2003-08-13(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August
13, 2003, at 6:00 p.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: Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
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.
There were no other matters brought up at this time.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Item 5.1 as noted, to approve Items 5.2 through 5.6, as presented, and to accept the
remaining items on the Consent Agenda for information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: March 17(A), April 2 and June 11,2003.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of April 2, 2003, Pages 1 to 18 ending at Item #12, and found them
to be in order as presented.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of June 11,2003, 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
other minutes will go forward to another meeting for approval.
Item 5.2. Approval of Appraisals from Year 2002-03 ACE applicants.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Board formally approved the ACE Committee's
recommendation to appraise the top five ranked properties from the Year 2002-03 applicant pool at its
meeting on February 5, 2003. Due to two defections from this class prior to commencement of the
appraisals, the ACE Committee recommended on April 23 that the Board approve the appraisals of three
substitute parcels from the Year 2002-03 applicant pool, and on May 6, 2003, the Board did so. Though
some delay was created by these changes, the appraiser still completed five of the six appraisals by July 1.
The last appraisal (Mehring) has been delayed because the landowner has not completed and submitted a
family subdivision plat to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Following review by
the Appraisal Review Committee (ARC), the five completed appraisals were approved on July 22, 2003. As
a result, the processing of these ACE applications for this year is "on track" according to the "Timeline for
the Purchase of Development Rights".
The ARC is to review appraisals, determine the adjusted appraised values and make
recommendations to the Board. Following discussion and a thorough review of the appraisals for the Year
2002-03 properties, the ARC has approved five appraisals for properties from the year 2002-03 applicant
pool. Before the County can extend an "Invitation to Offer to Sell" a conservation easement on these
properties, the appraisals must be formally approved by the Board. Though the appraised value of these
properties exceeded estimates by staff, the total value is well within the ACE budget for FY 2002-03.
The Board is requested to approve the five appraisals by Hallmark Properties for applications from
the year 2002-03 applicant pool.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the five appraisals by Hallmark
Properties for applications from the year 2002-03 applicant pool for the ACE Program.
Item 5.3. Adopt resolution approving filing of application to the Virginia Public School Authority for a
loan in a principal amount not to exceed $7,205,000.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that funding for the FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Budget anticipated the issuance of $7,205,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA)
for the following school projects:
Description
Henley Addition/Renovation
Murray HS Renovations
ADA Structural Changes
Hollymead Gym/Restrooms
Monticello HS Classroom Addition
Scottsville Elementary Library Addition
WAHS Weight/Wellness Room Aid
Walton Addition
Maintenance/Replacement- Financed
TOTAL
Amount
$ 600,000
20,000
50,000
100,000
4,512,000
75,000
293,000
422,000
1,132,000
$7,204,000
Participation in the bond issue requires both the School Board and Board of Supervisors to pass a
resolution authorizing application to the VPSA. It is anticipated that the School Board will pass the
resolution at its meeting on August 14, 2003, and the Board on August 13, 2003. The required application
will be submitted to VPSA by its September 2, 2003, deadline. A number of actions (resolutions, public
hearings, approvals) will be required between now and November, 2003 to meet the requirements of VPSA
and to maintain their time schedule. The required documents will be submitted to the Board as they are
received by the Director of Finance from the County's bond counsel.
Staff requests approval of the resolution as requested by the School Board authorizing the County's
application to the VPSA for $7,205,000 in bond revenues.
By the vote set out above, as requested by the School Board, the Board adopted the
following resolution authorizing the County's application to the Virginia Public School Authority for
$7,205,000 in bond revenues.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE VIRGINIA
PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN AN APPROXIMATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $7,205,000
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia
(the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has determined
that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake capital improvements for its
public school system;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the filing of an application with the Virginia Public
School Authority for a loan to the County in an approximate principal amount of
$7,205,000 to finance capital improvements for its public school system. The County
Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the Albemarle County
School Board, is hereby authorized and directed to complete an application and deliver it
to the Virginia Public School Authority.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Item 5.4. Authorize County Executive to sign revised lease with Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center
for portion of Towe Park.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that following a public hearing at its meeting on May 7,
2003, the Board approved a lease with the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, Inc., for a portion of
Darden Towe Park jointly owned by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. Following approval
by the Board, the Board-approved lease was forwarded to Charlottesville City Council for its consideration.
On August 4, 2003, Council approved the lease in a slightly different form. A number of minor changes
were made. Among them, Section 3.2 had provided, "The County and City intend at this time to negotiate
an extension of the term of this lease for an additional forty-year term, but are not under any obligation to do
so." Because cities are more restricted in long-range leases than are counties, the City's version of the
lease did not contain this non-binding statement of intent. Also, the City deleted the following unnecessary
language from original Section 14.1: "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." While other changes were made, most were stylistic, and none materially altered the substance
of the lease. All legally-binding provisions remained from the version previously approved by the Board.
Since the Board has already voted to support the Lewis & Clark Center lease, staff recommends
that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the revised lease on behalf of the County, with these
minor modifications.
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
revised Lewis & Clark Center lease, with minor modifications as noted, on behalf of the County
{copy on file in the Clerk's Office).
Item 5.5. Proclamation recognizing August 26, 2003, as Women's Equality Day.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was adopted.
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY
WHEREAS, many decades of efforts by women and men were required to give women
the right to vote; and
WHEREAS,
citizens must always be willing to work to assure that the laws and policies in
the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States of America, and this
County do not unjustly discriminate against females, and any other group;
and
WHEREAS, unjust treatment based on views of inequality is often subtle; and
WHEREAS,
it is appropriate for this County to recognize a day that commemorates the
passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the
amendment that gave the right of suffrage to American women;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby proclaim
August 26, 2003
as
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY
in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a
more equitable community that acknowledges both the real similarities and
the important differences between women and men; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors urges all
citizens to eliminate all unjust discrimination and prejudice against women,
and ensure equality of rights, privileges, and responsibilities for all women
and men.
Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation for Women's Equality Day. He then presented the proclamation
to Ms. Kobby Hoffman, who said she was pleased to accept the proclamation on behalf of all the citizens in
the area. She accepted the proclamation on behalf of the local chapter of the National Organization of
Women (NOW).
Week.
Item 5.6. Proclamation designating August 26 through August 31,2003, as Albemarle County Fair
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following proclamation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK
WHEREAS, for the past 22 years, the Albemarle County Fair has entertained tens of
thousands of guests during its annual production; and
WHEREAS,
the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group of
community spirited people who wanted something special for their neighbors
and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme has always
emphasized the County's agricultural and forestal heritage; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by dedicated
volunteers, officers and directors; and
WHEREAS,
the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families and
their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the
event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit
organizations as an opportunity for them to raise monies for their worthwhile
programs; and
WHEREAS,
the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and rural lifestyles, offers
exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock, small livestock and poultry,
with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and nightly
entertainment for all to enjoy;
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of
AUGUST 26, 2003, THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2003
as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK
and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and
programs sponsored and supported by the more than 250 local volunteers,
public and area businesses.
Item 5.7. 2003 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development, was received for information.
Item 5.8. Copies of draft Planning Commission minutes of June 10, July 1 and July 8, 2003, were
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5a. Adopt Resolution Approving Final Terms of Financing for 800 MHz Radio
System.
Mr. Tom Foley said the County is acting as the fiscal agent for the Emergency Communications
Center for financing of the 800 MHz radio system. Approximately $12.0 million of the $18.9 million project
is anticipated to be financed. Financing proposals were received from the leasing division of two banks.
After evaluations of these proposals by staff and Davenport & Company, financial advisors, it was
concluded that the proposal from Bancof America offered the most attractive rate and terms. Currently it is
anticipated that negotiations of the final terms will be completed to allow closing by September 1,2003.
Mr. Foley said a resolution authorizing this financing must be adopted by the Board prior to closing.
Although terms have not been finalized, 3.5 percent based on a ten-year amortization is anticipated as the
interest rate. Due to the possibility of a sizable grant from the Department of Homeland Security, financing
terms will include provisions for either early payment (without penalty) for up to $5.0 million of the $12.0
million financing or a deferral in issuing the $5.0 million pending award of the grant.
