-055, $1,795.48. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has been
selling the Animal Friendly license plates as part of its license plate program. The plate is issued to support
dog and cat sterilization programs at a cost of $25.00 per year in addition to the regular vehicle registration
fee. After the first 1000 sets of license plates are sold, $15.00 of the fee is made available to the locality
where the vehicle is registered to be used to support the sterilization program. For FY '03, Albemarle
County is due $1,795.48 from this fund. Virginia Code Section 46.2-729 requires that these funds be used
for the sterilization program. If the locality does not have a program, it may make the funds available to any
private, nonprofit sterilization program in the locality. Albemarle County does not have this program, but the
Albemarle S.P.C.A. does. It is recommended that these funds be made available for use by the Albemarle
S.P.C.A. to support its sterilization program.
Appropriation No. 2003-056, $38,795.48. The Department of Criminal Justice awarded Albemarle
County a 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of $34,033.00 to fund overtime hours by
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
officers in support of community safety projects. The funds may also be used to provide support in other
areas such as security and crime prevention. These funds, along with the interest earnings, were not
expended prior to the end of the fiscal year. The Police Department has requested that these funds be
reappropriated to fund overtime wages in the current fiscal year.
Appropriation No. 2003-057, $14,622.80. The Department of Criminal Justice awarded Albemarle
County a 2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of $32,757.00, to fund overtime hours by
officers in support of community safety projects. Portions of this grant award, along with the interest
earnings, were not expended prior to the end of the fiscal year. The Police Department has requested that
these funds be reappropriated to fund overtime wages in the current fiscal year.
Appropriation No. 2003-058, $90,000.00. In November, 2002, the Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program (AHIP) requested a loan from the Crozet Crossings Trust Fund in the amount of
$90,000.00 to finance a portion of the construction cost of five homes in the Camp Springs Subdivision in
Esmont. The Trustees of the Crozet Crossings Trust Fund, by a majority, have approved AHIP's request.
AHIP has executed a Promissory Note with the Crozet Crossings Trust Fund in the amount of $90,000.00.
The note is payable 180 days after the date of the loan or 30 days after the sale of the final house in the
Camp Springs Subdivision, whichever comes first.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation:
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32030 565002 CH'VILLE/ALB J 1 11,475.50
1 1000 32030 565102 WESTERN ALB J 1 11,475.50
1 1000 32030 565202 SCOTTSVILLE J 1 11,475.50
2 1000 24000 240415 EMS FUNDS J 2 34,426.50
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION J
34,426.50
34,426.50
TOTAL 68,853.00 34,426.50 34,426.50
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER 2003-050
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR AIR CONDITIONING FOR SCOTTSVILLE COMMUNITY CENTER
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 71000 950009 SCOTTSVILLE COMM CTR J 1 137,000.00
2 9010 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 137,000.00
9010 0501 EST REVENUE J 137,000.00
9010 0701 APPROPRIATION J 137,000.00
TOTAL 274,000.00 137,000.00 137,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER 2003-052
EXPLANATION: SCHOOL DONATIONS AND PROGRAMS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2201 61101 132100 P/T WAGES-TEACHERS J
1 2201 61101 210000 FICA J
1 2304 61105 580000 MISC EXPENSE J
1 2113 93010 930000 FUND TRANSFER J
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J
2 2000 51000 510100 APPROP - FUND BALANCE J
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION J
2 1557 51000 512001 TRS FR SCHOOLS J
2 1557 33000 330026 TITLE IV-E FUNDS J
1 838.85
1 69.45
1 1,000.00
1 37,500.00
2 1,908.30
2 37,500.00
39,408.30
2 37,500.00
2 (37,500.00)
TOTAL
39,408.30
78,816.60 39,408.30 39,408.30
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER 2003-053
EXPLANATION: USE OF FUND BALANCE TO COMPLETE REPAIRS ON AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM
AND SEWAGE SYSTEM
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31041 331800 REPAIR & MAINT J 1 15,000.00
2 4100 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 15,000.00
4100 0501 EST REVENUE 15,000.00
4100 0701 APPROPRIATION 15,000.00
TOTAL 30,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER 2003-054
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR DEVELOPING A JOINT FOUNDATION BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND
CITY SCHOOL BOARDS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2410 62110 390000 PURC. SERVICES J 1 7,500.00
2 2000 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 7,500.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE 7,500.00
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION 7,500.00
TOTAL 15,000.00 7,500.00 7,500.00
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER 2003-055
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR SPCA FROM DMV ANIMAL FRIENDLY LICENSE
SUB LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT
PLATES
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 39000 565510 SPCA-STERILIZATION FD J 1 1,795.48
2 1000 22000 220106 STATE REVENUE-DMV J 2 595.48
2 1000 51000 510100 APPROP - FUND BAL J 2 1,200.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
1,795.48
1,795.48
TOTAL
3,590.96 1,795.48 1,795.48
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER 2003-056
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION
SUB LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
2 1536 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2
2 1536 15000 150101 INTEREST J 2
1 1536 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES J 1
1 1536 31013 210000 FICA J 1
1536 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE
0701 APPROPRIATIONS
38,373.26
422.22
36,039.00
2,756.48
38,795.48
38,795.48
TOTAL
77,590.96 38,795.48 38,795.48
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER 2003-057
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE
SUB LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
2 1539 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 14,575.52
2 1539 15000 150101 INTEREST J 2 47.28
1 1539 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES J 1 13,699.81
1 1539 31013 210000 FICA J 1 922.99
1539 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE
0701 APPROPRIATIONS
14,622.80
14,622.80
TOTAL 29,245.60 14,622.80 14,622.80
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER 2003-058
EXPLANATION: CROZET CROSSING LOAN TO AHIP
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 8515 81030 900100 HOUSING LOAN J 1 90,000.00
2 8515 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 90,000.00
8515 0501 Estimated Revenue 90,000.00
0701 Appropriations 90,000.00
TOTAL 180,000.00 90,000.00 90,000.00
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she was alarmed that there need to be repairs to the ECC
Building, since it is a new building. Mr. Tucker said some things were not completed to County staff's
satisfaction after the building had been "finished". Funds were withheld until they were completed.)
Item 5.15. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 1,2003, was received as
information.
Item 5.16. Notice from the Albemarle County Service Authority of a public hearing on June 26,
2003, concerning a proposed increase in water and wastewater charges, was received for information.
Item 5.17. Third Quarter Financial Report, was received for information as follows. (See copy
of entire report on file in the Clerk's Office.)
It was noted in the staff's report that the quarterly financial report provides information on the
County's General Fund and the Fund Balance as of March 31,2003. The Department of Finance is still
projecting that current year General Fund revenues will be lower than budgeted revenues by approximately
$2.2 million (-1.6%) as a result of decreased local and state revenues, particularly lower than anticipated
personal property taxes. The shortfall reported in the second quarter financial report was $2.3 million,
which has been reduced slightly by an anticipated $0.100 million increase in the sales tax projection.
Real estate taxes are projected to exceed budgeted revenues by $1.3 million due to the 12 percent
estimated reassessment rate used for budgeting last January compared to the actual reassessment rate of
18.7 percent. Personal Property revenues, inclusive of PPTR, are still expected to be below budget in the
current year by approximately $2.6 million due to the continuing decrease in used car values that was seen
at the end of last year, as well as the cumulative effect of over projecting personal property revenues in
both FY '02 and FY '03. This estimate has not been changed since the December report.
Sales tax revenues are estimated to be collected at the budgeted level, which is a $0.100 million
increase since the December estimate, which reflects slightly better sales tax collections. Business License
collections continue to be strong and are anticipated to come in at approximately $0.603 million over
budget, the same as reported in the December report. In Other Local Taxes, Utility Tax revenues are
expected to be $0.266 million below budget based on the telecommunications shift from land line to
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
wireless and a general decrease in business activity. This estimate has not changed since the last report.
Other Local Revenues continue to be anticipated at approximately $0.430 million below budget due
to reduced investment earnings resulting from lower cash balances, lower interest rates and decreased
collections from building related permits and fees and County fines. These anticipated reductions were
reported in the December report. State revenues, net of PPTR, are also anticipated to be below budget by
$0.475 million. Of this total reduction, state budget reductions will generate $0.323 million of the loss, while
a $0.107 million shift from state to Federal funding for Social Services makes up the remainder of the
difference.
Expenditures are within appropriate levels (75.9%) for the third quarter of the fiscal year.
Departmental expenditures are at 74.1 percent of current budget. Revised expenditures show a net $1.9
million reduction resulting from a combination of additional appropriations approved by the Board since July
1,2002, and $3.5 million in reductions to address the FY '03 revenue shortfall.
Revised expenditure estimates are the same as those reported to you in the December financial
report and reflect $339,000 in departmental savings, which includes $162,000 in Police salary lapse,
$40,000 in Social Services salary lapse, $30,000 in Public Works salary lapse, $53,000 savings in the
current year fire contract and $54,000 in savings from not undertaking a second master planning project in
the current year. Department expenditure revisions also reflect a $197,327 VRS life insurance savings,
which has been distributed throughout the departments.
The School Division transfer was reduced by $980,000 to reflect their 60 percent share of the FY
'03 $1.633 million shortfall in local tax revenues.
The Capital Fund and Debt Service Transfer has been reduced by $1.940 million, which reflects a
$970,000 savings in current year budgeted Debt Service for the 800 MHz project and $0.970 million in FY
'03 capital budget savings for a number of projects that are no longer required. The major savings was
$0.585 million currently budgeted in the FY '03 Capital Improvement Program for the Court Facility
design/engineering work which has been included as part of the bond request for the Juvenile Court
renovation and expansion project.
Revised revenues less expenditures show a projected $1.251 million savings by the end of this
current fiscal year (June 30, 2003) based on the March revenue estimates and the reduced expenditures.
This is a net $0.100 million increase since the December report reflecting the revised sales tax estimate.
The available Fund Balance is -$0.291 million, the same deficit fund balance reported to the Board
in the last report. If the negative fund balance is added to the $1.251 million surplus, the preliminary
"Projected Unobligated Funds/Shortfall" is reduced to $0.960 million, $0.100 million greater than the
available funds reported in the December report.
Current Year Revenue Estimates are based on March 15 Department of Finance revised
estimates, which look at FY '02 actual revenue collections, as well as any trends from current year
collections. Economy related revenues, i.e. sales, meals, transient, continue to be flat, while personal
property revenues continue to be depressed due to the substantially lower used car values.
Addressing the $2.2 million Revenue Shortfall in the Current Year, the Revised Revenues less
Revised Expenditures show that the proposed expenditure reductions in the School Division, General
Government operations and the Capital Fund will leave the County with a net savings of $1.251 million at
the end of the fiscal year. Combined with the (-$0.290) million Fund Balance shortfall, the County may
realize a net savings of approximately $0.961 million.
Proposed FY '03 Expenditure Reductions shows General Government's projected FY '03 shortfall
of $1.225 million offset by $2.5 million in proposed expenditure reductions leaving a positive savings
balance of $0.961 million. These projected savings include $970,000 in FY '03 budgeted Debt Service for
the 800 MHz project, which will not be needed in the current year, $197,327 in one-time VRS savings,
$339,000 in department operational savings, mostly in salary lapse, and $969,806 in Capital budget savings
in the current year, the majority of which were the budgeted design costs for the Juvenile Court project
which were included in the IDA revenue bond. During the FY '04 budget process, the Board committed
$0.668 million of the $0.961 million in FY '03 projected savings for FY '04 projects, which leaves a projected
end-of-the-year savings balance of $0.293 million.
Staff recommends acceptance of the Third Quarter Financial Report for FY '02-03.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted the Third Quarter Financial Report
for FY 2002-03 as presented.
Item 5.18. VDOT Monthly Report, May 2003, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Public hearing: Six-Year Secondary Road Priority
List. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2003.)
Mr. David Benish said the Board has held two work sessions on the Secondary Road Plan. The
Planning Commission also held a work session on the Secondary Road Plan and priority list. The focus of
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
the Board's discussion at the prior work session was on rural rustic roads and unpaved roads. Staff is
recommending the plan which does not change the priorities of unpaved roads based on Rural Rustic Road
priority. Staff is moving forward with that program with the idea of beginning some of those projects. The
Board has asked that staff draft a procedure for notifying property owners along the Rural Rustic Roads
and Unpaved Roads, so the owners are properly notified, and the Board is aware of the owner's intent to
pursue those types of projects. Staff is working with VDOT on that procedure. It should be ready for review
this summer.
Mr. Benish said in regard to Sunset Avenue, it is No. 11 on the priority list. Because of VDOT's
funding shortfall it was moved back two to three years. Proffit Road was also moved back a couple of
years to 2008. Georgetown Road also lost two-plus years. On the Granger property, the proposal for
development there has been withdrawn. For the Area "B" Study which is an update of the three-party study,
the contracts have been signed. It is hoped that the consultant can begin work within a month. It is a one-
year planning project. There is no funding associated with that study, but a component of that is to evaluate
the transportation network that is needed to serve that area.
Mr. Rooker said there is a proposal to develop the Brass, Inc. property on Fifth Street. As part of
that plan a road would connect Fifth Street to Avon Street. Mr. Benish said a Comprehensive Plan
amendment has been submitted for that property. Instead of being only a portion to the property between
Avon and Fifth Street, the proposal goes all the way through. Part of the proposal includes a connector
road.
Mr. Rooker said when the traffic component is done for the Area "B" study, that road might be
included in the study to see how it impacts traffic, and the need for other improvements. Mr. Benish said
from a land use perspective, the Area "B" study has specific boundaries. Staff felt the traffic study did need
to be a larger area, so there will need to be an evaluation.
Mr. Rooker said when looking at the order of improvements in the Six-Year Plan, he thinks it would
be helpful to have the most recent traffic counts on to the first 25 or so projects. Mr. Benish said on the
Priority List, the figures in brackets are the traffic counts. But, some of them are older numbers.
Mr. Martin asked about an old paved road which used to run from Redflelds to Route 29 South
below 1-64. Ms. Thomas said that is the road the Board made sure stayed open when it approved the last
section of Redfields, but it is far from being a working road. The people living in Sherwood Farms do not
want any use of this road. It does exist, and it can be walked. Mr. Martin said it was a very useful road.
Mr. Benish said with the approval of the Collegiate Hall apartments which are toward the end of
Sunset Avenue, the developer was required to pave Sunset Avenue from their entrance to the intersection
of Old Stagecoach Road. That will probably be done toward conclusion of the project. That paving will
bring that section of roadway up to a standard travelway width. He said most of the developments that have
occurred in that area were based on existing zoning. Therefore, there was no opportunity to require road
improvements.
Mr. Benish said an important component of the Area "B" study is to see how transit can be
extended to the Fifth Street area. That is his overview of to the Sunset Avenue question. He said one
project which moved up in priority is the Free State Road project which is an important component of the
Meadow Creek Parkway Project.
Mr. Martin said there is no project before it that the Board could move because they are all
important projects.
Ms. Thomas said there is a meeting on May 14 in Culpeper to learn more about the impact of
paying off VDOT's deficit totaling $350.0 million, and the impact of that on the Six-Year Program. It does
not sound like an input time, but she thinks someone from the County should attend.
Mr. Juan Wade said he has talked with Mr. Morris about Route 672. It was not shown on the list
because the request was received after the list was published. It appears that the road would meet the
criteria for Rural Rustic Roads. Route 640 is probably the first road to use the Rural Rustic Roads
Program. Staffwill be working with VDOT and the Board this summer to develop some guidelines. He is
not sure how Route 672 would fit into the priority list.
Mr. Martin said in order for the Board to take that road and move it up, somebody else would have
to be moved back. Realistically that is not the way it would normally happen. It looks like Route 640 will be
the first road under this new program. He asked if it would be possible to determine if there would be an
actual cost savings by putting this road into this program.
Mr. Perkins said Altavista Road and Secretary's Road are not listed as Rural Rustic Roads. He
asked if they could be improved as rural rustic roads. Mr. Jim Bryan said those roads do not meet the
criteria.
Mr. Benish said there are a couple of blank estimated advertisement dates on the Six-Year priority
list. Those are for Free State Road, Meadow Creek Parkway and the Southern Connector. That is related
to the ultimate eligibility of two of those projects, and staff is waiting for the best date due to design work
which is ongoing.
Ms. Thomas asked for an advertising date for the railroad crossing at Grassmere Road. Mr. Bryan
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
said it will be advertised this summer. It is a railroad project and they are doing it this summer.
Mr. Rooker said the design public hearing for the County's portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway
was delayed due to design issues. He asked when that hearing might be scheduled. Mr. Bryan said he just
talked to Mr. Davies a couple of days ago. He is working on it. They want to set up a preliminary meeting
with the consultant and have a mini-workshop and then decide when to hold the public hearing.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the Plan as set out in the Board's
packet. 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.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Agenda Item No. 6b. Transportation Matters Not Listed on to the Agenda.
Mr. Bryan said he will attend the May 14 video-conference. Ms. Thomas said she would pass
around the letter she received, which really sets out a grim situation. She asked Mr. Bryan how VDOT is
doing after the 14 winter storms and flooding situations. Mr. Bryan said they are still working on a lot of
shoulders and doing minor patching.
Mr. Dorrier said the potholes are not as bad as could be expected. Mr. Bryan said VDOT was lucky
in that way.
Ms. Thomas said Old Ballard Road will need attention soon.
Mr. Bryan said the signs have been posted on Route 649 for that project. The 30-day period for
taking public input has begun.
Mr. Bryan said one of their superintendents, Gene Rush, retired last month after 30 days.
Mr. Bryan told Mr. Martin that he will be getting a letter this month in response to his question about
the Routes 250/20 intersection. It will be submitted as a project, but there needs to be a change in the
median and some of the curbing to make it work. He said all VDOT projects are on track.
Mr. Dorrier said he was thinking about Mr. Rush retiring, and thinks when there is a long-time
employee like that retiring, the Board would be glad to recognize him in a meeting. Mr. Bryan said he can
bring him to a meeting.
Mr. Perkins said the public hearing on Jarmans Gap Road has been moved to July. Mr. Bryan said
VDOT has had a hard time finding a location for the meeting.
Mr. Martin mentioned the way the traffic light at the Routes 29/649 intersection is configured. He
asked that it be checked.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to comment about the traffic light at the corner of Hydraulic Road
and Route 29. In the morning at 9:00 o'clock, there is an inordinately short green light to cross east/west at
Hydraulic.
Ms. Thomas said she has complained in the past about the light at Broomley Road, but now that
she uses it every day, it seems to be working fine.
Mr. Dorrier said at the intersection at Route 708 and Route 20 (that is the turn off at Walton school),
going north on Route 20 there is a back up of buses and cars at a blind curve. There is no warning for the
driver that anything is ahead of them. It is a dangerous situation. Mr. Bryan said VDOT will look into the
situation, and post some signs.
Mr. Benish said there is a CIP project beginning for Four Seasons Drive sidewalks.
Agenda Item No. 7. Presentation: Bright Stars Program, was removed from the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: To consider amending the service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for water & sewer service to the Hollymead Community urban area
formed by the Eastern side of Rt 29, extending N to the N Fork Rivanna River, proceeding E & winding
along the N Fork Rivanna River to the end of Pritchett Lane, following Pritchett Lane SW to the Northwood
Mobile Home Park, as identified on Map F of the Communities of Hollymead & Piney Mountain in the
Comprehensive Plan. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April
21 and April 28, 2003.)
Mr. Benish said this request was initiated by staff as part of the Thomas Haught request for sewer
service, which was approved by the Board at its April 2, 2003, meeting. The area that comprises this
request for Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) jurisdictional (service) area designation for water
and sewer service is approximately 450 acres. This area is formed by the eastern side of Route 29,
extending north to the North Fork Rivanna River, proceeding east and winding along the North Fork
Rivanna River to the end of Pritchett Lane, following Pritchett Lane southwest to the Northwood Mobile
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Home Park. This area is located within the designated Development Areas, in the Rivanna District. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends serving Development Areas with public water and sewer. Therefore,
staff recommends that this quadrant of the Hollymead Community be designated as part of the ACSA
jurisdictional area for public water and sewer service.
Mr. Benish said there have been questions raised as to whether it is prudent to do this. Staff sees
the primary benefit as administrative by not having to deal with requests individually.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that is an important point. One of the speakers this morning implied that
the Board was doing this because developers are moving into the area. Recently, a citizen had to go
through the whole public hearing process in order to obtain this service. The Board realized there were
other people in that community in the same situation so is considering this specifically for the benefit of
individuals so they will not have to file applications individually and go through the entire process.
Mr. Benish said staff sees advantages either way. The safest and most conservative approach
would be to continue to approve requests individually. There is staff cost and also a cost for the small
property owner to do this. He said Mr. Bill Brent is present to answer any questions about capacity issues
and service to the area. He said it is important to remember that the ACSA operates on a first-come, first-
served basis, so the designation of a jurisdictional area does not guarantee service. This designation only
implies that this is an area where service should be provided, and the County should be encouraging
connections if they can be appropriately engineered.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many lots would be affected. Mr. Benish said the vast majority of this
area is the Towers Land Trust proposal for which the County has a rezoning request. About four-fifths of
the property in this area is part of that rezoning request. Much of the other area has a designation either for
water only to an existing structure, or water/sewer service to a few parcels.
Mr. Rooker said there is another significant distinction between the things mentioned by a speaker
earlier this morning (Trachta). When he mentioned that people came in last year begging for water, but a
number of those requests were for properties in the rural area. The Comprehensive Plan does not call for
providing water and/or sewer service to the rural area. That is a more difficult test than where a request is
for property lying in an area recommended for service in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benish said that is
true. Usually, when there is a pubic request within a jurisdictional area boundary, the Board does not see
the applicant.
Mr. Rooker said he is not aware of any case where the Board has not granted a request to extend
services where the Comprehensive Plan calls for services. Mr. Benish said a long time ago as the Board
emerged into the present policy, there were times when there were considerations as to whether or not a
property should be included for service.
Ms. Thomas asked about water demand and sewer capacity because this area is bigger than any
other single addition made. She thinks it makes sense to make a single addition, rather than doing it piece-
by-piece. She knows there will be a need for a new pumping station and some other major commitments
when this area is added. Mr. Benish said the ACSA has estimated the usage in that area to be 162,000
gallons per day. The safe yield within the North Fork Rivanna River is 800,000 gallons per day. The plant
capacity is up to 2.0 million gallons per day, but it would require releases at Chris Greene Lake to exceed
800,000 gallons per day. The current demand in the area being discussed is 250,000 to 300,000 gallons
per day. Even with the North Pointe development, there would still be capacity available. The Camelot
Treatment Plant does not have the capacity to serve the designated Development Area. That has been the
case for a number of years. He said the ACSA has programmed in their Capital Program an upgrade of
the Camelot Treatment Plant to address development area demands.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, said in making the estimate
for water consumption at the North Pointe development the engineers used 42 gallons per day per
thousand square feet for office areas, for restaurants 450 gallons per day per thousand square feet, for a
theatre 145 gallons per day per thousand square feet, and for residential units 150 gallons per day per unit.
Ms. Thomas asked if an upgrade will be required for the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant. Mr.
Brent said that determination has not been made, it is possible to pump the effluent back to the Moores
Creek Treatment Plant.
Mr. Rooker said the notice about rate changes from the ACSA did not include an increase in hook-
up fees. Mr. Brent said there will be an increase, but the ACSA wanted an empirical study to calculate that
fee before it is imposed. That study will take place this year.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service area
boundary to provide water and sewer service to the Hollymead Community located north of Proffit Road,
east of U.S. Route 29 and west of Pritchett Lane. 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.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: To consider amending the service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for water & sewer service to Tax Map 56, P 87, for Mass Enterprises,
Inc. Property located on S side of Three Notch'd Rd (Rt 240) approx 600 feet W of the entrance to Western
Ridge. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April
28, 2003.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant is requesting ACSA jurisdictional area
designation for water and sewer service to a 3.93-acre lot located on the south side of Three Notch'd Road
(Route 240), approximately 600 feet west of the entrance to Western Ridge. The property is located within
the designated Crozet Development Area. There was a preliminary site plan (SDP-2002-098, Crozet Mini
Storage) submitted in September, 2002 requesting approval to construct 17,475 square feet of self-storage
buildings on the site. The preliminary site plan was deferred indefinitely to address several issues, one of
them being ACSA jurisdictional area approval for water and sewer service. This request is consistent with
the public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Since this property is located within a designated
Development Area, the provision of both water and sewer service to the properties would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan public utility policy. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board approve this
request for public water and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 87.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to approve the request to extend the jurisdictional (service) area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for both water and sewer service to Parcel 87 on Tax
Map 56. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
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. 10. Public Hearing: To consider granting a relocated sanitary sewer line
easement to the Albemarle County Service Authority across Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 9
(Branchlands area). (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28,
2003.)
Mr. Tucker said Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 9, is a 3.285-acre parcel in the Branchlands area
owned by the County. The prior owners of the parcel granted the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) an easement to install and maintain a sanitary sewer line. The location of the sewer line, as built,
varies slightly from the location of the easement originally granted.
Mr. Tucker said Virginia Code §15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to
conveyance of any interest in County-owned real property. The proposed 20-foot sanitary sewer line
easement would relocate the easement to correspond to the as-built location of the sewer line. A portion of
the existing easement would be abandoned. Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed
easement and authorize the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to grant the Albemarle County Service Authority the right to
install and maintain a sanitary sewer line as set forth in the staff's report, and to authorize the County
Executive to sign the Deed of Easement on behalf of the County. 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 deed of easement approved by the Board follows.)
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this __ day of ,2003, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the "Grantor"; and the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY ("ACSA"), the Grantee;
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantor herein is the owner of that certain lot or parcel of land
consisting of 3.285 acres, more or less, having acquired it by Deed dated February 17,
1998, from Charles William Hurt, Sr. and Shirley L. Fisher, as Trustees of the Virginia
Land Trust pursuant to the terms of a certain Land Trust Agreement dated May 18, 1984
(the "Virginia Land Trustees") recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1705, page 122; and
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
WHEREAS, the Virginia Land Trustees had previously granted various
easements across the subject parcel to the ACSA to permit the installation of a sanitary
sewer line across the property; and
WHEREAS, said sanitary sewer line, as built, differs slightly from the location of
the easement as originally granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing premises and TEN
DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL
WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Albemarle County Service Authority, a perpetual
right-of-way and easement to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace, and extend
sanitary sewer lines consisting of pipes and appurtenances thereto, said easement
described as a "New 20' Sanitary Sewer Easement" as shown on a plat by B. Aubrey
Huffman & Associates, Ltd., dated February 27, 2003, captioned "Plat Showing Revised
Sewer Easement on Lot 4 Branchlands Albemarle County, Virginia" a copy of which plat
is attached hereto (on file) and recorded contemporaneously with this deed as one and
the same instrument (the "Plat"). Reference is made to the Plat for the exact location
and dimensions of the permanent easement as it crosses the property of the Grantor.
Said sewer line easement lies within the boundaries of Parcel 003-9 on Tax Map 61Z,
Albemarle County, Virginia.
As a part of this sewer line easement, the ASCA shall have the right to enter
upon the above-described property within the easement granted for the purpose of
installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and extending the sewer line
and appurtenances thereto, within such easement and the right of ingress and egress
thereto as reasonably necessary to maintain, repair, replace, and/or extend such sewer
line.
Grantor, its successors or assigns, agrees that new trees, shrubs, fences,
buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall not be placed within the
easement conveyed herein.
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the sanitary sewer line
easement, the ASCA agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike
manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as practical to the same condition
existing prior to the excavation. In the event that any damage results from said access,
the ACSA agrees to correct and repair such damage in a proper and workmanlike
manner, including the restoration of any such damaged or disturbed grass surfaces.
The easement shall include the right of ACSA to cut any trees, brush, and
shrubbery, remove obstructions and take other similar action reasonably necessary to
provide economical and safe sewer installation, operation, and maintenance. The ACSA
shall have no responsibility to the Grantor, its successors or assigns, to replace or
reimburse the cost of such trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions if cut, removed or
otherwise damaged.
The facilities constructed within the permanent easement shall be the property of
the ASCA, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and
make such changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the
boundaries of the permanent easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed
herein.
The "Portion of Exist. 20' Sanitary Sewer Easement To Be Abandoned" as shown
on the Plat is hereby abandoned.
By the signature of its authorized officer, the Albemarle County Service Authority
hereby accepts this dedication and the duties, covenants, and restrictions imposed
herein.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: To consider approval of a proposed Agreement for the
County to lease a portion of the northern end of Darden Towe Park to the Lewis & Clark Center for
construction of an exploratory center. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April
28, 2003.)
Mr. Tucker said that Ms. Kay Slaughter made a presentation to the Board last month regarding the
Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, Inc. and its request to use the northeast corner of Darden
Towe Park to locate a portion of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center. He said the County and City
Attorney's Offices have been working with the attorney for the Center on the details of an appropriate lease
agreement. Staff recommends approval of this use of Towe Park land by the Lewis and Clark Exploratory
Center and that the County Executive be authorized to sign this lease on behalf of the County.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Ms. Kay Slaughter said that since last month, they have met with Russ Perry of McDonough
Partners and Warren Byrd from Nelson Byrd Landscape. She said Mr. Byrd pointed out some elements
and the quality of this piece of property. This Center might tell fundamental stories not just about the
peoples and the plants and animals, but about geology also. There is an old quarry site on the property,
rock outcroppings, four or five distinct soil types, perennial streams and the Rivanna River, a diverse plant
pallet with several Piedmont plant communities. It has a dramatic topography. All of this shows that the
right people are working with the Lewis and Clark Center to honor this landscape and to be able to tell the
story in a way that will be rich. She asked that the Board approve the lease. She said there were several
people present this morning in support of this request and she asked them to stand.
Ms. Kat Imhoff said she was present on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. She
expressed their support for this lease. It is wonderful to build on the legacy of Jefferson, and Lewis and
Clark.
Mr. Fran Lawrence handed to the Board members a copy of an article which was in the
Fredericksburg Free Lance Star. He said that people are already coming. They have signed up two
different "Children of the American Revolution" groups. One is a statewide group which will hold a retreat
working on the keel boat. The other is a CAR group from Fredericksburg which will bring a group of
children. He said the Elder hostile in Williamsburg is holding a retreat here to visit Monticello, Montpelier,
Ashlawn-Highland, and then a half day at the keel boat at Darden Towe Park.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Ms. Slaughter would like mention the Festival this weekend.