Mr. Foley said staff recommends adoption of a resolution authorizing staff to approve the final
terms of the financing and authorizing the County Executive to execute the necessary document.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following Resolution
Approving a Plan of Lease Financing with Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC, for the Acquisition and
Construction of a Public Safety Emergency 911 Communication System, and also to authorize staff to
approve the final terms of the financing, and, further to authorize the County Executive to execute the
necessary document.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAN OF LEASE FINANCING WITH BANC OF
AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC FOR THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION
OF A PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY 911 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board of Supervisors"), on behalf of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), desires to finance the acquisition and
construction of a public safety emergency 911 communication system (the "Project") by
means of a lease/purchase financing with Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC (the
"Bank") pursuant to the terms of the Bank's proposal dated August 4, 2003 (the
"Proposal"), attached hereto as Exhibit A;
WHEREAS, there has been presented to this meeting a draft of an Equipment
Lease/Purchase Agreement to be dated the date of its delivery (the "Lease Agreement"),
between the Bank, as Lessor, the County, as Lessee, and, if desired by the County, with a
bank or trust company to act as escrow agent, a copy of which shall be filed with the
records of the Board;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the following plan of financing. The County is authorized
to enter into a lease/purchase financing with the Bank pursuant to the terms of the
Proposal. The Bank shall acquire, or cause to be acquired, the Project, and the County
shall lease the Project from the Bank in accordance with the terms of the Lease
Agreement. The County shall make payments of Basic Rent (as defined in the Lease
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Agreement) to the Bank.
2. The terms of the Lease Agreement shall provide for the following: (a) the
term of the Lease Agreement shall expire no later than December 31,2014; (b) the
principal components of Basic Rent payable under the Lease Agreement shall be
payable on dates determined by the County Executive until the expiration of the Lease
Agreement, in amounts as determined by the County Executive, provided that the total
amount of such principal components shall not exceed $12,000,000; (c) the interest
components of Basic Rent payable under the Lease Agreement shall be payable on
dates determined by the County Executive at a rate calculated by multiplying the rate on
10-year U.S. Term Treasury obligations by .65 plus a spread of 50 basis points (provided
that such calculation does not produce a rate greater than 6.0% per year), and calculated
on the basis of a 360-day years of twelve 30-day months; and (d) shall be subject to
optional prepayment upon terms determined by the County Executive and in accordance
with the terms of the Proposal, all as the County Executive determines to be in the best
interest of the County.
3. The Chairman of the Board and the County Executive, either of whom may
act, are authorized and directed to execute the Lease Agreement, which shall be in
substantially the form submitted to this meeting, which is hereby approved, with such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as
may be approved by the officer executing the Lease Agreement, his execution to
constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such completions, omissions,
insertions and changes.
4. The officers of the County are authorized and directed to execute and deliver
all certificates and instruments and to take all actions necessary or desirable in
connection with the execution and delivery of the Lease Agreement and the completion of
the financing.
5. The obligations of the County under the Lease Agreement shall be limited
obligations payable solely from funds to be appropriated by the Board for such purpose
and shall not constitute a debt of the County within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory limitation or a pledge of the faith and credit of the County beyond any fiscal year
for which the Board has lawfully appropriated from time to time. Nothing herein or in the
Lease Agreement shall constitute a debt of the County within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitation or a pledge of the faith and credit or taxing power of
the County.
6. The Board believes that funds sufficient to make payment of all amounts
payable under the Lease Agreement can be obtained. While recognizing that it is not
empowered to make any binding commitment to make such payments beyond the
current fiscal year, the Board hereby states its intent to make appropriations for future
fiscal years in amounts sufficient to make all such payments and hereby recommends
that future Boards do likewise during the term of the Lease Agreement. The Board
directs the County Executive, or such other officer who may be charged with the
responsibility for preparing the County's annual budget, to include in the budget request
for each fiscal year during the term of the Lease Agreement an amount sufficient to
make the payment of all amounts payable under the Lease Agreement for such fiscal
year. As soon as practicable after the submission of the County's annual budget to the
Board, the County Executive is authorized and directed to deliver to the Bank evidence
that a request for an amount sufficient to make the payment of all amounts payable
under the Lease Agreement during such fiscal year has been made. If at any time during
any fiscal year of the County, through the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, the amount
appropriated in the County's annual budget in any such fiscal years is insufficient to pay
when due the amounts payable under the Lease Agreement, the Board directs the
County Executive, or such other officer who may be charged with the responsibility for
preparing the County's annual budget, to submit to the Board at the next scheduled
meeting, or as promptly as practicable but in any event within 45 days, a request for a
supplemental appropriation sufficient to cover the deficit.
7. (a) The County covenants that it will not take or omit to take any action the
taking or omission of which will cause the Lease Agreement to be an "arbitrage bond"
within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
and regulations issued pursuant thereto (the "Code"), or otherwise cause the interest
components of Basic Rent due under the Lease Agreement to be includable in the gross
income of the holder thereof under existing statutes. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the County shall comply with any provision of law that may require the County
at any time to rebate to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the
investment of the funds received under the Lease Agreement, unless the County
receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such compliance is not
required to prevent interest due under the Lease Agreement from being includable in the
gross income for Federal income tax purposes of the holder thereof under existing law.
(b) The County covenants that during the term of the Lease Agreement it
shall not permit the Project or the proceeds derived from the Lease Agreement to be
used in any manner that would result in (a) 10% or more of such proceeds or the facilities
financed with such proceeds being used in a trade or business carried on by any person
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141 (b) of the Code, provided that
no more than 5% of such proceeds may be used in a trade or business unrelated to the
County's use of the Project, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds being used with respect to
any "output facility" (other than a facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of
Section 141 (b)(4) of the Code, or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or
indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as
provided in Section 141 (c) of the Code; provided, however, that if the County receives an
opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that any such covenants need not be
complied with to prevent the interest components of Basic Rent from being includable in
the gross income for Federal income tax purposes of the holder thereof under existing
law, the County need not comply with such covenants.
8. Such officers of the County as may be requested are authorized and directed
to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the
funds received under the Lease Agreement, and any elections such officers deem
desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States, for purposes of complying
with Section 148 of the Code. Such certificate and elections shall be in such form as
may be requested by bond counsel for the County.
9. Any authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to
deliver it to the other parties thereto and to record such document where appropriate.
10. All other actions of the officers of the County that are in conformity with the
purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of this financing and the
undertaking of the Project are approved and ratified.
11. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed.
12. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2003-26. Clear Channel Broadcasting Amendment (Signs #10 & 11).
Public hearing on a request to allow collocation of an array of 9 add'l antennas at approx 155 feet on
existing 180-foot tall lattice tower, with 3 add'l ground equipment cabinets, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 46, P 15, contains approx 10.31 acs. Znd RA. Loc W of Rt 29 N on Rt 643 (Rio Mills Rd)
approx 1/2 mi N of S Fork of Rivanna River. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 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 the proposal is for collation of one new array
consisting of nine new antennas at approximately 155 feet on an existing 180-foot tall lattice tower with
additional supporting ground equipment. The proposed panel antennas are approximately six feet in length
and eight inches in width, and 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 approximately five-feet in height, on a new 10-foot by 20-foot concrete pad within an existing
fenced compound.
Mr. Cilimberg said the facility was constructed in 1997 and currently has two other arrays of panel
antennas that are attached at 160 feet and 178 feet and near the top of the pole with brackets that set them
at more than 12 inches from the tower. This is an area where there are four other guyed towers on
adjacent property between the site and Route 29. He said this site is across from the entrance to Forest
Lakes South. Collocation is encouraged by the County's policies. This proposal does not require an
increase in tower height, and a third array of antennas would have been allowed by right if the applicant had
proposed flush-mounted antennas. Instead, they want to set the antennas out as the other antennas are
located.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff cited several factors favorable to the proposal including collocation, the fact
that new ground equipment will not be visible, there will be no clearing of this location, and, the actual
location of the antenna will be lower than the two existing arrays. The primary factor in favor is that the
antennas will not be flush-mounted. Staff recommended approval. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on July 22, 2003, by a vote of 4:0 recommended approval but added a tenth condition to those
recommended by staff. The Commission added this condition which has to do with screening. In the
wording of the recommended Condition No. 10, words were duplicated, so the Board might just substitute
Condition No. 10 for Condition No. 5. No. 5 as recommended reads: "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." If Condition No. 10 is exchanged for No. 5 it would read: "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. Should any of the trees within two hundred (200) feet of the
tower be removed for the purpose of creating a public or private right-of-way, the party or company holding
the tower in ownership shall install trees to adequately screen the facility's ground equipment from adjacent
properties and roadways."
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Terry Cooke was present to represent Omnipoint d.b.a. T-Mobile, USA. With him were Mr.