Ms. Slaughter said they are having the third festival this Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Lee
Park. One of the features will be boat building, but there are many other activities. There will be some talks
in a church throughout the day. There will be a bus tour. There will be walks around the downtown area.
She invited all the Board members to attend, and said they hope the public will come also.
With no one else from the public rising speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to authorize the County Executive to sign the lease on behalf of
the County. As the Board's representative on the Darden Towe Park Committee, he thinks this will be a
great addition to the Park. It is a win-win situation for everyone.
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.
AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made as of this 6th day of July, 2003, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ("the County"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE ("the City") a municipal corporation,
("County and City") and the LEWIS & CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER OF VIRGINIA,
Inc. ("Lewis and Clark Center").
WITNESSETH:
ARTICLE I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Section 1.1. The Lewis & Clark Expedition, one of America's greatest adventures, began
in Charlottesville-Albemarle at Monticello, where President Thomas Jefferson and
Meriwether Lewis planned the trip west.
Section 1.2. Both Thomas Jefferson and Meriwether Lewis are Albemarle natives;
William Clark and his family were Central Virginians who had lived in Albemarle, where
his older brother and mentor George Rogers Clark was born.
Section 1.3. Jefferson's homeland of Charlottesville-Albemarle County is uniquely suited
for visitors to explore and discover not only the Corps of Discovery and Jefferson, Lewis
and Clark, but also the geography, plants, wildlife and Native American cultures that
comprised the nation at the beginning of the 19th Century.
Section 1.4. The Lewis and Clark Center, a qualified, charitable and educational
non-profit corporation under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, intends to
build a Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center ("the Facility"), which will provide an inter-active
environment for visitors of all ages from across the nation and around the world to
experience the adventure of the Corps of Discovery, to learn about adventure,
exploration, nature and wildlife and Native American cultures and to connect with the
Lewis and Clark sites in other parts of the County.
Section 1.5. The northern end of Darden Towe Park along the Rivanna River, which
connects with the George Rogers Clark birthplace, is uniquely situated to provide a
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
premier site for the Facility.
Section 1.6. The property at the northern end of Darden Towe is also located along the
Southwest Mountains and historic Route 20, which connect the homes of Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, as well as other early Virginia explorers
such as Dr. Thomas Walker.
Section 1.7. The Facility will complement the visitor experience at Monticello, the
University of Virginia, Ashlawn-Highland and other important Central Virginia attractions
and enhance our communities' connection with the Rivanna River. It will also
commemorate both the Lewis & Clark Expedition and George Rogers Clark, the
conqueror of the old Northwest Territory.
Section 1.8. The Facility will be designed in a manner which is environmentally and
aesthetically sensitive and developed in a manner to enhance the natural beauty of both
the Rivanna River and Darden Towe Park.
ARTICLE II. PREMISES.
Section 2.1. Premises. In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set forth, the
County and City hereby lease to the Lewis and Clark Center, and the Lewis and Clark
Center hereby rents from the County and City, the property shown as cross-hatched on
Schedule A attached hereto (on file) and made a part hereof together with any and all
improvements thereon (the "Leased Premises").
Section 2.2. Tenant Access. The Leased Premises do not include any access over or
right to use the residue of the County or City property at Darden Towe Park.
Section 2.3. County and City access. The Lewis and Clark Center grants to the County
and the City reasonable access for ingress and egress across and through the Leased
Premises.
Section 2.4. Greenway Trail. The County and City reserve to themselves access to a
variable-width strip along the Rivanna River for a pedestrian greenway trail which
includes the right to connect such trail to a pedestrian bridge crossing the Rivanna River
from the Leased Premises.
Section 2.5. Construction of a State Highway or Other Public Transportation Purpose.
The County and City reserve the right to withdraw a portion of the Leased Premises as
necessary for the construction of a state highway or for any other public transportation
purpose. The County and City further reserve the right to withdraw any portion of the
Leased Premises not improved as of July 1,2008, or used in support of then-existing
improvements.
Section 2.6. Rivanna Watershed Center. The Lewis and Clark Center agrees to provide
a portion of the Leased Premises for use by the Rivanna Watershed Center, any costs
associated by said use to be borne by the Rivanna Watershed Center.
Section 2.7. Overflow Parking. Any parking constructed on the leased Premises shall be
available for users of Darden Towe Park, unless the Lewis and Clark Center is holding a
designated special event, for which it may reasonably reserve parking. The County, the
City, and the Center shall work cooperatively in managing parking issues during a special
event.
ARTICLE III. TERM.
Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. The term of this lease shall commence at
12:01 a.m. on July 1,2003 (the "Date of Commencement") and shall expire at 12:00
midnight on June 30, 2043, unless sooner terminated or extended as provided herein.
The term "Lease Year" as used herein shall mean the period from July 1 of any year to
June 30 of the following year.
Section 3.2. Renewal. The County and City intend at this time to negotiate an extension
of the term of this lease for an additional forty (40) year term, but are not under any
obligation to do so.
ARTICLE IV. RENT.
Commencing July 1,2003, the Lewis and Clark Center agrees to pay to the County and
City "Annual Rent" of $10.00 per lease year payable annually on or about July 4 of each
year.
ARTICLEV. USE OFPROPERTY.
Section 5.1. Permitted Use. The Lewis and Clark Center shall have the right to use the
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Leased Premises for the purposes of design, development, construction, operation,
maintenance, repair and replacement of the Facility and for no other purposes without
the County's and City's consent.
Section 5.2. Commercial Promotion and Advertising. The Lewis and Clark Center shall
not promote commercial businesses or corporations in outside signage on the Leased
Premises or in advertising circulated to the general public except with prior written
consent of the County and the City.
ARTICLE VI. DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVEMENTS AND SIGNAGE.
Section 6.1. Development by Lewis & Clark Center. No improvements of any kind,
including roadways and parking areas, shall be made to the Leased Premises except
with the County and City's prior written consent both as to the improvements and as to the
contractors and subcontractors performing the work.
Section 6.2. Compliance with County, State and Federal Law. No improvements shall
be undertaken on the Leased Premises unless and until the Lewis and Clark Center shall
have obtained any and all local, state and Federal governmental approvals and permits,
and all such improvement shall be undertaken in strict compliance with all County, state
and Federal rules, regulations and laws.
Section 6.3. Removal of Improvements. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of
this Lease, the County and City shall have the option (exercisable upon sixty (60) days
notice to the Lewis and Clark Center except in the case of a termination of this Lease due
to a default by the Lewis and Clark Center, in which case no such notice shall be
required) to require the Lewis and Clark Center to remove, at the Lewis and Clark
Center's sole cost and expense, any and all improvements made by the Lewis and Clark
Center to the Leased Premises which have not been made with the County and City's
consent or approval, in violation of Section 6.1 hereof, or to elect to keep such
improvements as the County and City's property. In the event the Lewis and Clark Center
is required to remove any improvements, (i) the Lewis and Clark Center shall be
responsible for the restoration of the Leased Premises to their prior condition, and (ii) if
the Lewis and Clark Center fails to properly restore the Leased Premises, the County and
City may perform the same at the Lewis and Clark Center's cost and expense.
Section 6.4. No Liens. The Lewis and Clark Center shall permit no mechanic's liens,
materialmen's liens or other statutory liens to attach to the Leased Premises as a result
of any alterations, improvements, additions or repairs performed by the Lewis and Clark
Center or at the Lewis and Clark Center's direction. If any such lien or notice of lien rights
shall be filed with respect to the Leased Premises, the Lewis and Clark Center shall
immediately take such steps as may be necessary to have such lien released, and shall
permit no further work to be performed at the Leased Premises until such release has
been accomplished.
Section 6.5. Bond for Improvements. The County and City may require the Lewis and
Clark Center to provide a bond, surety or other security prior to the commencement of
any work on any improvements to the Leased Premises to assure that any such
improvements are completed in a timely and workmanlike manner.
Section 6.6. Signage. The Lewis and Clark Center shall have the right to place signs on
the interior or exterior of the Leased Premises only in conformity with all local regulations
and with the prior written approval of the County and City which shall not be unreasonably
withheld. Signs in existence on the date of this Lease are approved.
ARTICLE VII. MAINTENANCE OF LEASED PREMISES.
Section 7.1. Maintenance by the Lewis and Clark Center. The Lewis and Clark Center
shall, at its own cost and expense during the term of this Lease, maintain and keep in
good order and repair the entire Leased Premises, whether improved or unimproved,
including but not limited to any roadways, trails, and water courses, the exterior and
interior of the Facility, including but not limited to, roof, doors, windows, all plumbing
fixtures, mechanical and electrical systems and any additional improvements placed
upon the Leased Premises, including the parking lot, and covenants to keep the same in
good condition and to return the Leased Premises to the Lessors at the termination of this
Lease in as good condition after the improvement thereof by the Lewis and Clark Center,
ordinary wear and acts of God not customarily insurable excepted. It is clearly
understood and agreed that during the term of this Lease, the Lewis and Clark Center at
its own expense shall furnish and maintain to meet its requirements, all restaurant
equipment and all heating and air conditioning equipment for the Leased Premises. As
part of its duty to maintain and keep the premises in good repair, the Lewis and Clark
Center shall protect the water pipes in the Leased Premises from freezing and the drain
pipes from becoming clogged, and shall bear the cost of repairs arising from the misuse
or negligence of those using them, and that it shall replace all glass, including plate
glass, broken during said term.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Section 7.2. Fire Protection. As part of its maintenance responsibilities, the Lewis and
Clark Center agrees to comply fully with any and all County and other governmental
laws, regulations and ordinances, limiting and regulating the use, occupancy or
enjoyment of said Leased Premises; agrees specifically to comply with the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Codes (BOCA) and the Virginia State Fire Safety regulations;
and to maintain appropriate fire extinguishers on the Leased Premises.
Section 7.3. Surrender of Leased Premises. At the expiration of the tenancy hereby
created, the Lewis and Clark Center shall surrender the Leased Premises and all keys
for the Facility to the County and City at the place then fixed for the payment of rent and
shall inform the County and City of all combinations on locks, safes and vaults, if any,
which the County and City has granted permission to have left in the Leased Premises.
At such time, the Facility shall be broom clean and in good condition and repair,
commensurate with its age. If the Lewis and Clark Center leaves any of the Lewis and
Clark Center's personal property in the Leased Premises, the County and City, at their
option, may remove and store any or all of such property at the Lewis and Clark Center's
expense or may deem the same abandoned and, in such event, the property deemed
abandoned shall become the property of the County and City.
Section 7.4. Condition of Premises on Date of Commencement. The Lewis and Clark
Center accepts the Leased Premises "as is" on the effective date hereof. The County
and City make no representations or indemnities as to the condition of the Leased
Premises.
ARTICLE VIII. IMPOSITIONS, UTILITIES AND INSURANCE.
Section 8.1. Impositions. The Lewis and Clark Center shall pay, as additional rent,
during the term of this lease, commencing with the Lewis and Clark Center's obligation to
pay rent hereunder, one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of all Impositions, as
hereinafter defined, levied or imposed on the Leased Premises during any Lease Year.
The term "Impositions" means all taxes, assessments, and governmental charges,
Federal, state, county, municipal, district or otherwise, which ordinarily and regularly are
levied on or charged against real property and improvements thereto. Impositions for any
fraction of a tax year at the commencement of the Lewis and Clark Center's obligation to
pay rent or the expiration of the term shall be prorated between the parties hereto upon
the basis that the number of days in such fractional tax year bears to three hundred
sixty-five (365).
Section 8.2. Utilities and Services. The Lewis and Clark Center shall pay for all gas,
heat, light, water, sewage service, power, telephone, janitorial, garbage disposal service
and all other utilities supplied to the Leased Premises as the same may be reflected on
meters at the Leased Premises, and to the extent such services are provided to the
Facility at the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY.
Section 9.1. Liability Insurance of Lewis and Clark Center. The Lewis and Clark Center
covenants and agrees that it will, at all times during the term of this Lease, keep in full
force and effect a policy of public liability and property damage insurance with respect to
the Leased Premises and the business operated by the Lewis and Clark Center on the
Leased Premises in which the limits of public liability for bodily injury and property
damage shall not be less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per
accident, combined single limit. The policy shall name the County and City and any
mortgagees of the County and City as additional insureds. The policy shall provide that
the insurance thereunder shall not be canceled without thirty (30) days written notice
thereof to all named insureds, including the County and City. The Lewis and Clark
Center shall also obtain a Lessee's property insurance policy insuring the Lewis and
Clark Center's personal and business property on the Leased Premises.
Section 9.2. Fire and Extended Coverages. The Lewis and Clark Center agrees that it
will, during the term of this Lease, insure and keep insured, for the benefit of the County
and City and its respective successors in interest, all of the building and improvements on
the Leased Premises, or any portion thereof then in being not covered by the fire and
extended casualty insurance. Such policy shall contain coverage against loss, damage
or destruction by fire and such other hazards as are covered and protected against, at
standard rates under policies of insurance commonly referred to and known as
"extended coverage," as the same may exist from time to time.
Section 9.3. Evidence of Insurance. Copies of policies of insurance (or certificates of the
insurers) for insurance required to be maintained by the Lewis and Clark Center and the
County and City pursuant to Sections 9.1 and 9.2 shall be delivered by the Lewis and
Clark Center to the County and City, upon the issuance of such insurance and thereafter
not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration dates thereof.
Section 9.4. Waiver of Subrogation. The County and City and the Lewis and Clark
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Center each hereby releases the other from any and all liability or responsibility to itself or
anyone claiming through or under it by way of subrogation or otherwise for any loss or
damage to property caused by fire or any of the extended coverage or supplementary
contract casualties, even if such fire or other casualty results from the negligence of itself
or anyone for whom it may be responsible, provided, however, that this release shall be
applicable and in full force and effect only with respect to loss or damage occurring
during such time as any such release shall not adversely affect or impair the releasor's
policies or insurance or prejudice the right of the releasor to recover thereunder.
ARTICLE X. WASTE, NUISANCE;
COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS.
Section 10.1. Waste and Nuisance. The Lewis and Clark Center shall not commit or
suffer to be committed any waste or any nuisance upon the Leased Premises.
Section 10.2. Governmental Regulations. During the term of this Lease, the Lewis and
Clark Center shall, at the Lewis and Clark Center's sole cost and expense, comply with
all of the requirements of all County, state, Federal and other applicable governmental
authorities, now in force, pertaining to the Leased Premises or the Lewis and Clark
Center's use and occupancy thereof.
ARTICLE Xl. FIRE AND OTHER CASUALTY.
If the Facility shall be damaged so as to render eighty percent (80%) or more of the
Facility untenantable by fire or other casualty, Tenant shall be solely responsible for any
repairs and for restoration of the Leased Premises to good condition. If any damage or
destruction from any cause whatsoever has not been repaired and such repairs have not
commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date thereof, either party may,
as its exclusive remedy, terminate this Lease upon thirty (30) days written notice to all
other parties.
ARTICLE Xll. CONDEMNATION/HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION.
If the whole or any part of the Leased Premises shall be taken under the power of
eminent domain or otherwise for construction of a state highway, then this Lease shall
terminate as to the part so taken on the day when the Lewis and Clark Center is required
to yield possession thereof. If the portion of the Leased Premises so taken is such as to
impair substantially the usefulness of the Leased Premises for the purposes for which the
same are hereby leased, then either party shall have the option to terminate this Lease
as of the date when the Lewis and Clark Center is required to yield possession.