Mike Budde and Mr. Nadir Khan. They can respond to technical questions. T-Mobile seeks authorization to
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
improve its service by installing a base station with antennas on an existing 180-foot tall communications
tower. The facility will fill a gap in T-Mobile's service. He then showed to the Board members a map
outlining the area of their coverage along Route 29. With this new facility on Rio Road, the entire length of
Route 29 will be covered with consistent RF coverage. This is the last site that T-Mobile will be requesting
as part of its near-term plans for providing wireless coverage in Albemarle County. Every installation by T-
Mobile has been a collocation on an existing structure. In this case, they propose to install a nine-panel
array at approximately 150 feet on an existing communications tower which has been on this site since
1997. No height will be added to the tower or increase the equipment compound area. There are already
two wireless antenna installations similar to this one on this tower, one at 178 feet and one at 160 feet. The
tower is located on a parcel that for the past 20 years has hosted four much taller WCHV Radio towers, and
a fifth WCHV tower is on an adjacent parcel. Because of the many existing towers on this property, staff
refers to this site as an antenna farm. T-Mobile believes that in terms of avoiding additional visual intrusion
on the landscape, this proposal could be a poster child for good site selection.
Mr. Cooker said T-Mobile will be the third wireless carrier to collocate on this tower, so its
installation would be by-right under the Zoning Ordinance, but it cannot make its coverage with a flush-
mounted installation. This is simply a factor of geometry. The orientation of this tower with respect to
coverage along Route 29 precludes T-Mobile's ability to mount its antennas up against the tower legs. To
do so would make the signal from those antennas collide with each other. They have to be offset from the
tower by at least five feet in order for the signals to propagate without inferring with one another. The offset
from the tower be will no greater than that of the existing facility. The applicant will conform to all of the
conditions proposed for this special permit. He offered to answer questions.
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. Bowerman to approve SP-2002-026, with the conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission, replacing their Condition No. 5 with Condition No. 10, thereby eliminating
original Condition No. 5, leaving nine conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Martin voted against the original tower on this property because of its
view from the houses nearby. She has not checked with anyone to see if the existing tower has faded into
the background. She asked if Mr. Martin has received comments about this proposal.
Mr. Martin said this is an issue brought up often by Ms. Thomas, and that is the issue of a tower
farm. They disagree sometimes about the meaning of the term because often the towers are monopoles
which do not have the same impact as this type of tower. This is a tower farm, but at what point did it
become one? Was it before the tower was added in 1997, or after the tower was added? He is going to
support this application, but did not want to second the motion because he did not vote for the other
application. He wishes the Board could go back and redo the 1997 vote, but it cannot. He said there is
much clutter there that the people living on this hill are dealing with. This petition tonight just adds more
clutter. At some point, it is going to be too much.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is too much now. The Board has to draw a line at some point. This is a
highly visible point from Route 29 which is a primary entrance corridor. In the County's Tower Policy, towers
are approved at about 100 feet and are set in groves of trees and the antennas are flush-mounted. He
thinks this petition violates the policy guidelines, and he sees no reason to make an exception. There is a
big difference between what was done in 1997, and this request. In 1997, the Cell Tower Policy was not in
place. The policy attempts to preserve the aesthetics of the community, while at the same time permitting
cellular service to take place. Many cellular providers in the County have been able to meet that
requirement continuously over the years since the policy has been in place. Other communities have
looked at Albemarle's policy, and have used it as a model to try and stop the proliferation of bad-looking
towers in their communities. He thinks the Board needs to adhere to its policy and tell this applicant to
either find a way to flush-mount the antennas, or find another location for a small tower pole to supplement
its service, Technology is available to provide cell service without having these antennas, and other carriers
in the community are doing it.
Mr. Martin said he does not disagree. It really was not a mistake in 1997 because the Board did not
know as much about the question then.
Mr. Dorrier said he will support the motion. He thinks that putting the towers in this place is
probably the best place for them. He thinks that if the public were really upset about the request, the Board
would have heard from them. The policy is in place, and he wonders what part of the policy this request
violates. Mr. Cilimberg said this is not a treetop tower, and it is different in height than the towers being
approved today. The lack of flush-mounting is not consistent with the policy.
Mr. Rooker said he implores the Board members to think about this before voting. It is a deviation
from the policy. There is no reason why this applicant should be treated different from other applicants. He
thinks the same requirements should be applied to all requests. The existing towers were placed before
this policy was established and they are grandfathered. He thinks the Board can enforce the policy with
respect to future antenna on these sites. This is not a typical tower farm situation. This is along a main
entrance corridor, and he thinks the Board should enforce its policy.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
(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 (ATC-Charlottesville)",
last revised on February 5, 2003;
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 to 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 C-2 of the
construction plans, 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 any 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;
The current owner and any subsequent owners of the tower and its supporting
facilities 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 to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
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 without an amendment of this special use permit;
This special use permit must be amended to allow either of the two 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;
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. Should any of the trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower be
removed for the purpose of creating a public or private right-of-way, the party or
company holding the tower in ownership shall install trees to adequately screen
the facility's ground equipment from adjacent properties and roadways.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2003-033. Orrock (N'Telos) (Sign #23). Public hearing on a request for
an extension of the period of validity for an existing SUP that was approved to allow installation of personal
wireless service fac w/95-foot tall steel monopole & related ground equipment, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of
the Zoning Ord. TM 92, P 5, contains approx 15.61 acs. Loc off of Rt 53, approx 1/8 mile W of intersec
w/Rt 732 (Milton Rd). Znd RA & EC. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg 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 this is a request to extend the approval of an existing special
use permit. The applicant indicated that the construction and installation of the proposed facility has been
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
delayed due to the state of the economy in the telecommunications industry and financial constraints. The
applicant has attempted to satisfy certain requirements, such as the submittal of a tree conservation plan
prepared by a certified arborist and completion of a "fall-zone easement" on an adjacent parcel.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff feels the conditions under which the original request was granted have not
changed. Staff noted that in the original approval, the Board approved modification of the standard
condition that limits the size of a steel monopole to a maximum of 30 inches in diameter at the base and 18
inches in diameter at the top. At the time the Board made this concession, the applicant's representative
stated that the company had in stock a monopole with base and top dimensions of 50 inches and 20
inches. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the original application was approved, staff feels
the applicant should now be required to comply with the standard conditions for pole size.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has the tree conservation report. Because of the proximity of the
improvements with the lease area, the arborist has recommended removal of both of the tallest trees within
25 feet of the monopole. If the applicant follows through with the recommendations, the monopole is
limited to a maximum height of 84 feet by the original permit approval, as opposed to 95 feet. Staff
included amendments to the conditions to allow some minor adjustments of the facility within the existing
boundaries of the lease area. It was found before the Planning Commission meeting that with a slight
relocation on the site, the trees would not have to be removed, so the pole height could remain at the
original height. That is not now an issue. If it turns out that there is any need to change that based on
conditions as they arise, the applicant would have to get another revision to the special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Planning Commission,
at its meeting on July 22, 2003, by a vote of 4:0, recommended approval also, and did not change the
diameter of the pole in their approval.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Jessie Wilmer said she represents the Virginia PCS Alliance, better know as N'Telos. She
asked for an extension of their existing special use permit (SP-2001-031). Due to financial constraints, they
were not able to build the pole within the time allowed by the permit. They are asking for an extension to
build the pole in 2004. In regard to Condition No. 3 concerning pole size, they still have the pole allowed by
the original permit in inventory and would still like to use that pole. They did some remeasuring, and the
actual dimensions of the pole are 35.75 inches at the bottom, and the pole is 114 feet tall. The pole will cut
down to the 95 feet allowed by the permit, so the pole will probably be 20 inches at the top instead of 18
inches. She requested that they be allowed to use that existing pole. They have a report from an arborist
and will comply with his recommendations. They obtained the fall-zone easement and had it recorded. As
far as a date for completing this facility, they do not know when it will be done in 2004, but expect to
complete it in 2004, if approved.
Mr. Dorrier asked if all the antennas will be flush-mounted. Ms. Wilmer said "yes."
Ms. Thomas asked if the the pole is 35 or 36 inches in diameter. Ms. Wilmer said it is 35.75 inches
at the base. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board set the base limit at 36 inches and the top limit at 25 inches, if
that would match their pole. Ms. Wilmer said "yes."
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker mentioned Condition No. 3 about the tower size. He said the Commission heard this
same presentation and he would like to know why they decided to leave it as recommended by staff. Mr.
Cilimberg said the applicant did not have the information on the pole size at the time of that meeting.
Mr. Rooker asked if 30 inches and 18 inches is for a standard pole. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes."
Ms. Thomas said she would not go along with a 50-inch pole, and 36 inches gives her pause, but
she thinks it is close enough.
Mr. Dorrier said he drives that road all the time and thinks that where it will be located it will be fairly
well hidden by trees. He does not think it would be an eyesore.
Mr. Martin said he has said many times that he does not think the diameter at the base will usually
be the most important issue. He does not have any problem with the request.
Mr. Rooker said if the pole starts out bigger at the base, it will be bigger at the top. This one is two
inches bigger at the top. The only reason he supports this request is that it was approved at a bigger size
originally. This is actually a reduction in size from that permit. Otherwise, he would not support it. The
Board spent a lot of time trying to standardize conditions. If the Board does not stick with standardized
conditions, it might as well not have them. He then offered motion to approve SP-2003-033 with the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but changing Conditions No. 3 to read: "The
diameter of the pole shall not exceed thirty-six (36) inches at its base, and twenty (20) inches at the top."
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be desiqned, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to
comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the pole, the ground
equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built in general
accord with the Application Plan entitled, "Orrock (CV 327)", and dated July 12,
2003;
2. The total pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the
pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation;
3. The diameter of the pole shall not exceed thirty-six (36) inches at its base, and
twenty (20) inches at the top;
4. The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed
seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. This
condition currently refers to the eighty-nine (89)-foot tall tree, which is identified
as number thirty-seven (37) in the construction plans. In no case shall the pole
exceed ninety-five (95) feet in total height without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit;
5. If the tree identified as number thirty-seven (37) dies, or is removed or damaged
beyond any reasonable form of remedy that can be recommended by a certified
arborist, the maximum pole height shall either be reduced to meet the limitations
set in condition number 4, or an amendment to this special use permit shall be
filed within ninety (90) days;
6. The monopole shall be painted a natural brown that is consistent with the color
of the bark of trees surrounding the site;
7. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment
attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger
than the specifications set forth in the application plans;
8. 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;
9. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
10. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be
located above the top of the pole;
11. No guy wires shall be permitted;
12. 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, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect
the lamps to the power supply; and
13. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 ofthe Zoning Ordinance.
Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a buildinq permit the followinq must be met:
14. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that
has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the
Zoning Administrator;
15. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets
or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a
certified arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator 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; and
16. With the Building Permit Application, the applicant shall submit the final revised
set of site construction drawings for the facility. During the application review,
Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate
conditions of the special use permit have been addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met:
17. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured
both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea level (ASL) using the
benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application, shall be provided to
the Zoning Administrator;
18. Certification confirming that the grounding rod:
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
19.
a) height does not exceed two (2) feet above the tower; and
b) width does not exceed a diameter of one (1) inch, shall be provided to
the Zoning Administrator; and
No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are
steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization
measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed.
After the completion of the pole installation and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
the following shall be met:
20. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the 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;
21. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility shall submit a report
detailing the health and stability of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of
the monopole, prepared by a certified arborist, to the Zoning Administrator by
July 1 in the years of 2006 and 2009. Within ninety (90) days of submitting those
reports, the owner shall be responsible for performing any additional tree
conservation and protection techniques as recommended by the arborist and
approved by the Zoning Administrator; and
22. 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 to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
(Note: Agenda Item Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2003-34. Wood (Triton PCS) (Sign #24). Public hearing on a 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 88, P 26, contains approx 71.34 acs. Loc on Rt 745 (Arrowhead Valley Rd), just E of Rt
29 S. Znd RA & EC. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress
on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2003-35. Jensen (Triton PCS) (Sign #25). Public hearing on a 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 62, P 91, contains 3.01 acs. Loc on Rt. 20 (Stony Point Rd), approx 3 miles from the
intersection of Rt 250 & Rt 20. Znd RA & EC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in
the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2003-36. Orrock (Triton PCS) (Sign #28). Public hearing on a request to
allow installation of new ground equipment supporting new digital technology, E-911 services & the
replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 92, P 5, contains approx 15.61 acs. Loc off of St Rt 53, approx 1/8 mile W of the intersec
w/Rt 732 (Milton Rd). Znd RA & EC. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2003-37. Moyer (Triton PCS) (Sign #29). Public hearing on a request to
allow installation of new ground equipment supporting new digital technology, E-911 services & the
replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 92, P 56B3. Loc on Rt 53 (1863 Thomas Jefferson Pkway), between Gobblers Ridge &
Mountain Brook Dr. Znd RA & EC. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2003-38. Sweeney (Triton PCS) (Sign #30). Public hearing on a request
to allow installation of new ground equipment supporting new digital technology, E-911 services & the
replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 94, P 17. Loc on Rt 53 (2670 Thomas Jefferson Pkway), E of St Rt 729. Znd RA & EC.
Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4,
2003.)
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2003-39. Winston (Triton PCS) (Signs # 33 & 36). Public hearing on a
request to allow installation of new ground equipment supporting new digital technology, E-911 services &
the replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of
the Zoning Ord. TM 106, P 7. Loc on the N side of Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkway) approx 2,000 feet
from the Fluvanna County Line. Znd RA & EC Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published
in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-2003-40. Tomlin (Triton PCS) (Sign #40). Public hearing on a request to
allow installation of new ground equipment supporting new digital technology, E-911 services & the
replacement of antennas at an existing personal wireless services facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 75, P 9, contains 10.326 acs. Loc at 1064 Goodwin Farm Lane. Goodwin Farm Lane is off
29 S, approx 2 miles S of 1-64. Znd RA & EC. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant's proposal is for replacement of antennas and the installation of
new ground equipment supporting upgrades in digital technology and E-911 services at seven existing
personal wireless services facilities. In its report, staff noted the size of the replacement antennas, and the
characteristics of the ground equipment. He said seven similar permits were approved by the Board on
May 7, 2003. None of the proposals will require an increase in the height of the monopoles. Staff found no
factors which are unfavorable to the requests, and recommended approval of all requests with conditions.
He said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 22, 2003, by a vote of 4:0, supported that
recommendation.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Dale Finocchio said these are just like the requests before the Board a few months ago. These
are for minor equipment changes to upgrade technology and to add the enhanced 911 services to their
facilities with the extra cabinets on the existing pads, or an extra pad placed next to the existing pad.
Eventually, there will be a "swap out" of the antennas. All the antennas will be mounted at the same height
as the top of the current antennas. The size of some of the antennas will change, but, as required, none
will extend above the top of the tower.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing on all seven applications. With no one from the
public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she telephoned one of the property owners to see if they
had any comments. She found that they are very happy and pleased with the consideration of their
property while the work was being done, and with the appearance of the pole.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2003-034 (Wood - Triton, PCS)
subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be desiqned, 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, "Wood-Arrowhead (Triton
PCS)", last revised April 21,2003, and provided with Attachment A in the July 22,
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 six (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-01-03;
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 through the lowest part of the shield or
shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect
the lamps to the power supply; 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 livestock fencing shown on the plan.