ARTICLE Xlll. DEFAULT OF LEWIS AND CLARK CENTER.
Section 13.1. Insolvency or Bankruptcy, Corporate Dissolution, Loss of Tax Exempt
Status. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a material breach of this
Lease by the Lewis and Clark Center ("Material Breach"):
(a) The appointment of a receiver or trustee to take possession of all or substantially all
of the assets of the Lewis and Clark Center; or (b) a general assignment by the Lewis
and Clark Center for the benefit of creditors; or (c) any action or proceeding commenced
by or against the Lewis and Clark Center under any insolvency or bankruptcy act, or
under any other statute or regulation having as its purpose the protection of creditors and
not discharged within ninety (90) days after the date of commencement; shall constitute a
breach of this Lease by the Lewis and Clark Center. Upon the happening of any such
event, this Lease shall, at the County and City's option terminate ten (10) days after
written notice of termination from the County and City to the Lewis and Clark Center; or
(d) dissolution of the Lewis and Clark Center's corporate status which continues for ninety
(90) days; or (e) loss of Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c) (3) tax exempt status by
the Lewis and Clark Center which loss continues for ninety (90) days; or (f)
discontinuation of the Lewis and Clark Center on the Leased Premises for a period
exceeding 365 consecutive days, which period commences on or after July 1,2008,
during which an interpretive historical center opened to the public commemorating the
Lewis and Clark Expedition and/or George Rogers Clerk is not in operation.
Section 13.2. Events of Default. Abandonment of the Leased Premises, a default often
(10) days in payment of rent, or breach of any of the covenants or conditions of this
Lease involving any Material Breach continuing for more than fifteen (15) days after
notice thereof from the County and City, shall each constitute an event of default
hereunder. No failure of the County and City to enforce any remedy available to it as a
result thereof shall invalidate such covenant or provision or any other covenant, condition
or provision hereof, or affect the right of the County and City to enforce the same in the
event of a subsequent breach or default.
Section 13.3. Remedies. Upon the occurrence of any event of default, the County and
City shall have the right, at their election, then or any time thereafter while such event of
default shall continue, either to give the Lewis and Clark Center written notice of their
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
intention to terminate this lease on the date of such notice or on any later date specified
therein, and on the date specified in such notice the Lewis and Clark Center's right to
possession of the Leased Premises shall cease, and this Lease shall thereupon be
terminated; or without demand or notice, to re-enter and take possession of the Leased
Premises or any part thereof, and repossess the same as of the County and City's former
estate and expel the Lewis and Clark Center and those claiming through or under the
Lewis and Clark Center and remove the effects of both or either, either by summary
proceedings, or by action of law or in equity, or otherwise, without being deemed guilty of
any manner of trespass and without prejudice to any remedies for arrearages of rent or
breach of covenant. If the County and City elect to re-enter, the County and City may
terminate this Lease or, from time to time, without terminating this Lease may relet the
Leased Premises, or any part thereof, as agent for the Lewis and Clark Center for such
term or terms and at such rental or rentals and upon such other terms and conditions as
the County and City may deem advisable, with the right to make alterations and repairs to
the Leased Premises. No such re-entry or taking of possession of the Leased Premises
by County and City shall be construed as an election on the County and City's part to
terminate this Lease unless a written notice of such intention is given as aforesaid, or
unless the termination thereof be decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction at the
instance of the County and City. The Lewis and Clark Center waives any right to the
service of any notice of the County and City's intention to re-enter provided for by any
present or future law.
ARTICLE XlV. SUCCESSORS
Section 14.1. Successors. All rights and liabilities herein given to, or imposed upon the
respective parties hereto, shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and permitted assigns of the parties. All covenants, representations and
agreements of the fee owner from time to time of the Leased Premises and the County
and City shall be automatically released of all liability under this Lease from and after the
date of any sale by the County and City of the Leased Premises. All covenants,
representations and agreements of the Lewis and Clark Center shall be deemed the
covenants, representations and agreements of the occupant or occupants of the Leased
Premises.
ARTICLE XV. MISCELLANEOUS.
Section 15.1. Waiver. The waiver by the County and City or the Lewis and Clark Center
of any breach of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to
be a waiver of such term, covenant, or condition or any subsequent breach of the same
or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein. The subsequent acceptance
of rent hereunder by the County and City respectively shall not be deemed to be a waiver
of any breach by the Lewis and Clark Center or the County and City, respectively, of any
term, covenant or condition of this Lease regardless of knowledge of such breach at the
time of acceptance or payment of such rent. No covenant, term or condition of this
Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by the Lewis and Clark Center or the
County and City unless the waiver be in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby.
Section 15.2. Entire Agreement. This Lease, and the exhibits attached hereto and
forming a part of hereof, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions
and understandings, between the County and City and the Lewis and Clark Center
concerning the Leased Premises and there are no covenants, promises, agreements
conditions or understandings, either oral or written, between them other than as herein
set forth. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment,
change or addition to this Lease shall be binding upon the County and City or the Lewis
and Clark Center unless reduced in writing and signed by them.
Section 15.3. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, or other instrument which may be,
or are required to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or
by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and shall be
addressed as follows:
If to the County:
Larry W. Davis, County Attorney
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
If to the City:
Stephen Craig Brown, Esq.
Charlottesville City Attorney's Office
605 East Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
If to the Lewis
and Clark Center:
Katherine E. Slaughter, President
Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center
of Virginia, Inc.
1501 Short 18th Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
or at such other address as designated by written notice.
Section 15.4. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions, section numbers, and table
of contents appearing in this Lease are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in
no way define, limit, construe, or describe the scope or intent of such sections of this
Lease nor in any way do they affect this Lease.
Section 15.5. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the
application thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or
unenforceable the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or
condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or
unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant, or condition of this
Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 15.6. Recording. Upon request of either party, a Memorandum of Lease will be
executed and recorded. Such Memorandum shall contain any provisions of this Lease
which either party requests except for the provisions of Article IV which shall not be
included. The cost of recording such Memorandum of Lease or a short form hereof shall
be borne by the party requesting such recordation.
Section 15.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Virginia.
Section 15.8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously or in two
or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 15.9. Rules and Regulations. The County and City may adopt such rules and
regulations as the County and City deem appropriate for the safe and efficient use of the
Leased Premises, which rules and regulations shall be effective after five days notice to
the Lewis and Clark Center.
ARTICLE XVl. BROKER'S FEES.
The Lewis and Clark Center and the County and City hereby warrant that there are no
brokerage commissions due in connection with this Lease.
ARTICLE XVll. NO ASSIGNMENT.
The Lewis and Clark Center shall not assign this Lease or subject all or any portion of the
Leased Premises to any sublease, either directly or indirectly, without the prior written
consent of the County and City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. A
merger, consolidation, sale, transfer or assignment by operation of law or a transfer or
sale of, in the aggregate, a majority of the stock of the corporation, if the Lewis and Clark
Center is a corporation, or a sale or transfer of any of the partnership interests, if the
Lewis and Clark Center is a partnership, shall be considered an assignment for purposes
of this section. No assignment, sublease or transfer of this Lease by the Lewis and Clark
Center shall (i) be effective unless and until the assignee, sub Lessee or transferee
expressly assumes in writing the Lewis and Clark Center's obligations under this Lease,
or (ii) relieve the Lewis and Clark Center of its obligations hereunder, and the Lewis and
Clark Center shall thereafter remain liable for the obligations of the Lewis and Clark
Center under this Lease whether arising before or after such assignment, sublease or
transfer.
ARTICLE XVlll. RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS.
The County and City hereby reserve to themselves, their successors and assigns, while
this Lease is in effect, the non-exclusive right and easement to use the supporting
structural elements of the Facility for lateral and subjacent support, including party walls
and supporting columns, for any adjacent property owned by the County and City.
ARTICLE XlX. INDEMNIFICATION.
The Lewis and Clark Center agrees to indemnify, defend, and save the County and City
harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, liability and expense in
connection with loss of life, bodily injury and damage to property caused in whole or in
part by any act or omission of the Lewis and Clark Center, its agents, employees, guests
or invitees, or arising from or out of any occurrence on or about the Leased Premises or
the occupancy thereof by the Lewis and Clark Center. In the event the County and City
shall, without fault on its part, be made a party to any litigation commenced by or against
the Lewis and Clark Center arising therefrom, then the Lewis and Clark Center shall
indemnify, defend and save the County and City harmless and shall pay all costs,
expenses and reasonable attorney's fees incurred or paid by the County and City in
connection with such litigation.
ARTICLE XX. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
This Lease and all rights of the Lewis and Clark Center hereunder are and shall be
subject and subordinate in all respects to (1) all mortgages, deeds of trust and building
loan agreements affecting the Leased Premises or the property described in Exhibit A,
including any and all renewals, replacements, modifications, substitutions, supplements
and extensions thereof, and (2) each advance made or to be made thereunder. In
confirmation of such subordination, the Lewis and Clark Center shall promptly upon the
request of the County and City, execute and deliver an instrument in recordable form
satisfactory to the County and City evidencing such subordination; and if the Lewis and
Clark Center fails to execute, acknowledge or deliver any such instrument within ten (10)
days after request therefore, the Lewis and Clark Center hereby irrevocably constitutes
and appoints the County and City as the Lewis and Clark Center's attorney-in-fact,
coupled with an interest, to execute, acknowledge and deliver any such instruments on
behalf of the Lewis and Clark Center. The Lewis and Clark Center further agrees that in
the event any such mortgagee or lender requests reasonable modifications to this Lease
as a condition of such financing, the Lewis and Clark Center shall not withhold or delay its
consent thereto.
ARTICLE XXl. NONRECOURSE.
Notwithstanding any breach by the County and City of any of the terms of this Lease, or
any claim by the Lewis and Clark Center arising hereunder, in no event shall the County
and City or any of the Trustees of the County and City have any personal liability
hereunder and the Lewis and Clark Center's only remedy in the event of such breach,
default or claim shall be to proceed against the County and City's interest in the Leased
Premises.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and City and the Lewis and Clark Center have
signed and sealed this Lease as of the date first above written.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Albemarle County's 2003 Annual Plan for Administration of
the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on
April 21 and April 28, 2003.)
Mr. Ron White said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires each public
housing agency to prepare a five-year plan for administering public housing assistance programs, and to
hold a public hearing on that plan. In addition there is a 45-day comment period. The Office has received a
small amount of comment. There are no changes proposed from last year's plan. They have achieved a
95 percent lease rate as of April 1,2003. It is their goal to get to 98 percent which means approximately
415 units under lease. Their high point to date has been 403. The program is running smoothly. The Plan
was presented to the Housing Committee and they support the Plan.
Mr. White said the Office is working within the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to
do three things for rental assistance programs in the region. One is entering into a cooperative written
agreement so that a voucher issued in Albemarle can be used in any of the localities in the Planning
District. The same would be true of another locality issuing a voucher which can be used in Albemarle.
This will avoid complicated administrative work. He is working with Commission members at the
Redevelopment & Housing Authority on a draft of that agreement. Second, they are putting together a
counseling program for people on the Section 8 waiting list so that when their name comes up they will be
better prepared to enter into a lease. MACAA is working on that and they propose coordinate the
counseling. Third, HOME moneys are being used (through the Thomas Jefferson Regional Home
Consortium) to create a security deposit and utility deposit loan program for people who go through the
counseling program.
Mr. Rooker asked the typical amount of a voucher. Mr. White said it averages between $400 and
$450 per month. The average family contribution is between $250 and $260. The Housing Office pays
about two-thirds of the cost.
Mr. Rooker asked how many units in the area qualify for the program. Mr. White said it is hard get
that number. The Office must rely on the private sector to provide the units. At this time, there is a 96
percent occupancy rate in all rental units in Albemarle County (according to Census data). A market
analysis done last year in conjunction with the Whitewood Road project indicated that 98 percent of the
affordable units were occupied.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board could have some kind of count on the number of units that qualify in
Albemarle County. Mr. Martin said there is no way to get a handle on that number.
Mr. Rooker asked how many units are qualified now under Section 8. Mr. White said the 400+
rented units are the obvious ones, but there are very few unoccupied units. Staff could look at the number
of units that would qualify under the Federal guidelines with the level of rents permitted.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. White knew the impact of all the new units being built. Evidently it is a
good time to build high-end, University-related housing projects. She asked if that building is freeing up any
units. Mr. White said there may be some units freed up. However, as those upper end units come on the
market, landlords call the Office and want to increase their rents based on the rents they are getting in their
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
other units. In some ways, it is having a negative impact.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Albemarle County's 2003 Annual Plan for
Administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
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 Board recessed at 10:41 a.m., and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Board-to-Board Presentation - School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, Chair of the Albemarle County School Board, was present. She said the
School Board has adopted its operating budget. In order to pay their employees salaries at market, they
made the cuts and adjustments necessary to do this. The School Board also voted to establish a minimum
hourly pay rate of $8.21. At the same time, they directed staff to continue studying this question realizing
that there are a lot of ramifications to the living wage.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board approved the Division calendar for 2003-04. The first day of
school is Monday, August 25, 2003, and the last day of school will be Friday, June 8, 2004. Spring break is
scheduled to be days 7 and 8 of the eight scheduled snow makeup days. That is a change. The calendar
was developed in conjunction with Charlottesville City Schools. It simplifies scheduling for CATEC and
activities between the two school divisions for professional development.
Ms. McKeel said this is teacher appreciation week. She said the Parent Council is recognizing
teachers every morning on WINA Radio with gift certificates donated by various businesses. Last Sunday,
the Albemarle School Board and the Charlottesville School Board, jointly, placed an advertisement in the
Daily Progress thanking their educators for their hard work.
Ms. McKeel said the Golden Apple Awards took place yesterday at The Rotunda. That award is a
way of honoring outstanding teachers from both of the public school systems, and from the private schools,
as well. The awards are sponsored by Richard Nunley, Chairman of the Better Living Supply & Furniture
Store.
Ms. McKeel said dedication of the Post High Special House happened on April 30. The House is
located behind Burley Middle School and serves students with special needs from ages 18 to 22. She
asked the Board members to come and visit the house which was built by CATEC and adapted for special
needs people.
Ms. McKeel said the "Make A Difference Day" generated a lot of excitement in the community last
fall. It also generated $10,000 for the School System from the Paul Newman Foundation. There were
more than 5000 volunteers in the community that day working on various projects. The money will be used
to supplement the salary of Jen Smith, Character Education Coordinator.
Ms. McKeel said she had forwarded information to the Board regarding technology funds. A report
in the Daily Progress erroneously said the School Division had received $700,000 in new technology funds
and that was not true.
Ms. McKeel said Burley Middle School will hold a dedication ceremony on May 15 at 10:00 a.m. for
the newly renovated courtyard, and the addition to the school. She asked the Supervisors to attend. She
said high school graduations will take place this year between June 2 and June 9.
Ms. McKeel said there was a question asked by Mr. Martin at a joint meeting about the Equity and
Diversity Committee. She has forwarded information on that issue to the Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 14. Proposal to seek Cable Television Franchise, Discussion of.