Prior to the issuance of a buildinq 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 one thousand (1,000) feet of the pole and equipment
pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree
removal within two hundred (200) feet of the facility site, after the installation of
the subject facility; and
11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
12. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the 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; and
13. 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 to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2003-035 (Jensen - Triton PCS) subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be desiqned, 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, "Jensen (Triton PCS)", last
revised April 15, 2003, and provided with Attachment B in the July 22, 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 sixty-nine (69) feet in
height, and shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit
SP-01-05;
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
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
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 through the lowest part of the shield or
shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a
complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect
the lamps to the power supply; and
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a buildinq 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; and
11. The antenna details entitled "tri-bracket mount plan" and "isometric tri-bracket
mount plan" on Page C-5 of the construction plans shall be revised to
demonstrate that the antennas will be flush-mounted as defined with condition
number four (4) of this special use permit.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
12. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the 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;
13. 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 to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
14. No trees or significant vegetation shall be removed from the area bounded by the
access easement from State Route 20 to the facility site, the utility easement
across Parcels 89 and 91, the westernmost boundary of Parcel 91, and property
lines of Parcels 89 and 91 along Route 20. The area subject to this condition
was originally addressed specifically with the approval of special use permit SP-
01-05 and is shown on page C-1 of the latest revised plans entitled, "Jensen
(Triton PCS)", last revised April 15, 2003; and
15. The trimming, cutting, or removal of the eighty-eight (88) foot tall tree located five
hundred and eighty-five (585) feet from the monopole, as identified on the
attached plan Page SP-2, date stamped May 10, 2001, from the originally
approved special use permit (SP-01-05) plan entitled Jensen, is prohibited. Any
occurrence that destroys or reduces the height or volume of the tree shall
constitute grounds for the Board of Supervisors to void the special use permit if it
determines that the change in condition of the trees requires a modification of the
facility to mitigate its visibility.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2003-036 (Orrock - Triton PCS) subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: the conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be desiqned, 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, "Orrock (Triton PCS)", last
revised April 15, 2003, and provided with Attachment C in the July 22, 2003, staff
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
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 eighty (80) feet in
height, and shall be sized as originally approved with special use permit
SP-00-77;
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 through the lowest part of the shield or
shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a
complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect
the lamps to the power supply; and
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a buildinq 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; and
11. The antenna details entitled "tri-bracket mount plan" and "isometric tri-bracket
mount plan" on Page C-5 of the construction plans shall be revised to
demonstrate that the antennas will be flush-mounted as defined with condition
number four (4) of this special use permit.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
12. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the 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; and
13. 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 to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2003-037 (Moyer - Triton PCS) subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: the conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
The facility shall be desiqned, 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, "Wentworth Farm (Triton
PCS)", last revised April 15, 2003, and provided with Attachment D in the July 22,
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 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-00-44;
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 through the lowest part of the shield or
shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a
complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect
the lamps to the power supply; and
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a buildinq 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;
11. The antenna details entitled "tri-bracket mount plan" and "isometric tri-bracket
mount plan" on Page C-5 of the construction plans shall be revised to
demonstrate that the antennas will be flush-mounted as defined with condition
number four (4) of this special use permit;
12. The "new tower elevation" on Page C-3 of the construction plans shall be revised
to show that the no portion of antennas will extend above the tallest portion of the
monopole in accordance with condition number six (6) of this special use permit;
and
13. The title and heading on the construction plans for this application shall be
revised to include the property owner's name.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
14. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the 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; and
15. 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 to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2003-038 (Sweeney - Triton PCS) subject to
the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be desiqned, 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, "Carroll Creek (Triton
PCS)", last revised April 15, 2003, and provided with Attachment A in the July 22,
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 six (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-00-45;
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 through the lowest part of the shield or
shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a
complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect
the lamps to the power supply; and
9. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a buildinq 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;
11. The "new tower elevation" on Page C-3 of the construction plans shall be revised
to show that the no portion of antennas will extend above the tallest portion of the
monopole in accordance with condition number six (6) of this special use permit;
and
12. The title and heading on the construction plans for this application shall be
revised to include the property owner's name.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
13. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the 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; and
14. 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 to the Zoning Administrator a
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
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-2003-039 (Winston - Triton PCS) subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: the conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be desiqned, 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, "Snow Hill (Triton PCS)",
last revised April 16, 2003, and provided with Attachment A in the July 22, 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 00-46;
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 through the lowest part of the shield or
shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a
complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect
the lamps to the power supply; and
9. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a buildinq 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;
11. The antenna details entitled "tri-bracket mount plan" and "isometric tri-bracket
mount plan" on Page C-5 of the construction plans shall be revised to
demonstrate that the antennas will be flush-mounted as defined with condition
number four (4) of this special use permit;
12. The "new tower elevation" on Page C-3 of the construction plans shall be revised
to show that the no portion of antennas will extend above the tallest portion of the
monopole in accordance with condition number six (6) of this special use permit;
and
13. The title and heading on the construction plans for this application shall be
revised to include the property owner's name.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
14. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the 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
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
15.
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 to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2003-040 (Tomlin - Triton PCS) subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: the conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be desiqned, 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, "Tomlin (Triton PCS)", last
revised April 16, 2003, and provided with Attachment A in the July 22, 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-00-50;
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 through the lowest part of the shield or
shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a
complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect
the lamps to the power supply; and
9. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a buildinq 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; and
11. The antenna details entitled "tri-bracket mount plan" and "isometric tri-bracket
mount plan" on Page C-5 of the construction plans shall be revised to
demonstrate that the antennas will be flush-mounted as defined with condition
number four (4) of this special use permit.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
12. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
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
13.
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 to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-2003-45. American Tower LP (Shadwell) Amendment (Signs #55 & 67).
Public hearing on a request to amend conditions of approval of SP-01-38 in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 78, P 51C, contains 3 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Rt 1090 (191 Lego Drive) approx .3 miles
from intersec of Lego Drive & Hanson's Mtn Rd. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published
in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg 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 SP-2001-038 was approved by the Board on March 20, 2003.
The applicant proposes to delete Condition 2f which states: "No building permit shall be issued for a
Nextel Partners antenna until a written certification is obtained from the Emergency Communications
Center (ECC) that it will not unreasonably interfere with the proposed ECC 800 MHz communications
system." They ask that this condition be deleted because the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, provides the FCC with exclusive jurisdiction over radio frequency interference issues. Therefore,
local regulation of radio frequency is preempted by Federal law, and is thus void. The applicant contends
that Condition 2f. should be deleted because it is a violation of the FCC's authority. He said the County
Attorney provided an opinion and supported the applicant's claim. Both staff and the Planning Commission
have recommended approval of the request. All other conditions of the special permit approval will remain
in effect.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long was present to represent the applicant, American Tower Corp. She said Mr.
Cilimberg summarized the issue well. The issue is clear in terms of case law. The issue of radio frequency
interference is reserved to the FCC. They ask that this Board uphold the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and support the memorandum prepared by the County Attorney's Office and remove
Condition 2f. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said although this may be a point of law, she is interested in knowing whether Nextel
will interfere with the Emergency Communications system equipment.
Ms. Long said she represents the owner of the tower, American Tower Corporation. There is
counsel for Nextel Partners present tonight and she will ask them to speak when she is finished. She said
Nextel Partners has assured her that it is their policy to work diligently and closely with localities on this
issue. There have been a handful of localities where there were interference problems, and they worked
hard to resolve those problems. Her understanding of the technical issues is that until the County's 800
MHz system is operating, it is impossible to predict or confirm with 100 percent certainty that there will be no
interference. Nextel cannot technically comply or provide the technical information the ECC required in
order to provide that certification. She would feel more comfortable having Mr. Matthew Platch with Nextel
Partners respond to the Board's comments. She said American Towers understands the Board's inquiry
and needs to get an answer to the issue.
Mr. Martin said he understands American Tower is asking that the condition be removed because
no assurance can be given to the County that there will not be any interference. Ms. Long said Nextel
worked with the ECC for nearly a year trying to provide the sample inter-modulation studies prior to
American Tower submitting the application to amend this permit. They provided a study which, based on
current information, showed that it would be possible for Nextel's system and the County's 800 MHz system
to function independently of each other without interference, but it is simply a computer-generated study.
She understands it is nearly impossible to account for the many variables that enter into the equations.
Their study showed that if might be possible for the two systems to operate independently of each other, but
there is a chance there could be interference. Nextel has assured her that they will work out the issue.
Actually, it is a condition of their license from the FCC that they cannot interfere with any other system, or it
is a violation of their license. They have a strong internal incentive to prevent any interference.
Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Long was saying the FCC already has that condition. Mr. Davis said the
FCC regulates interference issues. He had hoped this situation with the ECC would have been finished, but
they are not comfortable certifying that there would not be interference because the system has not yet
been installed. There will be best management practices in place and steps that will have to be taken if
there is interference.
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Rooker said if there is an interference situation, there is no assurance as to how the FCC would
rule. This it is a matter of law; the Board does not have the right to impose this condition.
Ms. Long said there is a manual in place known as the "Best Practices Manual." While it is not
binding law, the booklet was developed through a collaborative effort by members of the industry, localities,
and the FCC. It is not law but is a helpful document that the industry uses often. When the FCC ruled on
this issue in the case of Anne Arundel, Maryland, they directed the parties to continue implementing the
policies of the BPM, and then report back to them in 60 days.
Mr. Rooker said in that particular case, there actually was interference with the emergency
broadcasting system. That was a consideration when this County discussed whether to go ahead with the
system. Mr. Davis said there is a difference in the type of equipment that will be used here. It is less likely
that there will be a significant problem in this area. He is not overly concerned about this issue at this point
although it is possible there could be a problem.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would be redundant to have a condition which requires use of the "Best
Practices Manual." Mr. Davis said the County is preempted from doing that. Ms. Long said American
Tower did agree to this condition when it was imposed last year.
Mr. Matthew Platch with the law firm of Catalano & Platch in Washington, D.C., said he is the
outside regulatory counsel for Nextel Partners. He agrees with everything Ms. Long said regarding the law.
To address Ms. Thomas' question, Nextel does have a corporate policy saying they will work with pubic
safety at all levels to deal with the interference issue. There was a mention of published articles regarding
interference to public safety. He said the cause of that is complicated. He said the Nextel spectrum is
interleaved with the public spectrum. In this instance, the public safety spectrum is right above Nextel
Partners, and there is also an A-band carrier on that same tower. Nextel will work with the A-band cellular
carrier and try to get their cooperation in the event of any interference. There is an on-going rule in the
making now at the FCC addressing the issue of the inadvertent inference to the 800 MHz spectrum, so the
FCC is actively working on this issue. He assured the Board that Nextel Partners will work diligently to
resolve any interference that may occur. They don't think there is the likelihood that there will be
interference. They have identified some 70 channels that will not cause third order intermount hits. In
implementing those channels as the public safety system comes on line, Nextel will do constant checks and
make sure the A-band cellular carrier is not causing something which inadvertently causes a problem with
Nextel's channels. Also, the public safety system as designed here is more robust than some of the older
systems. Instead of having a single site, it will have multiple sites, which means there is less likelihood that
a problem will occur. But, there is no way to protect the system with 100 percent certainty. That is why they
did not get a letter from the public safety people. He offered to answer questions.
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 made by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2003-045 deleting Condition No. 2f of
SP-2001-038: "No building permit shall be issued for a Nextel Partners antenna until a written certification
is obtained from the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) that it will not unreasonably interfere with
the proposed ECC 800 MHz communications system", with all remaining conditions of SP-2001-038
remaining in effect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Agenda Item Nos. 16, 17 and 18 were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 16. ZMA-2001-15. Martha Jefferson Hospital at Peter Jefferson Place (Sign
#85). Public hearing on a request to rezone 106.92 acs from CO to PD-MC to allow for the Martha
Jefferson Hospital & associated uses. TM 78, Ps 20B, 20C, 20M, 31,31 I, 32, 71 & 71A. Loc on Rt 1118
(Peter Jefferson Pkway) approx one-half mile from intersec of Rt 250 W & Peter Jefferson Parkway. (The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Office/Regional Service in Pantops.) Rivanna Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 17. SP-2001-56. Martha Jefferson Hospital at Peter Jefferson Place (Sign #89).
Public hearing on a request to allow hospital in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 78, Ps 20B,
20C, 20M, 31,31 I, 71 & 71A. Loc on Rt 1118 (Peter Jefferson Pkway) approx one-half mile from intersec
of Rt 250 W & Peter Jefferson Pkway. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2001-57. Martha Jefferson Hospital at Peter Jefferson Place (Sign #85).
Public hearing on a request to allow parking structures in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ord. TM 78,
Ps 20B, 20C, 20M, 31,31 I, 32, 71 & 71A. Loc on Rt 1118 (Peter Jefferson Pkway) approx one-half mile
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
from intersec of Rt 250 W & Peter Jefferson Parkway. Rivanna Dist.
published in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 2003.)
(Notice of this public hearing was
(Note: Mr. Rooker disclosed a personal interest in this item and immediately recused himself from
hearing these petitions. He left the meeting at 7:00 p.m. A written disclosure form is on file in the Clerk's
office.)
Mr. Cilimberg 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 request is for a health care campus and associated uses.
The campus would contain a general hospital, specialty clinics, offices, supporting retail uses, parking
decks and an Outpatient Care Center (already constructed as a by-right use). There have been work
sessions with the applicant and information from sessions has been provided to the Board. Staff cited
several factors which are favorable to the proposal: 1) The new health care campus will allow Martha
Jefferson Health Services to provide health care to the growing population of the area while also
responding to the changing conditions of the health care industry; 2) The proposal has been redesigned to
mitigate its visual impacts and to respond to previous staff and Planning Commission concerns; 3) The
proposal will provide interconnections between State Farm Boulevard, Route 250 and Peter Jefferson
Place; 4) The plan provides 82 acres of open space, including a community park and access to the
Rivanna greenbelt; and, 5) The campus will be supported by a pedestrian network.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the requests if the outstanding traffic impacts
could be mitigated. When these requests went before the Planning Commission, the mitigation through
proffering was incomplete. On July 8, the Commission voted 6:0 to approve the applications. The
applicant provided several proffers to the Commission at their meeting on July 1. Staff noted that the
content of the proffers adequately addressed outstanding traffic impacts. It was understood that staff would
work with the applicant to refine the form of the proffers prior to their adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
Staff has done so. The most recent version of the proffers was dated August 5, 2003, and that copy was
forwarded to the Board members. In the third paragraph of the introduction to the proffer statement on
Page 1, the paragraph ties the proffers to the approval of ZMA-2001-015, as well as the special use permits
for the hospital and parking structure. He said the Board is being asked to discuss all three applications, as
well as any possible additions to the special permits, prior to acting on this request. He said the applicant
has provided a letter consenting to the conditions currently proposed by the special permits should any
additional conditions be proposed by the Board tonight. Both the Hospital and Worrell Development
Company, have representatives present who can amend the letters of consent, if necessary. Mr. Cilimberg
said the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6:0 subject to the revised proffers as
recommended by staff. The Commission also recommended approval of both SP-2001-056 and SP-2001-
057 subject to one condition on each.
Mr. Dorrier asked Board members for comments.
Ms. Thomas questioned the seven year time frame of a number of the proffers. She asked if staff
feels this is an appropriate amount of time in order for the things proposed to happen. Mr. Cilimberg said
there are conditions on each of the special permits to extend their validity. It was done in accordance with
Martha Jefferson's proposed development schedule.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Jim Haden, President of Martha Jefferson Hospital, spoke. He introduced Mr. Ron Cottrell,
Hospital Planner, Mr. Mike Matthews, Matthews Development Company, Ms. Valerie Long, McGuire
Woods, and Mr. Andrew Dracopoli, Worrell Investment Company, who were all present to answer
questions. Several members of the Hospital's Board of Trustees and members of the medical staff are
also present. He said the Martha Jefferson Hospital at its current site is located on 9.2 acres and has been
in that location since 1929. In the last ten years, there have been additions in the breadth and scope of its
services. The medical staff 10 years ago was at about 140, but now totals 350+ members. There is a need
for additional modern facilities, not only for patients, but for care givers. They have outgrown their present
facility and space. The Board of Trustees recognized that if the hospital was to serve the community for
another 100 years, there needed to be more space.
Mr. Haden said they have worked with Planning staff and the Planning Commission. Some of their
comments and recommendations almost a year ago caused them to go back to the drawing board.
Through that process, they have a better plan for the Hospital, its services, and for the community. He said
they have agreed to the proffers which the Board received tonight, but one additional proffer added is their
agreement to enter into an agreement with Monticello. They have been a great partner and in working with
them, the Hospital recognizes them as strong and important community resources. They will have a
memorandum of understanding with Monticello in terms of a variety of things which are included in some of
the proffers.
Mr. Haden said that during this process over the last year, they met with all sorts of community
neighbors of the Peter Jefferson Place site. On no occasion did they encounter any opposition, only
interest and encouragement. He said that Peter Jefferson Place is a ready made campus only 2.1 miles
away from the current Hospital. It will have a six-acre community park to which the Hospital is committed. It
will be the center piece of the Hospital property, and will open up the remaining 242 acres of Peter
Jefferson Place in a nice, unifying fashion. It has over three miles of walkways and pathways. It will be
connected to the Rivanna Greenbelt. The buildings are sited to respect the terrain. One of the concerns
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
had to do with visualization and massing. One of their goals at the Hospital is to build facilities of human
scale. They want a personalized touch to their health care services, and not just big buildings.
Mr. Haden said approval by the Board tonight will set the stage in that Martha Jefferson Hospital
was incorporated on September 21, 1903. They are about to celebrate their one hundredth anniversary.
The Hospital did not open until July, 1904, but all have been invited to attend the opening of the outpatient
care center at Peter Jefferson Place. That facility will have a number of services that are not being taken
out of the hospital, these are additions to what is presently in the hospital. One example is that they are
"maxed out" on the number of operating rooms at the current site. They will add three at the ambulatory
surgery portion of the outpatient center. There will be a walk-in, extended care facility because the
emergency department has no more room to put doctors and nurses in that facility.
Mr. Haden said the Board of Trustees and medical staff are very excited about the opportunity with
this health care campus to build facilities and services and improve upon them over the next fifty years and
beyond. They ask for approval of the rezoning and the two special permit requests.
At this point, 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.
Mr. Cilimberg said the time frames built into the proffers relate to transportation. Staff looked to
see if it was a reasonable amount of time for VDOT to expend the moneys to undertake those
improvements.
Mr. Davis said there is an issue which was addressed in the staff report about the special use
permits in relationship to the zoning application. Typically, staff would not recommend approval of a
rezoning with proffers that are conditioned upon a subsequent legislative act, such as approval of a special
use permit. He and Ms. Long discussed this issue at some length in order to come to a solution to their
dilemma. Their project is dependent upon special use permits. This application is a little different than a
typical application in that it is a rezoning to a PD-MC development. The special use permits are an integral
part of the approval process. He has a written certification that they do agree to the special use permit
conditions, as presented now. However, there really are no conditions, other than a condition which is
favorable to them. So, he suggested that the Board, prior to acting on the rezoning, have a discussion
about the special use permits. If there are any conditions which the Board feels are essential to these
permits, that needs to be taken up, and the applicant would need to provide a written approval of those
conditions prior to taking any action on the rezoning. The proffers, as voluntarily offered, are conditioned
upon the special use permits, with conditions they agree to prior to the Board acting on the rezoning
application.