Mr. Davis said Albemarle County does not presently require a cable television operator to have a
franchise. This is unusual for a county of its size with an operating cable company within its borders and
considering the number of subscribers to the cable system at this time. There is a complicated legal
framework for regulating cable television in the Federal Cable Act, as well as in State law. Within that
regulatory authority, there are a number of things that could be regulated by the County. He set those out
in the executive summary, but they include: Upgrading the quality of the system (the infrastructure of the
system itself); continuation of broad categories of programming; Public Access channel capacity and capital
costs for public, educational and governmental (PEG) use; and, the ability to charge a franchise fee of up to
five percent of gross revenues. That fee would be a pass-through to the County for its purposes; customer
service standards can be set by the County. There are also things the locality cannot regulate: Under
current Federal law, the County cannot effectively regulate rates charged to consumers because there is
effective competition; the locality cannot require that specific channels be carried; and, the locality cannot
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
regulate the content of programming.
Mr. Davis said the revenue potential from franchise fees, based on last year's revenues, if the
County imposed a five-percent franchise fee, it would be approximately $530,000 annually. Presently there
are approximately 18,000 Albemarle County cable television subscribers. The area presently served by
Adelphia Cable is not a large portion of the County, but captures about 26,000 out of the 34,000
households currently existing in the County. A franchise could require reasonable expansions of that
service area, although it is generally unreasonable to require service to remote areas of the County. The
franchise could require Adelphia to provide facilities to televise public meetings, or facilities to provide
programming on a public, educational and government (PEG) channel. Those types of improvements are
generally passed on to the customers by rate by increasing the rates charged to subscribers.
Mr. Davis said there are also drawbacks. If the County took advantage of the PEG access, there
would be administrative expenses involved. Other jurisdictions have three or more full-time employees to
deal with issues similar to what the County could encounter. There are open public forum issues when
there are public access channels. The content of the channel is sometimes hard to regulate because of
constitutional issues. Because there are already 18,000 existing customers in Albemarle, they might expect
to see additional or improved cable services for the franchise fee. He does not think that could be
guaranteed.
Mr. Davis said the revenue that could be generated by the franchise fee would come from 18,000
households out of 34,000 households in the County. Someone could argue that it is an uneven tax burden
being placed on existing customers, a fee that could not be placed on the County generally. If the Board
chooses to go forward with a franchise, it is his opinion that this would be a new franchise rather than a
renewal of a franchise. There are different rules applied to the process under the Cable Act. A new
franchise can be awarded much more quickly. The time frame for a new franchise could be as short as six
to nine months depending on the amount of time taken to complete the needs analysis and the complexity
of the terms and conditions sought by the County.
Mr. Davis said if the County duplicated what the City of Charlottesville asked for, it would probably
not take long to negotiate a franchise. If the County wanted to negotiate additional things with Adelphia, it
might take longer. Given the extremely technical nature of the cable franchise law, special outside counsel
might be needed to negotiate the deal. Typically outside counsel's fees are reimbursed to the locality by
the cable company as part of the costs of being awarded the franchise.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Albemarle is the only locality in Virginia that does not have a franchise. Mr.
Davis said Fluvanna County does not have one. Lake Monticello has some kind of arrangement with
Adelphia and they charge a franchise fee. He does not know what it is exactly. Albemarle County may not
be the only County without a franchise, but it is in the minority. The town of Scottsville has a cable franchise
with Nelson County's operator. There is another operator in the County, so the Supervisors would have to
deal with that issue. He understands the same line serves Scottsville, Charlottesville and Lake Monticello.
From a physical lay-out, there might be some physical challenges from Adelphia if they had to provide
different services to different communities.
Mr. Bowerman said there was no figure in the executive summary for the estimated annual cost to
the County versus the revenue that would be generated. Mr. Davis said it would depend on what services
were to be provided. It would depend on the amount of citizen complaints. In reality, the cable company
would have to deal with those complaints anyway, but there could be a public process to deal with those
complaints, and that would drive up the cost.
Mr. Rooker said by law Adelphia has to have something set up to handle complaints. He does not
think that most jurisdictions do so.
Ms. Thomas said she just learned yesterday that Adelphia's complaint handling mechanism is not
located in this region. That is one thing that Charlottesville is asking for, that Adelphia actually have a local
telephone.
Mr. Davis said that typically there is a citizen advisory board which acts as a complaint board.
Typically, they meet about four times a year, and provide a forum where citizens can bring complaints to a
locality. It creates an expectation that the County would have a role in it. Currently, people making
complaints are advised that the County does not regulate cable and they are passed to Adelphia to deal
with the issue.
Mr. Rooker asked how many staff members Charlottesville has for this program. Mr. Davis said
they have three people who deal with this as well as other community relations issues. Mr. Tucker said that
is new. They upgraded that in the last year or so to provide production on Channel 14.
Mr. Dorrier asked how the Board members feel about moving in this direction.
Mr. Martin said he is in favor.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to know the net revenue which could be expected. She said the
City has just found that Adelphia shortchanged them this year. So, it is not just the people who deal with the
public access channel, but there needs to be someone who is auditing Adelphia.
Mr. Davis said the City issue is with advertising revenue, and there may be a dispute about how that
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
is allocated. That is an interesting issue because if there were a franchise, revenue would also have to be
allocated to the County under the gross receipts, and there would need to be some process to decide how
that is split.
Mr. Rooker said allocation of advertising revenues is not unique to Charlottesville, but is a
nationwide issue.
Ms. Thomas said she will have to be convinced the County is not "jumping on a sinking ship" with
this particular provider, and its history with Charlottesville. She is in favor of looking into the question.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to have an estimate of the costs associated with this process, a
little more information. Mr. Tucker said staff will provide further information about options and alternatives.
Mr. Dorrier said government is supposed to provide for the citizenry what they cannot provide for
themselves. His question concerns the cost benefit ratio for County government and its citizens.
Mr. Rooker said that nationwide about the same gross rate is paid locally as is paid elsewhere.
Their primary competition in this area is satellite service.
Mr. Davis said that today, customers in the City pay 15 percent more than County customers
because they have a consumer utility tax and a five percent franchise fee.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board wanted to study this issue further.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Martin that the Board should go forward with looking into
negotiating a franchise with Adelphia Cable. He asked if the Board can entertain competitive bids. Mr.
Davis said that is a decision the Board would have to make. It is a non-exclusive arrangement, so once it is
opened up, it would be open to Adelphia and any competitor. The experience is that competition is not real
and the infrastructure cost would prevent competition. He does not believe there would be anyone else
interested in the urban part of the County, but in the southern part of the County there may be some
competition.
Mr. Rooker said even if Adelphia is in bankruptcy, the system probably has a value of $50.0 million
and it will continue to be operated by some entity.
Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: ZMA-2000-009. North Pointe. To rezone 269.4 acs from RA
PD-MC w/special use to allow mixture of commercial & residential uses w/maximum of 893 residential units
& approx 664,000 sq ft of commercial & office space & 250 room hotel. TM 32, Ps 20, 20a, 20al, 20a2,
20a3, 22h, 22k, 23, 23a, 23b, 23c, 23d, 23e, 23f, 23g, 23h, 23j & 29i. Loc N of Proffit Rd, E of Rt 29 N, W
of Pritchett Lane & S of the Rivanna River. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional
Service, Office Service, Urban Density (6-34 du/ac) & Neighborhood Density (3-6 du/ac) in the Hollymead
Community. Rivanna Dist.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner, presented the staff's report. On the wall were some display
boards indicating the location of the property on Route 29 North, south of the North Fork of the Rivanna
River. Also posted were the Development Plan and the Application Plan. The development will cover 269
acres with 664,000 square feet of commercial and office space with 893 residential units. It is a unique site
because of its natural features.
Ms. Echols said this petition was not before the Planning Commission for a long time, so the Board
was sent a very large staff report outlining a lot of unresolved issues. The renderings of the project reflect
the colors of the Land Use Plan. The project contains a variety of housing types and land uses. Most of the
streets have curb and gutter and sidewalk. A potential school site is shown at a location staff feels is
appropriate.
Ms. Echols said there are a number of unresolved issues. One of those has to do with
environmental issues. There are many critical slopes on the site adjacent to the Rivanna River. There is
construction of townhouses/apartments planned on those slopes. Some lot lines are on all of those slopes.
The slopes nearest the Rivanna River are probably the most important resource on this site and staff thinks
they should be preserved. Staff does not think the plan reflects appropriate preservation of those areas.
Ms. Echols said Flat Branch comes through the site. The lake has been reduced in size to what
the County's Water Resources Manager feels is appropriate to protect the stream. The form of the project
reflects a conventional style of development with discreet and separate uses, but does not conform to the
principles of the Neighborhood Model in terms of the location and uses. There is a lack of integration of
housing types one with another, a lack of relegated parking for the large shopping area off of the spine
road, and there is an issue with walkability.
Mr. Bowerman said the Neighborhood Model is not the only development model. Ms. Echols said
the Comprehensive Plan says "To the greatest extent possible, new development proposals should
incorporate the principles of the Neighborhood Model." It is a question of how the principles are addressed
in terms of their importance. Mr. Bowerman said that sounds as if there is only one way to develop.
Mr. Rooker said it does not mean there is a cookie-cutter model. It does not mean that every
development will incorporate all 12 principles. But, to the extent possible, they should be incorporated
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
given the physical features and other attributes of the development.
Mr. Bowerman asked if all large development proposals are going to be weighed against the
Neighborhood Model in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rooker said, according to the Comprehensive Plan,
those factors are supposed to be used.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Echols to list the parts of the Neighborhood Model this plan does not
address. Ms. Echols referred the Board members to Pages 7 and 8 of the staff's report. She said no one
on the DISC Committee, the Commission, or this Board, expected that every development would be a
traditional neighborhood development. The features of interconnectivity should be present in development
proposals. As an example, not every development can provide a grid street network, but streets can be
interconnected.
Ms. Echols referred the Board members to the Principles of the Neighborhood Model starting on
Page 7. The first principle has to do with Pedestrian Orientation. There should be places where people
can walk in close proximity to their home. This particular development segregates the residential uses from
the commercial uses. There are advantages if there is going to be a regional shopping center as proposed.
It makes sense if there is to be a lot of paved area or if it is located as proposed close to the stream. The
next question is how to integrate more commercial activities in the other residential areas for walkability.
She said there is a fairly long distance for pedestrians to walk to the shopping center. The likelihood that
they will actually walk is not great. Often people will not walk that far to get groceries. However, there are
the people who walk to work or who may not have a car.
Ms. Echols next mentioned Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths. She said the Neighborhood
Model suggests that there be street trees along the streets since sidewalks should not be adjacent to the
street. The profiles for this development do not show street trees. There is also one street that does not
even have a sidewalk. As Interconnected Streets, since the Commission's meeting, staff has gotten a
couple more road connections. The potential exists, with some alternate grading of the site, to get more
interconnections. This is an unusual site in terms of shape and geographic features. Staff believes it is
appropriate to reserve for dedication, on demand, a road connection to Pritchett Lane. Staff knows this is
not in keeping with Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and not in keeping with what the residents on
Pritchett Lane want, but they feel that another way is needed in this development for an ultimate
transportation system.
Next, Ms. Echols mentioned the Quality and Quantity of Open Space and Parks. She said the
Neighborhood Model talks about the quality of the amenities. There are two small recreational areas
shown to serve all 893 residential units (Note: This is a change from the draft forwarded earlier). Staff is
concerned about the size of those facilities and has asked for additional information. Complaints have
often been received from people living in large developments saying their swimming pools are not large
enough for their particular development.
Ms. Echols then pointed to a rendering which showed a main street which reflects the principle,
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale. She said that most developers have gone to the ARB to show them
their architectural ideas. This developer declined to do that. The developer thinks that is an appropriate
thing to do at site plan level so staff does not have the amount of information it usually sees about buildings
and how the principles would be met for the buildings in the development.
Next is Relegated Parking. Staff thinks it is clear that the principle of relegated parking is not met
and there are areas along Route 29 where it could be met. Some buildings front Route 29 with the parking
on the side and behind the buildings. There is a spine road that comes all the way through the
development. Off of that spine road near the traffic circle there is a tremendous amount of paved area in
front of the shopping center. It is similar to what is seen along Route 29 now, and staff thought the Board
wanted to change that pattern.
Next, Ms. Echols mentioned the principle, Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability. This
proposal provides a good mixture of housing types. However, they are not integrated or mixed within the
development. There is a proffer which relates to a community development authority (CDA) which talks
about making three-percent of the housing units available, as affordable. If affordability is to be talked
about in this development, that needs to be better thought out.
Next, Site Planning that Respects Terrain is a principle which deals with what is on the site. In the
shopping center area there is going to be massive grading, but not a lot in the areas outside of the shopping
center. The result is a conventional style development outside of the shopping center. Then, inside the
shopping center there is a flat area and retaining walls and 2:1 slopes. That is what was done before the
1997 Land Use Plan was developed. Grading on this site would allow for more interconnections and
provide fewer 2:1 slopes and retaining walls (rather than having one end of the site totally graded out, and
the rest "sort of left alone"). She said the implication is that the only grading would occur for roads, but
there is a tremendous amount of grading needed on this site.
Ms. Echols said as to Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas, a clear boundary is established on
this plan. The houses will turn their backs to Pritchett Lane, and the developer is proposing a heavily
vegetated buffer of about 30 feet between the backs of the houses and Pritchett Lane. This was described
in the Neighborhood Model as being one way to deal with the development area boundary. Staff thinks that
is appropriate if a connection can be obtained to Pritchett Lane, but there needs be more detail in the
proffer as to the characteristics of the vegetative buffer.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Dorrier said the Board only has 25 minutes left in this morning's session. He asked how much
more of the report the Board members wanted to hear. Mr. Rooker said he would like to hear the rest of
the report.
Ms. Echols said that from staff's and the Commission's perspective, there are still a number of
unresolved issues with this project. There are proffers which describe some things which make them true
proffers. There are others which are not true proffers, but describe things which will be required at some
future date. There is a proffer for development of a Community Development Authority (CDA). In this
case, staff thinks the applicant is proffering to create a CDA to help diminish site development costs which
normally all developers have to pay, and staff does not think the use of the CDA in this case is appropriate.
The school site proffered is minimal in relation to the entire project. Staffwould like to see a true proffer of
a school site of 12 usable site-graded acres. Staff does not feel that a fire/rescue facility and library are
needed in this development.
Ms. Echols said there will be a significant impact on Route 29, not just from this project, but from
several other projects which are under consideration. She said the Commission had a very minimal review
of the project, and the ARB has not yet reviewed the project.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many times the Commission looked at this project. Ms. Echols said it was
only one time, and the Commission was requested to act on the petition at that meeting. She listed the
following options for the Board. The Board can advise the applicant that this project is premature; the
Board can send this proposal back to the Commission; or, the Board can advise the applicant as to what it
would like to see changed before the public hearing which is scheduled for June 11.
Mr. Martin said he knows this is just a work session, but he thinks the applicant should have a
chance to respond to staff's comments.
Mr. Dorrier said the applicant would be given a chance to respond.
Mr. Rooker said he did not want to turn this into a public hearing today. One problem is that this
proposal has not gone through the normal process, so the Board does not have the benefit of the
Commission's normal review. The Board is being asked to look at this petition and do the work of the
Commission without having their guidance. He thinks the work session today was premature. This
proposal should go the Commission and go through the normal process. The Board should get a proposal
that has been refined based on their input. This is one of the largest rezoning requests in years. To have it
come to this Board without going through the process is inappropriate.
Mr. Dorrier said how this Board interacts with the Commission is a good point. The Commission is
supposed to plan and provide its recommendation. Most of the time there is a unanimous recommendation
from the Commission because they have "hashed out" the issues and reached a consensus. In this case,
there has been a leap-frog over the Commission to the Board. Was there a reason for that? What makes
this application different from a normal application? Mr. Tucker said he understands the applicant asked
the Commission to vote on this request so it could move forward.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board would give Mr. Rotgin two minutes to tell it why he decided to go this
route rather than the normal route.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said this development is a work in process. The question about why they
("developers") asked the Commission to act as they did is a legitimate question. They recognized that the
Commission, in its actions over the past several years, had consistently opposed fundamental design
aspects, including cul-de-sacs, large stores, and parking in front of buildings. They feel that all of these
things are necessary for the success of North Pointe. Also, the Board has not consistently agreed with the
Commission with respect to those points. They believe there are ideological differences as to form, not
substance, that need to be resolved in principle by this Board. He is confident the remaining details can be
worked out with the Planning staff as they go through the rest of the rezoning process.
Mr. Rotgin said they are requesting from this Board some directions on four big issues. Are
cul-de-sacs going to be permitted? Are large stores going to be permitted? Is parking going to be allowed
in front of large stores and in front of residences? Does the CDA represent a viable alternative for financing
public infrastructure in the County? He said that in 1983 they introduced tax-exempt revenue bonds for
shopping centers to help them construct things which otherwise could not have been built. He thinks Mr.
Davis has a good understanding of a CDA. They would like to get directions on these four issues and then
have another work session with the Board.
Mr. Rotgin said they think that during the ensuing weeks they can work with staff and get the issues
down to a manageable number, and then argue the merits of the rezoning. The issues they see are: Is the
tract of land suitable for what they are proposing? Is the appropriate public infrastructure in place or
planned? Does the proposal comply with the Comprehensive Plan? Are they doing their fair share to
mitigate any adverse impacts?
Mr. Rotgin said this proposal does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. It keeps residential
development within the designated growth area. It helps keep the County's retail sales tax from leaking. It
will contribute $3.0 million a year of net additional revenues. It provides a parallel road to Route 29. It
provides interconnectivity with all of the properties to the east of Route 29 (just like Berkmar Drive does to
the west of Route 29 further in toward the City). It makes available an elementary school site and potential
other public infrastructure. It involves the donation of a greenway. They are taking care of damage by
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
others through mitigation of the stream. They are providing a meaningful number of dwelling units at
affordable prices. The plan is a work in process. They acknowledge that there is a lot of work to be done.
Staff has been good in working with the applicants. They just need some directions from the Board on the
questions he has raised.
Mr. Dorrier asked why the Commission could not be asked to give these directions. Mr. Rotgin said
they went to the Commission meeting willing and wanting to enter into a discourse. After they made their
proposal, one of the Commissioners asked the chair if it would be appropriate to ask the applicant
questions as to why they wanted a decision that night, and the chair said it would be inappropriate. They
were not given an opportunity to respond. They felt that the issues he raised are issues the Commission
has consistently not approved. The Board has, on occasion, taken the opposite position, and they feel
these are Board-related issues. They will take whatever time needed to work through these issues at this
level. If the public hearing must be postponed, they agree to that.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the Board wanted to do at this time.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the Commission has turned down every cul-de-sac proposal that
has come before it. He does not know the definition of "large store" in this case, but there have been many
large stores approved by the Commission. The Board just finished with parking regulations, so they have
not been applied to a development yet. The Commission has never considered a CDA. The vote by the
Commission having to act when they did was 7:0 for denial. He said there are about 2000 new people
moving to this community each year. There are 600 to 800 new houses being built in the area, and the
County wants to channel that development into the designated growth areas, if possible. But, he does not
think that means the Board should bypass the Commission and not have the benefit of them doing the kind
of thorough work they normally do on a rezoning, and have it basically dumped on the Board. He then read
a statement from a letter from the League of Women Voters which was received just today. They urged the
Board to send this proposal back to the Commission. He agrees. He does not think this Board should
schedule another work session, but send it back to the Commission in order to get the benefit of their
insights.
Mr. Dorrier said one issue Mr. Rotgin mentioned is important to look at, and that is the CDA. The
Board has not implemented a CDA in Albemarle County yet. He does not think the Commission can deal
with it without some guidance from this Board.
Mr. Martin said whether there is another work session at the Board level, or the proposal is sent
back the Commission, he thinks there are some directions the Board can give staff and the developer. This
Board has said it is in favor of moving forward with the concept of a CDA. That does not mean that what is
being proposed will go through the Commission and back to the Board. He would like to clearly state that
the Comprehensive Plan says there will be no access from Pritchett Lane. The people on Pritchett Lane do
not want access. This Board supported him several years ago by not putting an access in the
Comprehensive Plan, although it may be a good idea to leave the possibility open for a future connection to
Pritchett Lane. He thinks that in the future the people on Pritchett Lane will be looking forward to having an
access.
Mr. Martin said the whole issue with big stores is the "big box" issue the Board battled several times.
He said there was a split vote on the question, but the Board did not say there could not be big box stores in
the County. He thinks the Commission makes it a primary issue, when the Board has clearly said it just
needs to be worked out so it does not look like a big box. The issue with cul-de-sacs seems to be an issue
of topography. But, Ms. Echols said there are opportunities for these, while there is topography which
prevents having them. He is not sure about the issue of relegated parking.
Mr. Bowerman said he has no prejudice against a large store, which means a store of up to
140,000 square feet. He thinks the Commission has such a prejudice. He does not think this Board said a
large store is inappropriate.
Ms. Thomas said the staff report makes no such statement either. That is not the issue, although
there are dozens of issues.
Mr. Rooker said that for Albemarle Place the Board placed a 70,000 square foot limit on the size of
the largest building which can be on the site. He thinks the Board needs the benefit of the Commission's
recommendation. The characteristics of the site are somewhat different, as are the traffic patterns, the
physical layout and interconnections. Stormwater requirements must be considered, and he thinks the
Board needs that input on all those details before it can make an intelligent decision.
Mr. Rooker said the staff does not feel the CDA is appropriate because it is being proposed as a
way for the developer to cover his own infrastructure costs. He thinks the Board looked at a CDA as being
a way for development to participate in the infrastructure expense offsite on things like Route 29's capacity
problem. The traffic study for this proposal suggests that it will add about 30,000 vehicle trips per day on
Route 29. That is a 75 percent increase in traffic. He does not know how the proposal by the applicant will
mitigate those problems, but he thinks it should be determined whether the applicant is willing to participate
in a CDA to help solve that capacity problem. Rather than the Board scheduling another work session, he
thinks the proposal should be sent back to the Commission and request that they do their normal review of
a rezoning.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks Mr. Rooker made some good comments. He asked if staffwould get
information about a CDA. Mr. Tucker said when the Board is ready to look at an actual proposal, staff is
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
prepared to talk about a CDA.
Ms. Thomas said she would not want to mislead the applicant. She thinks the information
furnished the Board about a CDA is for a CDA which was different from the one proposed by the applicant.
It is not a black and white issue. There is a question of what kind of CDA is appropriate, the geographical
area, and its purpose.
Mr. Dorrier asked if CDAs in other localities are site specific or general. Mr. Davis said the CDAs in
Virginia have been created within the boundaries of a single development. The purpose is to provide an
incentive for economic development purposes so development can occur in that locality and reduce the
cost of infrastructure. The one at Short Pump is probably the best known at this time. It was a way to lure
that development to Henrico County and provide reduced costs for it locating there. That can be a
legitimate purpose for forming a CDA. The statute also speaks to it providing for public impacts caused by
development. It is not limited to being a vehicle to finance infrastructure costs. One court has even said
that is an inappropriate use. But, that is not a final decision on the question.
Mr. Rooker said the Board should consider that Albemarle has a Commonwealth Transportation
Board member, Mr. Butch Davies, who is interested in looking at inventive ways to finance transportation
projects. There is basically no money in the Six-Year Plan for road improvements in the Route 29 North
area. Developing a CDA might result in private as well as public contributions toward that effort.
Mr. Bowerman said there are three major projects coming before the Board; Albemarle Place,
Hollymead Town Center, and this project. They all access Route 29. Perhaps there could be a CDA that
worked to get some extra money from the private sector for improvements to Route 29 along with State
funds and County funds. That could be the type of CDA being discussed.
Mr. Davis said that would be an ambitious project, and it is not how CDAs have been utilized. But,
he believes there is the potential for that type of innovative solution to the larger Route 29 problem.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Davis has been looking into it, and he thinks there are some answers needed
on the necessity for the property being contiguous, but he does not think it should hold up this project. The
Board needs the Commission's insight on all kinds of things having to do with this project. In the interim, the
Board needs to determine what type of CDA might be appropriate. The developer of Albemarle Place told
him yesterday that he would participate in such a CDA.
Mr. Tucker said the CDA can be done at any time during this process. Staff started looking at CDAs
and made a presentation to the Board a couple of months ago. Now, staff has looked at some other
alternatives. He said this is County Government Day, and the Board is supposed be outside at noon. He
thinks the Board needs to decide whether to defer this to petition another work session or to send it back to
the Commission.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks there are definitely questions that need to be answered. It might be
faster for the Commission to do the work.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Martin explained each issue very well. He thinks the Commission can deal with
those issues, and he thinks the proposal should be sent back to the Commission for review.
At this point, Mr. Rooker offered motion to return ZMA-2000-009, North Pointe, to the Commission
for its normal review process. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
12:00 NOON - BREAK FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT DAY.
Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:05 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session after
attending County Government Day ceremonies pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A) of the Code of Virginia
under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions; and, under Subsection (7) to
consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific matters requiring the provision of legal advice relating
to a claim against the County. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
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. 17. Certify Closed Session.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:29 p.m. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that the best of each Board member's knowledge only
public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or
considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to make the following appointments:
Mr. Robert Mellow to the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board with said term to expire on
June 30, 2007. Mr. Mellow replaces Ms. Jacqueline A. Rice whose term had expired.
Mr. Anthony Townsend to the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board with said term to expire on
June 30, 2007. Mr. Townsend replaces Mr. Kenneth O. Lee whose term had expired.
Mrs. Shirley Copeland to the Commission on Children and Families as the County's representative,
with said term to expire on June 30, 2006. Mrs. Copeland replaces Mr. Larry Miller whose term had
expired.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 19. SP-2002-081. Philip Haney (Crown Tower-Piney Mountain) amendment
(Signs #47 & 48). Request to allow collocation of an array of 9 add'l antennas at approx 93 ft on existing
146-foot tall tower, w/add'l ground equipment, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 21, P 10,
contains approx 10.31 acs. Znd RA. Located on western side of Rt 606 (Dickerson Rd) approx 1/8 mi S of
intersec w/Rt 641 (Frays Mill Rd). White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2003.).)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this request is for the collation of one new
array of antenna at approximately 93 feet on an existing tower. There would be additional supporting
ground equipment. The proposed panel antennas are approximately six-feet in length and eight-inches
wide. They would be mounted with a triangular bracket allowing two antennas per sector with the possibility
for installation of a third antenna on each. Ground equipment would be installed in three cabinets. The
tower, and the three existing equipment buildings housing ground equipment for other service providers are
located in a wooded area within a compound surrounded by an eight-foot tall chain link fence accessed
from a gravel road with an existing easement that is approximately one-quarter mile northeast of Piney
Mountain Road.
Mr. Cilimberg said the facility is situated at an elevation that lies between 940 and 950 feet Above
Sea Level (ASL). Piney Mountain peaks at approximately 1116 feet ASL. He cited several factors
favorable to the request including no clearing or disturbance being necessary for placement of the
antennas and equipment, and the proposed antennas would be located at a lower height than all other
existing arrays on the tower. Factors unfavorable to the request are that the existing tower is visible from
various roads and properties located near this property, and the existing tower is located within an
Avoidance Area.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff did recommended approval of this special use permit subject to conditions.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 22, 2003, by a vote of 3:1 recommended approval
subject to the same eight conditions, but added Condition No. 9 that states: []This special use permit must
be amended to allow the three existing arrays of panel antennas to be: (a) relocated on the structure; (b)
modified to increase the number or size of panel antennas; or, (c) modified to increase the distance of the
panel antennas from the structure.
(Note: Ms. Thomas returned to the meeting at 2:34 p.m.)
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Terence Cooke with the firm of Cole, Raymond and Braverman, said he was present to
represent the applicant, Omnipoint Communications. Also with him are Mr. Mike Budde and Mr. Nahgea
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Kahn who will help answer technical questions. He said Omnipoint Communications, which now operates
as T-Mobile USA, is licensed by the FCC to provide wireless communication services in Albemarle County.
T-Mobile is competing with several other wireless service providers as it begins its network build-out. T-
Mobile always looks first for opportunities to collate its antennas on existing towers, poles, or other tall
structures so as minimize the proliferation of new antenna support structures. To date, all of T-Mobile's
wireless stations covering Route 29 between Culpeper and Charlottesville have been, or are expected to
be, collations on existing structures. T-Mobile has not had to erect a single new tower or monopole leading
into this Piney Mountain site.
Mr. Cooke said the existing Crown tower on Piney Mountain is ideally situated to afford T-Mobile the
maximum coverage pattern along a portion of Route 29 and adjacent areas stretching approximately two
miles. That location maximizes T-Mobile's coverage and thereby eliminates the need for one or more new
poles. They are aware of the County's preference for flush-mounted towers. In this case, flush-mounting
antennas to the legs of the existing tower given its location will deny T-Mobile both coverage and signal
quality. That could necessitate another antennae site somewhere in the vicinity to make up for the less than
optimum performance that will be obtained from the Piney Mountain site. It would shrink the area of
coverage because the third antennae would be mounted on the side of the tower most removed from
Route 29. Those antennae would not be able to seek Route 29 and because it would be mounted flush to
the tower it could not be rotated or tilted sufficiently to look around the edge of the tower and transmit and
receive signals from Route 29. T-Mobile would be the fourth wireless carrier to locate on this Crown tower,
and this special use permit is required because its antennas would not be mounted flush to the tower.
Mr. Cooke said the staff report takes one through the criteria for a special use permit in Albemarle
County. First, the proposed use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. All existing and
proposed ground equipment is thoroughly screened by topography and vegetation from surrounding
property. The existing equipment compound at the base of the tower will not be expanded and no
additional land clearing or grading would be required. The proposed use will not change the character of
the district. The applicant proposed to add antennas to an existing tower at a point lower than any antennas
already located on that tower. Staff noted that similar facilities are located in the RA district including a
nearby radar installation for the regional Airport. It cannot be said that an additional set of antennas on an
existing communications tower would alter the character of the RA district.
Mr. Cooke said as to the proposed use being in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning
ordinance, the staff's report noted the increasing popularity of wireless communication services among a
segment of the population. Wireless phones are a convenience and personal safety device for anyone who
wants to be in touch wherever they might be. When it is possible to locate new facilities on existing
structures with no additional disturbance to the natural surroundings, they believe that furthers the purpose
of the zoning ordinance, and the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cooke said the purposed use will not restrict or otherwise affect by-right uses allowed in the
district. Staff identified no evidence that the proposed addition of antennas to the existing tower on Piney
Mountain will restrict or otherwise interfere with any uses allowed by right in the RA district. Finally, the
proposed use must conform to the supplemental requirements in Section 5.0 of the zoning ordinance
pertaining to personal wireless facilities. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy suggests that
antenna arrays on a structure be limited to three, and that all antennas be flush-mounted. However, in this
case there is an existing tower with three antenna arrays none of which are flush-mounted. He said the
tower is structurally sound and capable of supporting the fourth array proposed by T-Mobile. One of the
conditions imposed on the original developer of the tower was that he makes space available on the tower
to other wireless service providers.