Mr. Dorrier asked to which page Mr. Davis was referring. Mr. Davis said the first page of the proffer,
third paragraph, is the portion which is at issue. If the Board has no problems with the special use permits,
then there is not an issue, the rezoning is ready for action. If there are any problems with the special use
permits, the Board needs to work those out prior to taking any action.
Mr. Martin said the Planning Commission dealt with this and any possible conditions on the special
use permits with the idea that there were proffer changes coming forward after their meeting. Mr. Davis
said the Commission did not recommend any conditions. Mr. Martin asked if this applicant went before the
Commission again if Mr. Davis would expect other conditions. Mr. Davis said "no." In this type of application,
the County typically gets proffers and things in the Application Plan to address all the issues that otherwise
might have to be addressed by special use permit. He thinks the Planning Department and the
Commission are satisfied with the application as it is without any additional conditions on the special use
permits.
Ms. Thomas said she is appreciative of the amount of money being put in to bring transit to the site
for one year. She thinks the Board should realize that it is probably committing the County to picking up the
tab after that first year. That is a hefty amount of money. She is not opposing it, but thinks the Board needs
to go into this with "its eyes open."
Mr. Martin said he will not be a Board member much longer, but hopes the Board will, each year,
pick up more areas in the County for bus service. He believes the Board will continue to do that.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the plan is environmentally friendly. It has parks, it has lakes, a central
hospital site, walking areas, respect for the environment, and it will be a beautiful place. He thinks real care
went into shaping this plan.
Mr. Bowerman said that the Planning Commission working with Martha Jefferson Hospital has
come up with a plan that the whole community can be proud of. He thinks it is a great project.
Mr. Martin said he appreciates all the work that Martha Jefferson Hospital has been willing to put
into this. It shows how much the Hospital cares about the community and it shows that the Board of
Trustees intends to have a good product and provide good services to the community. He then offered
motion to approve ZMA-2001-15, subject to the proffers dated and submitted August 5, 2003, and signed
by the applicants.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
MARTHA JEFFERSON HEALTH SERVICES AT PETER JEFFERSON PLACE
ZMA 01-015
PROFFER STATEMENT
The following parcels are subject to rezoning application ZMA-01-015 and thus to
this proffer statement: tax map parcels 78-20M, 78-71,78-71A and 78-311 (the
"Property"). The Applicant is Martha Jefferson Health Services Corporation. The owner of
tax map parcels 78-20M, 78-71 and 78-71A is Worrell Land & Development Company,
L.C., it successors and assigns. The owner of tax map parcel 78-311 is MJH Foundation,
Inc., its successors and assigns. For purposes of this proffer statement, Worrell Land &
Development Company, L.C., it successors and assigns and MJH Foundation, Inc., its
successors and assigns are herein collectively referred to as the "Owner."
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors acts to rezone the Property to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial as
requested, and further acts to grant the requested special use permits for a hospital and
structured parking garages, the Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the
following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the
Owner acknowledges that (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions;
and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested.
If rezoning application ZMA-01-015 is denied, or if either special use permit
2001-056 or SP 2001-057 is denied, or if either SP-2001-056 or 2001-057 is approved
without the condition providing that "the special use permit approvals shall not expire but
shall remain in effect so long as the approval of ZMA-01-15 remains in effect," or if either
SP-2001-056 or SP-2001-057 is approved with conditions that are not agreed to by the
Owner prior to approval of ZMA-01-015, these proffers shall immediately be null and void
and of no further force and effect.
Subject always to the terms of Section 8.5.5.3 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance as in effect on July 1,2003, a copy of which Section
8.5.5.3 is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and which Section 8.5.5.3 allows
certain variations from approved application plans subject to the provisions
thereof, and subject further to the terms and conditions of this paragraph,
development of the Property shall be in general accord with the
application plan shown on sheets AP-1 through AP-5, each dated August
5, 2003, of the plans entitled "Martha Jefferson Health Services at Peter
Jefferson Place, Albemarle County, Virginia, Zoning Map Amendment and
Special Use Permit Application Plan," which sheets are attached hereto as
Exhibit B (the "Application Plan"). Unless specifically referenced in the
Application Plan, or otherwise referenced in this Proffer Statement, all
other plans and illustrations submitted as part of the Owner's rezoning
materials shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and
illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. In addition to the provisions of
Exhibit A, the Owner further reserves the right to develop the Property in
phases (which may involve the reasonable use of surface parking prior to
ultimate buildout of the Property as shown on the Application Plan), and to
make reasonable modifications to the conceptual grading plan shown on
sheet AP-3 of Exhibit B (provided that the finished grades not vary by more
than ten (10) feet up or down).
All buildings and structures constructed on the Property shall substantially
comply with the Peter Jefferson Place Design Criteria and Guidelines
dated August 5, 2003, and attached hereto as Exhibit C. In addition, the
following additional design criteria shall govern the exteriors of all buildings
and structures constructed on the Property following the Board of
Supervisors' approval of ZMA 01-015, as determined to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development or
his/her successor:
Neutral colors shall be utilized for external building materials so
that buildings blend with the surrounding landscape, not contrast
with it.
The use of white materials will be minimized, and shall not
constitute the predominate color on such building or structure.
c. In addition to standard landscaping required by Section 32.7.9 of
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, additional landscaping
shall be interspersed throughout the areas of the Property where
development is permitted pursuant to the Application Plan, to help
integrate the development into the surrounding landscape.
Parking structures shall be coordinated in appearance with other
buildings on the Property.
The community park shown on the Application Plan will be built prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Inpatient Hospital (as
hereinafter defined) and shall be made reasonably available for public
use. In designing the community park the Owner shall consult with the
Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. For purposes of this
Proffer Statement, the "Inpatient Hospital" shall be defined as the earlier
to be built of the diagnostic/technology building shown on sheet AP-2 of
the Application Plan (or any portion thereof) and the inpatient beds
building shown on sheet AP-2 of the Application Plan (or any portion
thereof).
The Owner will dedicate fee simple title to the County, for incorporation
into the Rivanna River Greenway System, all that portion of the Property
contiguous to the Rivanna River and defined in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency national flood insurance maps as land within the
100-year flood plain, with the intent that the County shall construct,
operate, maintain and police such land as a park, and which dedication
shall be subject to existing encumbrances and easements of record.
Such dedication shall be made by the earlier to occur of (i) dedication by
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. of the portion of land identified as tax
map parcel 78-31A that is located within the 100-year flood plain into the
Rivanna River Greenway System; (ii) final site plan approval for any
development on Parcel I shown on the Application Plan (if applicable, in
which case such site plan will include reasonable provisions for access to
the Greenway System); or (iii) final subdivision plat approval for any
development on Parcel I shown on the Application Plan (if applicable, in
which case such subdivision plat will include reasonable provisions for
access to the Greenway System). Notwithstanding the foregoing
sentence, in the event the Owner elects in its sole discretion to make such
dedication at an earlier date, it may do so. In addition, such dedication
shall be subject to reservations of a right of access for ingress and egress
from the Property for the benefit of the Owner, for drainage from the
Owner's stormwater control facilities, of riparian rights in the Rivanna River
for the benefit of the Owner, and for other purposes reasonably stipulated
by the Owner. Upon the Board of Supervisors' approval of ZMA 01-015,
employees and agents of the County Department of Parks and Recreation
may have reasonable access to the portion of the Property to be
dedicated.
Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Inpatient Hospital, the
Owner shall submit a traffic demand management plan to Albemarle
County, incorporating elements such as ridesharing programs, mass
transit incentives, pedestrian and bicycle accommodation, and similar
measures, each as may be appropriate and reasonable given the
then-current availability of such programs, which plan shall be subject to
the reasonable approval by the Director of Planning and Community
Development or his/her successor, and shall be subject to implementation
by the Owner as described in such plan.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Inpatient Hospital,
but subject always to approval by the Virginia Department of
Transportation ("VDOT"), the Owner shall install (or bond for installation) a
traffic signal at the intersection of State Farm Boulevard and Peter
Jefferson Parkway, or pay for the full cost of the traffic signals to be
installed at such intersection. The appropriate signalization of the
intersection shall be approved by VDOT. Alternatively, at the request of
VDOT, in lieu of installing a traffic signal at such intersection, the Owner
shall construct a roundabout at such intersection, which shall be
constructed to VDOT design standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed
to between the Owner and VDOT, and shall be accepted by VDOT for
public use or bonded for VDOT's acceptance, provided that either VDOT
can provide adequate land for a roundabout, or that the Owner can
acquire necessary land therefor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Owner's total financial responsibility for the cost of such a roundabout
(including, without limitation, any cost to the Owner for the design and
construction of a roundabout and for acquiring any land needed for a
roundabout) shall in no event exceed the cost required to install traffic
signals at the same intersection.