Mr. Cooke said that in conclusion the applicant consents to all the conditions set out in the staff's
report. He said this application satisfies all criteria for the granting of a special use permit. He then
requested that the Board grant approval of this special use permit.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-2002-081, Phillip Hane~Crown
Tower Piney Mountain amendment, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Rooker said he does not support the request. The tower is not currently in keeping with tower
regulations and it substantially adds to the visibility of a tower that should not have been approved in the first
place. The staff report points out that the tower is visible from various roads and properties nearby. Every
applicant has an argument that towers like this have been allowed previously so should be allowed for other
carriers and now they should be allowed for this particular carrier. He does not know where that argument
stops, but he thinks the Board should enforce its policy. He does not think the Board should approve
substantial additional tower arrays on what are today non-conforming towers.
Mr. Bowerman said he strongly disagrees that it makes a substantial change to the tower's
appearance.
Mr. Dorrier called for a roll call. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
All work shall be done in general accord with that described in the applicant's
request and site construction plans, entitled "Omnipoint Communications CAP
Operations, Crown-Piney Mountain," last revised on December 12, 2002;
The tower shall not be increased in height;
The additional array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of
the tower. The cables extending from the ground equipment may remain
black;
b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height and two (2) feet in
width;
c. The antennas shall be set at the minimum distance that is allowed by the
mounting equipment, and in no case shall any of the new antennas project
from the structure a distance that is greater than that of the existing
antennas; and
d. The antennas and dishes attached to this tower may be replaced
administratively, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of
the replacement equipment are in compliance with these conditions of
approval and in accordance with all applicable regulations set forth in
Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance. The note on page Z-2, which
implies that the size and height of the antennas may be adjusted to meet RF
requirements, shall be deleted from the construction drawings or amended
to remove this consideration for size and height;
With the exception of the safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration
regulations, outdoor lighting shall be permitted only during maintenance periods;
regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire that is not required for
safety shall be fully shielded as required by Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance;
No existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the facility shall be removed for
the purpose of installing the proposed antennas or any supporting ground
equipment;
The current owner and any subsequent owners of the tower facility, shall submit a
report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify
each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing
indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with
each provider;
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider
shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed
from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
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 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;
The tower shall be limited to a total of four (4) vertical arrays of panel antennas.
No additional relay, satellite or microwave dish antennas shall be permitted on the
tower; and
This special use permit must be amended to allow the three existing arrays of
panel antennas to be: (a) relocated on the structure; (b) modified to increase the
number or size of panel antennas; or (c) modified to increase the distance of the
panel antennas from the structure.
(Note: The public hearings on the next seven petitions will be held concurrently, with a separate
vote taken on each petition.)
Agenda Item No. 20. SP-2003-008. David C. Weber-Triton PCS Amendment (Sign #45).
Request to allow installation of new ground equipment supporting new digital technology, E-911 services &
replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 73, P 31D, contains 10.31 acs. Loc on Rt 708 (Dry Bridge Rd) between 1-64 & Rt 637
(Dick Woods Rd). Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 21. SP-2003-10. Elizabeth Brigh-tTriton PCS Amendment (Sign #19). Request
to allow installation of new ground equipment supporting digital technology, E-911 services & replacement
of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord.
TM 58, P 61A, contains approx 5.144 acs. Loc on eastern side of Rt 676 (Tillman Rd), approx 1/2 mile N of
intersec w/Rt 250 W. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2003.)
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Agenda Item No. 22. SP-2003-11. Martin Howe~lTriton PCS Amendment (Signs #75 & 85).
Request to allow installation of new ground equipment supporting digital technology, E-911 services &
replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 72, P 21. Loc at 5726 Wyant Lane, approx 153 feet S of I 64 & between St Rt 635 &
Mechums River. Znd RA & w/in EC. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 23. SP-2003-012. James and Julie Herrin,~Triton PCS Amendment (Signs #15 &
16). Request to allow installation of new ground equipment supporting digital technology, E-911 services &
replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 53, P 6, contains 83.417 acs. Loc off of Green Hill Lane approx 1/2 mile NW of the Rt 64
W overpass of Rt 690 (Newtown Rd). Znd RA & EC. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 24. SP-2003-013. David T. Pastor~Triton PCS Yancey Mills Amendment (Sign
#80). Request to allow installation of new ground equipment supporting digital technology, E-911 services
& replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 55, Ps 19D & 19D1, contains approx 21 acs. Loc on Rt 684 (Half Mile Branch Rd) at
Yancey Mills approx 1/8 mile N of the intersec with Rt 797 (Hillsboro Lane). Znd RA & EC. White Hall Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 25. SP-2003-014. David or Carolyn Holmes-Triton PCS Mt. Jefferson
Amendment (Signs #17 & 18). Request to allow installation of new ground equipment supporting digital
technology, E-911 services & replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in
accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 76C, Sec 2, P 2, contains approx 1.5 acs. Znd R-1 (1 du/ac)
& EC. Loc on the western side of Rt 29 bypass (Monacan Trail), approx 1/2 mile S of intersec of Rts 29 &
250 W (Ivy Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 21 and April 28, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 26. SP-2003-016. John and Dorothy Adam~Triton PCS Amendment (Signs #92,
95 & 96). Request to allow installation of new ground equipment supporting digital technology, E-911
services & replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec
10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 59, P 20, contains 140.982 acs. Loc at 785 Verdant Lawn Lane, W of Rt
250 & Rt 677. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant's proposal is for replacement of antennas and installation of new
ground equipment supporting upgrades in digital technology and E-911 services at several existing personal
wireless services facilities. The proposed panel antennas, which are approximately four and one-half feet
in length, one-foot in width, and four inches in depth, would be flush-mounted on existing []treetop[
monopoles at various Triton SunCom facilities throughout the County. At each site the new ground
equipment would be installed within two cabinets. The larger of these two cabinets would either be installed
on the existing concrete pad, or on a pre-cast pad extension, while the smaller cabinet would be fitted on
top of the existing equipment cabinets located on each side. Additional, a two-foot long, three-quarter inch
diameter Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna would be installed at ground level on ice bridges.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Bright, Howell, Herring, Pastors and Adams special use permits would allow
the replacement of existing antennas with new ones that are slightly larger and new ground equipment that
would fit on the existing concrete pads. The Weber petition is to allow the replacement of existing antennas
with new ones that are slightly larger and ground equipment that requires the addition of a three-foot by
two-foot pre-cast concrete pad, under an existing screening shed. The Holmes petition is to allow the
replacement of existing antennas that are larger than those being proposed and ground equipment that
requires the addition of a five-foot by three-foot pre-cast concrete pad.
Mr. Cilimberg said the existing facilities were established in accordance with Tier II of the wireless
policy and none of these proposals would require an increase in the height of the monopoles that have
been constructed to support the attached antennas. It is staff's opinion that the proposed ground
equipment would not have the effect of increasing visibility of the facilities. This is because existing
equipment is larger than that being proposed so is already adequately screened from adjacent properties
and roadways.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff cited several factors which are favorable to these requests, mainly: no
additional clearing or other disturbance appears to be necessary for the replacement of the antennas and
installation of new ground equipment. Staff identified no factors that are unfavorable to these requests.
Mr. Cilimberg said that at its meeting on April 30, 2003, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the above-mentioned special use permit amendments for seven existing Triton
wireless facilities. These amendments will allow the replacement of antennas on existing tree-top poles
and additional new equipment cabinets. The applicant requested that the Commission revise Condition No.
1 to state that []the antennas and other equipment shall be sized, located and maintained in general accord
with the plans[], as opposed to the more specific language recommended by staff. Although the
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Commission thought this would not be an unfavorable change, the Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Greg
Kampter, advised that while phrases such as []general accord[] work well when dealing with conceptual
plans, they do not work well as a special use permit condition for enforcement purposes. With this in mind,
the Commission requested that Planning and Zoning staff work together with the Assistant County Attorney
to draft some acceptable language for limiting the flexibility in size allowed by the term []general accord[]
for the ground equipment areas only. Staff has revised the recommended conditions by removing all
mention of the monopole heights from Condition No. 1 and limiting the antenna dimensions to specific sizes
that are slightly larger that those being proposed on the plans.
Mr. Cilimberg said the County Attorney has a slightly modified version of Conditions No. 1 and No. 2
and he handed that list to the Board members (set out in full below):
For SP-2003-08, Weber (TRITON PCS).
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1) The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Weber Property", last
revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment F in report. Panel antennas
shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in width.
2) The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose replacing
the antennas. For the purpose of this condition the monopole shall never exceed seven
(7) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), and
shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-2000-64.
For SP-2003-10, Bright (TRITON PCS).
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1) The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Bright (Triton PCS) ", last revised
January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment A in this report. Panel antennas shall
not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in width.
2) The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. For the purpose of this condition the monopole shall never
exceed one (1) foot above the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured Above
Sea Level (ASL), and shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-
2001-08.
For SP-2003-11, Howell (TRITON PCS).
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1) The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Howell (Triton PCS)", last revised
January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment B in report. Panel antennas shall not
exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in width.
2) The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. For the purpose of this condition the monopole shall never
exceed seven (7) feet above the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured
Above Sea Level (ASL), and shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit
SP-2000-75.
For SP-2003-12, Herring (TRITON PCS).
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1) The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Herring", last revised
January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment C in this report. Panel antennas shall
not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in width.
2) The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. For the purpose of this condition the monopole shall never
exceed seven (7) feet above the tallest tree within fifty (50) feet, as measured Above Sea
Level (ASL), and shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-
2000-41.
For SP-2003-13, Pastors (TRITON PCS).
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1) The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Yancey Mills", last
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment D in this report. Panel antennas
shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in width.
2) The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. For the purpose of this condition the monopole shall never
exceed seven (7) feet above the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured
Above Sea Level (ASL), and shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit
SP-2000-51.
For SP-2003-14, Holmes (TRITON PCS).
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1) The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Mt. Jefferson", last
revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment G in this report. Panel antennas
shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in width.
2) The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. For the purpose of this condition the monopole shall never
exceed ten (10) feet above the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured
Above Sea Level (ASL), and shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit
SP-2000-17.
For SP-2003-16, Adams (TRITON PCS).
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1) The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Adams property", last
revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment E in this report. Panel antennas
shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in width.
2) The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. For the purpose of this condition the monopole shall never
exceed five feet, six inches (5.6") above the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as
measured Above Sea Level (ASL), and shall be sized as originally approved with special
use permit SP-2000-52.
Mr. Cilimberg said for SP-2003-11, Howell (TRITON PCS), the condition states that the monopole
shall never exceed seven feet above the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured Above Sea
Level (ASL). The original approval for this special use permit was for ten feet. He recommended that the
Board make this change when approving this request.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the Adams request and said she was very concerned about the trees
around the monopole. The visual impact on this site depends on a very small stand of trees. She
wondered if there should be a requirement for some fencing, so the tower does not impact on the trees and
endanger their survival. She got an answer from staff saying that had not been required, but it is something
a tree conservation plan could require if the tree conservationist thought it was necessary for protection of
the trees. She said the applicant has reason to protect the trees because the tower can only be five feet six
inches above the tallest tree. If that tree comes down, they are in trouble.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dale Finocchi was present to represent Triton PCS. He said he would give some background
as to why they are making this request. Triton is upgrading all of its facilities system wide to allow for data
service (third generation wireless) as well as to satisfy a Federal mandate by adding enhanced 911
services. The requirement came down in January, 2003 and it was the company's goal to have all of their
1800 sites completed by April. He said Albemarle County is the only locality within their network where they
did not achieve that goal. They discussed these amendments with County staff back in January. The
conditions were drawn so tightly that staff had no latitude to grant administrative approval for a benign
amendment to the applications by adding a few bits of equipment. There were actually 15 permits applied
for, but only seven needed to go through this process, the others went through administratively.
Mr. Finocchi said to address the Adams question, the original conditions specifically disallowed any
fencing on the property. They suggest that the condition be modified to take out the language and be silent
on the question of fencing. They would not want fencing required at this time. If they fenced the compound
leased from Mr. Adams, it would not achieve the goal of protecting the trees. If it is needed, they would like
the latitude to put up a fence without having to come back for another amendment. He would openly
accept that specific condition. On the Howell application, the actual approved height is ten feet above and
not seven feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet.
Mr. Rooker said Condition No. 9 for the Adams petition states: "Fencing of the lease area shall not
be permitted." He asked if Ms. Thomas was suggesting that the sentence be deleted. Mr. Davis said it
should stay with the added words "unless required by a tree conservation plan." Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Finocchi said if they do have to put up fencing, he would like to have the latitude to do it
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
administratively rather than coming back to modify a condition because the words are not part of that
condition now.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks all of the petitions should carry the wording "Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted unless required by a tree conservation plan."
Mr. Cilimberg said Condition No. 9 for Weber refers to "livestock fencing." Ms. Thomas said that
one should not be changed.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2003-08, David C. Weber, subject to the 12
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 2 being
modified as set out in the handout from Mr. Davis today (and as set out above), and not changing the
recommended wording of Condition No. 9. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. 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.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Weber Property",
last revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment F in the April 29, 2003
staff report. Panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot
in width;
2. The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. The monopole shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the
tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), and
shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-2000-64;
3. All ground equipment, antennas, equipment pads, external wires and equipment
shall be a color that closely matches that of the existing pole and ground equipment;
4. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from
the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted.
However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces
of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches;
5. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
6. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole;
7. No guy wires shall be permitted;
8. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light,
position and protect the lamps, and connect the lamps to the power supply; and
9. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of
the lease area shall not be permitted except as provided by the existing livestock
fencing shown on the plan.
Prior the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
10.
Submittal of a statement that no tree removal is necessary or a tree conservation
plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the Director of Planning and Community
Development for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and
procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside
and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation
associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
11. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
12.
personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing
indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with
each provider; and
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider
shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed
from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
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 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2003-010, Elizabeth Bright, subject to the 12
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 2 being
modified as set out on the handout from Mr. Davis today (set out in full above), and the amendment to
Condition No. 9 as discussed above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. 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.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Bright (Triton PCS)", last
revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment A in the April 29, 2003 staff
report. Panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in
width;
2. The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. The monopole shall never exceed one (1) foot above the
tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), and
shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-2001-08;
3. All ground equipment, antennas, equipment pads, external wires and equipment
shall be a color that closely matches that of the existing pole and ground equipment;
4. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from
the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted.
However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces
of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches;
5. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
6. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole;
7. No guy wires shall be permitted;
8. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light,
position and protect the lamps, and connect the lamps to the power supply; and
9. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of
the lease area shall not be permitted unless required by the tree conservation plan.
Prior the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
10.
Submittal of a statement that no tree removal is necessary or a tree conservation
plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the Director of Planning and Community
Development for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and
procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside
and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation
associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
11.