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
The Owner shall contribute to the expenses associated with improving the
Interstate 64/U.S. Route 250 interchange at Exit 124 as described below:
Within thirty (30) days following the granting of final site plan
approval for the Inpatient Hospital, the Owner shall contribute to
the County funds in the amount of One Hundred Forty-Six
Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($146,250.00) for the
construction by VDOT or others of an additional turn lane off each
of the eastbound and westbound off-ramps from Interstate 64 to
U.S. Route 250 at Exit 124. Such amount shall be increased by
an amount equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average as issued
by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (the
"CPI-U") for each year or portion thereof which elapses during the
period between the date the Board of Supervisors approves ZMA
2001-015 and the date that Albemarle County grants final site
plan approval for the Inpatient Hospital. In the event the actual
cost of such construction is less than the amount the Owner
contributes (as such amount is increased for the CPI-U as per the
terms hereof), all excess funds shall be returned to the Owner
within ninety (90) days following the completion of construction.
Within thirty (30) days following the granting of final site plan
approval for the Inpatient Hospital, the Owner shall contribute to
the County funds in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($150,000.00) for the construction by VDOT or others of
various improvements to the traffic signals at each of the
eastbound and westbound off-ramps from Interstate 64 to U.S.
Route 250 at Exit 124. Such amount shall be increased by an
amount equal to the percentage increase in the CPI-U for each
year or portion thereof which elapses during the period between
the date the Board of Supervisors approves ZMA 2001-015 and
the date that Albemarle County grants final site plan approval for
the Inpatient Hospital. In the event the actual cost of such
construction is less than the amount the Owner contributes (as
such amount is increased for the CPI-U as per the terms hereof),
all excess funds shall be returned to the Owner within ninety (90)
days following the completion of construction.
Within ninety (90) days following the approval by the Board of
Supervisors of ZMA 2001-015, the Owner shall contribute to the
County funds in the amount of Forty-Four Thousand Dollars
($44,000.00) for the preliminary engineering expenses of VDOT
associated with the design of the additional turn lanes and traffic
signal improvements at the westbound and eastbound off-ramps
from Interstate 64 to U.S. Route 250 at Exit 124.
Notwithstanding the terms of Section 7(a), (b) and (c) herein, in
the event that VDOT and/or the Federal Highway Administration
elect, prior to the granting of final site plan approval for the
Inpatient Hospital, to make improvements to the Interstate 64/U.S.
Route 250 interchange other than as described in Section 7(a),
(b) and (c) herein, then, upon reasonable consultation with the
Owner, the funds contributed to the County by the Owner and
described in Section 7(a), (b) and (c) herein may nevertheless be
used by VDOT or others for the engineering and construction of
such improvements, provided that such funds are ultimately
utilized for the improvement of the Interstate 64/U.S. Route 250
interchange as necessitated by the development of the Property,
and are utilized for the benefit of the Property, and provided
further that the Owner shall have no additional responsibility for
the expenses associated with such improvements. In addition,
prior to releasing any portion of the funds described in Section
7(a), (b) and (c) herein, the County Zoning Administrator shall
consult with the Owner.
If any of the funds proffered pursuant to Section 7(a) and 7(b)
herein are not expended for the expenses associated with
improving the Interstate 64/U.S. Route 250 interchange as
necessitated by the development of the Property within seven (7)
years from the date the Owner contributes such funds, all
unexpended funds (including income earned thereon) shall be
returned to the Owner, and the Owner proffers no further
obligation for contributing to the expenses associated with such
improvements.
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
If any of the funds proffered pursuant to Section 7(c) herein are
not expended for the expenses associated with the design of
improvements to the Interstate 64/U.S. Route 250 interchange as
necessitated by the development of the Property within the earlier
to occur of (i) twenty (20) years from the date the Owner
contributes such funds, and (ii) seven (7) years from the date the
Owner contributes the funds referenced in Section 7(a) and 7(b),
all unexpended funds (including income earned thereon) shall be
returned to the Owner, and the Owner proffers no further
obligation for contributing to the expenses associated with such
improvements.
Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Inpatient Hospital
(or sooner upon the mutual agreement of the Owner and the Director of
Planning and Community Development or his/her successor), the Owner
shall contribute to Albemarle County a one-time payment in the amount of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) toward the cost of establishing or
enhancing transit service to the Property, the design of which shall be in
general accord with the Application Plan and any modifications thereto,
and shall be reasonably coordinated with the Owner. Such amount shall
be increased by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the CPI-U
for each year or portion thereof which elapses during the period between
the date the Board of Supervisors approves ZMA 2001-015 and the date
that the Owner contributes such funds to Albemarle County. If a system of
transit service is not provided to the Inpatient Hospital within one (1) year
following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Inpatient
Hospital, the entire amount of funds delivered to the County pursuant to
this Section 8 (including income earned thereon) shall be returned to the
Owner. In the event that the system of transit service has been provided to
the Inpatient Hospital within one (1) year following the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy therefor, but any of the funds proffered pursuant
to this Section 8 are nevertheless not actually expended for such purposes
within five (5) years from the date the Owner contributes such payment, all
unexpended funds (including income earned thereon) shall be returned to
the Owner, and the Owner proffers no further obligation for contributing to
such expenses.
The Owner has entered into a memorandum of understanding with
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. incorporating guidelines for
development of the Property within the Monticello viewshed (as such
memorandum may be amended from time to time upon mutual consent
of the parties thereto) (the "MOU"). Prior to granting final site plan
approval for any proposed building on the Property within the Monticello
viewshed (other than site plan applications for minor amendments not
material to the objectives of the MOU), and provided that the MOU
remains in effect between the parties thereto, the Director of Planning and
Community Development shall request confirmation from Thomas
Jefferson Foundation, Inc. that the site plan application is consistent with
the terms of the MOU.
This proffer statement may be signed in two or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, and which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
WITNESS the following signatures:
WORRELL LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.C.
(Signed) By:.
T. Eugene Worrell, Manager
MJH FOUNDATION, INC.
(Signed) By:
James E. Haden, President
Exhibit A:
Section 8.5.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance in Effect on July 1,2003 (on file).
Application Plan (on file).
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Peter Jefferson Place Design Criteria and Guidelines (on file).
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-2001-056,
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
subject to the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.)
1. The special use permit approvals shall not expire but shall remain in effect so
long as the approval of ZMA-2001-015 remains in effect.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2001-057 subject to the one condition
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.)
The special use permit approvals shall not expire but shall remain in effect so
long as the approval of ZMA-2001-015 remains in effect.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adopt Resolution Approving Final Terms of Financing for 800 MHz Radio
System. (This item had been renumbered as Agenda Item No. Item 5a).
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Rooker had to recuse himself. What he did was fine, but not only did he have to
recuse himself, but just for clarification based on the new rules, what is different this time? Mr. Davis said in
this instance Mr. Rooker filed a written disclosure and identified his conflict. That will be filed and kept on
file for five years. He orally presented what his conflict is. The only difference in the new rules and
identifying this situation is because it was a matter of representation. If someone had a personal interest in
the property that was being rezoned, the actual tax map parcel would have to be identified. That was not
previously required.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Rooker could come back and talk to the Board members about this issue in
the future. Mr. Davis said "no." He cannot discuss it with the Board, nor can he discuss it with staff. That
may or may not have been the rule before, but it is clearly established now. After the matter is resolved and
is no longer in front of the Board, he is not sure that is a clear preclusion.
Mr. Bowerman said this item will now be going before the Planning and Zoning departments, so it is
an on-going item for the County. Mr. Davis said this is a more stringent requirement than in the past.
Mr. Martin said he thought it would be a good exercise, if every time someone had to recuse
himself, if the Board discussed what is different in that particular case.
Ms. Thomas said she has enjoyed using the County's new website occasionally, but she has found
a few glitches and has passed these to staff. They seem to appreciate hearing about those glitches. Mr.
Bowerman said he thinks it is a fantastic site.
Mr. Martin said he may not be present for the Board's Strategic Planning Retreat on September 6
since his son is now playing college football.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
(August 13, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Date: 12/10/2003
Initials: EWC