12.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each
personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing
indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with
each provider; and
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider
shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed
from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
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 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 up, the removal of the facility. The type
of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the
County Attorney.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Condition No. 9 for Howell has special language and that should not be
changed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2003-011, Martin Howell, subject to the
12 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 2 being
modified as set out on the handout from Mr. Davis today (set out in full above), but with Condition No. 2 on
the handout being further modified to change "seven feet" to "ten feet." The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowerman. 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.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Howell (Triton PCS)", last
revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment B in the April 29, 2003
staff report. Panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot
in width;
The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. The monopole shall never exceed ten (10)) feet above the
tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), and
shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-2000-75;
All ground equipment, antennas, equipment pads, external wires and equipment
shall be a color that closely matches that of the existing pole and ground
equipment;
Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out
from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be
permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole
and the faces of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches;
No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole;
No guy wires shall be permitted;
No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the
light, position and protect the lamps, and connect the lamps to the power supply;
and
The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing
of the lease area shall not be permitted except as provided by the existing barbed-
wire fencing shown on the plan.
Prior the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
10.
Submittal of a statement that no tree removal is necessary or a tree conservation
plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the Director of Planning and Community
Development for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and
procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside
and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation
associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
11.
12.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each
personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing
indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with
each provider; and
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider
shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed
from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
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 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-2003-12, James and Julie Herring, subject to
the 12 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 2
being modified as set out on the handout from Mr. Davis today (set out in full above). 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.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Herring", last
revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment C in the April 29, 2003 staff
report. Panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in
width;
2. The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. The monopole shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the
tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), and
shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-2000-41;
3. All ground equipment, antennas, equipment pads, external wires and equipment
shall be a color that closely matches that of the existing pole and ground equipment;
4. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from
the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted.
However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces
of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches;
5. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
6. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole;
7. No guy wires shall be permitted;
8. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light,
position and protect the lamps, and connect the lamps to the power supply; and
9. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of
the lease area shall not be permitted unless required by the tree conservation plan.
Prior the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
10.
Submittal of a statement that no tree removal is necessary or a tree conservation
plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the Director of Planning and Community
Development for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and
procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside
and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation
associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
11.
12.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each
personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing
indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with
each provider; and
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider
shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed
from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that
surety is required guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the
permittee shall furnish the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with
surety satisfactory the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory the County, in an
amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of
surety guarantee shall be the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the
County Attorney.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-2003-013, David T. Pastors, subject to the 12
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 2 being
modified as set out on the handout from Mr. Davis today (set out in full above). The motion was seconded
by Ms. Thomas. 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.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Yancey Mills", last
revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment D in the April 29, 2003 staff
report. Panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in
width;
2. The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. The monopole shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the
tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), and
shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-2000-51;
3. All ground equipment, antennas, equipment pads, external wires and equipment
shall be a color that closely matches that of the existing pole and ground equipment;
4. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from
the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted.
However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces
of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches;
5. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
6. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole;
7. No guy wires shall be permitted;
8. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light,
position and protect the lamps, and connect the lamps to the power supply; and
9. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of
the lease area shall not be permitted unless required by the tree conservation plan.
Prior the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
10.
Submittal of a statement that no tree removal is necessary or a tree conservation
plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the Director of Planning and Community
Development for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and
procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside
and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two
hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
11.
12.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each
personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing
indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with
each provider; and
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider
shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed
from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that
surety is required guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the
permittee shall furnish the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with
surety satisfactory the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory the County, in an
amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of
surety guarantee shall be the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the
County Attorney.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2003-014, David or Carolyn Holmes, subject to
the 12 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 2
being modified as set out on the handout from Mr. Davis today (set out in full above). The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman. 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.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Mt. Jefferson", last
revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment G in the April 29, 2003 staff
report. Panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot in
width;
2. The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. The monopole shall never exceed ten (10) feet above the
tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), and
shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-2000-17;
3. All ground equipment, antennas, equipment pads, external wires and equipment
shall be a color that closely matches that of the existing pole and ground equipment;
4. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from
the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted.
However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces
of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches;
5. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
6. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole;
7. No guy wires shall be permitted;
8. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light,
position and protect the lamps, and connect the lamps to the power supply; and
9. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of
the lease area shall not be permitted unless required by the tree conservation plan.
Prior the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
10.
Submittal of a statement that no tree removal is necessary or a tree conservation
plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the Director of Planning and Community
Development for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
After
procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside
and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation
associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two
hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
11.
12.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal
wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which
equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider;
and
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service
provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days
of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and
removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal
wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines
at any time that surety is required guarantee that the facility will be removed as
required, the permittee shall furnish the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a
bond with surety satisfactory the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory 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.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2003-016, John and Dorothy Adams, subject to
the 12 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 2
being modified as set out on the handout from Mr. Davis today (set out in full above), but with Condition No.
9 being modified as discussed today. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. 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.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. The ground equipment, including the concrete pad, shall be sized, located and
maintained in general accord with the plans entitled, "Triton PCS/Adams property",
last revised January 23, 2003, and provided with Attachment E in the April 29, 2003
staff report. Panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and one (1) foot
in width;
2. The height and size of the monopole shall not be increased for the purpose of
replacing the antennas. The monopole shall never exceed 5.6 feet above the tallest
tree within twenty-five (25) feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), and shall be
sized as originally approved with special use permit SP-2000-52;
3. All ground equipment, antennas, equipment pads, external wires and equipment
shall be a color that closely matches that of the existing pole and ground equipment;
4. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from
the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted.
However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces
of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches;
5. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
6. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole;
7. No guy wires shall be permitted;
8. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light,
position and protect the lamps, and connect the lamps to the power supply; and
9. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of
the lease area shall not be permitted unless required by the tree conservation plan.
Prior the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
10. Submittal of a statement that no tree removal is necessary or a tree conservation
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the Director of Planning and Community
Development for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and
procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside
and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation
associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two
hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
11.
12.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each
personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing
indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with
each provider; and
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider
shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed
from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that
surety is required guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the
permittee shall furnish the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with
surety satisfactory 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.
Agenda Item No. 27. Historic Preservation Committee, Presentation re: Historic Country Stores.
Ms. Sara Lee Barnes, Chairman of the County's Historic Preservation Committee, was present to
make the introduction. She thanked the many people who had helped put together the information
contained in the "Position Statement on Albemarle County's Historic Country Stores" dated May 6, 2003,
which is being presented today. She said this is not an exhaustive study. It is based on a windshield survey
and archival research. She introduced the four categories which will be discussed: current stores which
have remained operational serving the rural areas, adaptive reuse (buildings which were adapted into other
uses or as residences), stores which are closed or in disrepair or, to their knowledge, in transfer without
specific plans, and, stores which have been demolished, razed, or in ruins. As an example she mentioned
Wyant's Store in White Hall which was built as a store and is still in operation today.
Ms. Barnes mentioned adaptive reuse and referenced the James River Runners business in
Hatton. That building was a store built by the River because of river traffic and it is still being used as a
business which deals with the river. Page's Store in Batesville has been advertised for sale in just the past
few weeks. It has been the hub of that community for a long time. S.A. Payne's Store in Esmont burned a
few years ago, but was a classic country store. At this time, she introduced Assistant Professor of Early
American Architecture in the Department of Architectural History in the University of Virginia, Mr. Lewis
Nelson.
Mr. Nelson said Albemarle County has a long history of rural life. But, that rural character is daily
eroding. They applaud the Board for supporting initiatives which seek to protect the rural areas and they
encourage the Board to consider an often neglected component of rural life, the country or general store.
He said the country store has an important place in American history. From the Colonial period, rural
America adopted a commercial pattern of general stores. Recent research suggests that the country store
was one of the most diverse and dynamic places well into the middle of the twentieth century. What is
remarkable about stores in Virginia is that in a landscape characterized first by slavery and then by
segregation, the country store is the one space made equally available to all. The store was of political
importance to small farmers who were unable to both grow and merchandise their produce. Through the
imported and manufactured goods on their shelves, the store was a rare window into the world beyond
tobacco fields, barns and cow sheds.
Mr. Nelson said the rural country stores which still dot Piedmont Virginia appear to have evolved
from two types of stores, the plantation store and the crossroads general store. The older plantation store
was a place of meeting between slaves and free. Much of the eggs, meat and produce consumed on any
plantation or in any small town, may have been grown by slaves in their free time, and sold in the plantation
store serving as the one vehicle by which slaves could generate their own income. The crossroads store
served a more diversified community offering for sale most of the goods necessary to support a farm.
Research suggests that slaves traveled to stores in groups near the end of the day and on weekends
probably hoping to meet and socialize with groups traveling from other plantations. Slave's most common
purchases were alcohol, cloth and adornments suggesting that the store was critical to facilitating slave
social life and entertainment. The store was a critical fixture in the rural economy. It was a window into the
world abroad for both blacks and whites.
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Nelson said the architectural form of the store in Virginia appears to have developed along a
typical path. The earliest stores were narrow, deep buildings that usually had a front storeroom and a rear
office which allowed for the private exchange of money. The store was distinguished from the rest of the
landscape by its large windows on the front showcasing the goods available. Usually the long side walls
were devoid of windows allowing for more shelving inside. Often the second floor was outfitted as a living
space for the clerk or shop owner and his family. One difficulty in preserving country stores is that they
often have a history of shifting back and forth between entirely commercial, mixed use, commercial/
residential, and entirely residential, often cycling between these uses a few times in only a few decades.
Mr. Nelson said that by the end of the nineteenth century, the store had changed its form. The front
elevation was almost entirely consumed by the door and the flanking windows. The gable roof was hidden
behind a raised facade, and often a side addition was added for storage and processing of merchandise.
After the arrival of the automobile, the appearance of the store changed by the early 1930s when it began
offering gasoline for sale along with automotive parts and repair services. By the early twentieth century,
these stores began to serve as the local post office. Once the country store was established as the
community center, it persisted in that role in Albemarle County and elsewhere throughout the twentieth
century. Recent research undertaken by the Historic Preservation Committee revealed that these buildings
served as a center for the community in a variety of ways. Some store owners offered their space for
community dances, while others provided services to local residents. However, a large percentage of these
community centers have already been lost.
Mr. Nelson said the preservation of the surviving examples is of critical importance. The loss of
these stores signals the demise, not just of a building type, but of a way of life, a way of community, and of
memory that once characterized the vast majority of the County. As the County begins to assess the
adaptive reuse of these surviving stores, it should take into account their historical multi-purpose use. The
Committee believes that with the County's encouragement, country stores could be both preserved and
reintegrated into plans for the future. The May, 2001 draft of the Rural Areas chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan states that there are many buildings located in crossroads communities that are
vacant and could have local significance. The Plan states that these buildings could be renovated to
maintain the rural character of the community and to provide valuable services to the immediate local area.
The Plan recommends the preservation and rehabilitation of these historic buildings. Country stores with a
history of commercial use in a rural context are among these important, but threatened historic resources.
Mr. Nelson said the Historic Preservation Plan adopted by the Board in September, 2000 identifies
the protection of the County's natural, scenic and historic resources in the rural areas as one of its primary
goals. The Historic Preservation Committee conducted research to better understand the issue. At the
outset of the research, it became clear that country stores are seriously threatened. Research to date
shows that no stores constructed during the first 130 years of the County's history survives. Only a handful
of stores remain that date to the late nineteenth century. The earliest known store to survive is Craig's
Store which dates to the third quarter of the nineteenth century. At least 22 country stores have been lost in
recent decades. Another 26 stores are currently standing vacant. Approximately two dozen stores are still
operating in their traditional role. In an effort to preserve these buildings, the Committee has begun a
comprehensive list of all the buildings in the county. The list includes buildings erected by 1950, and later
buildings which replaced earlier stores. The list is divided into the four categories mentioned earlier by Ms.
Barnes. In addition to what the Committee has done, this semester he directed a graduate seminar entitled
[]Field Methods in Historic Preservation[] that was dedicated to intensely reporting a handful of country
stores through photography, measured drawings and a written description.
Mr. Nelson said following review of the rural/commercial sections of the draft revisions to the Rural
Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and based on their surveys and research, it is the Committee's
recommendation that the County be more proactive in allowing reuse of country stores. They identified four
potential measures for reintegrating country stores as vital and contributing components of the County's
rural landscape. These are specific to parking, to rehabilitation, to allowance for mixed use, and for
property tax abatements.
Mr. Nelson said for all of the country stores on the list not currently being used as residences, the
Committee recommends that the requirements for parking be revised to allow exceptions when the
confines of the property do not allow for the standard requirement. They recommend that there be a
requirement that additions to country stores on the list be designed in accordance with the Secretary of the
Interior's standards No. 9 and No. 10. They further recommend that the County allow for the consideration
of multiple uses in addition to the country store use in any of the buildings on the list which is reflective of
their use historically. Lastly, for buildings on the list whose rehabilitations are completed in accordance with
all ten of the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation, they recommend that specific property
tax abatements be instituted for the structure only to serve as incentives to shop owners to open or reopen
commercial enterprises in the rural areas. Additional discussion on each of the recommendations is
included in the position statement.
Mr. Nelson said Albemarle County country stores were once a vital component of the County.
They are today an eroding memory of local heritage. If Albemarle County intends to preserve its distinctive
character, these important historic buildings must receive the special attention they deserve. Country stores
are one component of the built environment in the rural areas. The Committee addressed stores first
because they are the rural resources with the greatest potential to be impacted by blanket policies and
regulations. However, responsible preservation planning is required for all historic resources in the rural
areas. The Historic Preservation Committee will continue to study the rural areas and would like to
continue to update the Board as other important rural/commercial structures are identified. Also, the
Committee hopes the Board will remain open to the concept that previous surveys, and future discoveries,
(May 7, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
could expand the current list of historic country stores.
Mr. Dorrier said this is an impressive body of work which was developed by the Committee.
Ms. Thomas asked about the suggestion that any additions would have to meet State
requirements. Mr. Nelson said there are two specific standards for rehabilitation which they are concerned
with, and he read those to the Board. He said there is no specific agenda which governs the aesthetics of
the building. It simply relates to the relation of the addition to the historic building.
Mr. Rooker asked if this report will ultimately be recommended as part of the Comprehensive Plan
changes. Mr. Tucker this is informational only. It will come back to the Board in June with the rural area
amendments.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Committee has looked into a revolving fund. Ms. Barnes said several years
ago the County requested legislation so it could hold an historic preservation revolving fund. The bill did not
get out of committee, but she thinks the County should try for it again.
Mr. Davis said the alternative would be to have a not-for-profit operate a revolving fund. That may
be the better approach. There are enabling obstacles to several of the options mentioned.
Ms. Barnes said the Committee would like to discuss this further with the Board later in the
summer.
Agenda Item No. 28. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Mr. Davis said the Board needs to take action to cancel the public hearing on the North Pointe
petition which was scheduled for the meeting of June 11,2003. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr.
Rooker, seconded by Mr. Martin, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to cancel the regular day
meeting of July 2, 2003, since several Board members will be away that date. 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. 29. Adjourn to May 14, 2003, at 5:45 p.m.
With no further business to come before the Board, at 3:38 p.m., motion was offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this meeting until May 14, 2003, at 5:45 p.m.
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.
Chairman
Approved by tile
Bom'd of Comlly
Supei~isors
Date: 08/06/2003