2000-02-16February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on February 16, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room
241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7:05 p.m.); Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.;
Mr. Charles S. Martin; Mr. Walter F. Perkins; and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
Mr. Larry Davis; and County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The Chairman, Mr. Martin, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Thomas offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve items 5.1 through 5.3b, and
to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
_______________
Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: EMS: Childhood Injury Prevention Program Grant, $1,000 (Form
#99058).
The executive summary states that the Virginia EMS for Children Program administered by Virginia
Commonwealth University has approved a mini-grant providing funds to assist with a child passenger safety
program. The mini-grant is funded by a $1,000.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is
no local match.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the Appropriation totaling $1,000, as detailed
on Appropriation #99058.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the following appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99058
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CHILD PASSENGER SAFETY PROGRAM.
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1558 31012 601400OPERATING SUPPLIES $1,000.00
TOTAL$1,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1558 24000 240415EMS FUNDS$1,000.00
TOTAL$1,000.00
_______________
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: EMS: Childcare and Babysitter Safety, First Aid and CPR Grant, $2,955
(Form #99059).
The executive summary states that the Virginia EMS for Children Program administered by Virginia
Commonwealth University has approved a mini-grant providing funds to assist with childcare and babysitter
safety, first aid, and CPR training efforts. The mini-grant is funded by a $1,000.00 Office of Emergency
Medical Services grant, $1,250.00 in training fees, and a $705.00 local match. The local match will be
funded from current operations and does not require additional funds.
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the Appropriation totaling $2,955, as detailed
on Appropriation #99059.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the following appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99059
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CHILDCARE AND BABYSITTER SAFETY PROGRAM.
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1559 31012 601400OPERATING SUPPLIES $2,955.00
TOTAL$2,955.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1559 16000 161613TRAINING FEES$1,250.00
2 1559 24000 240415EMS FUNDS 1,000.00
2 1559 51000 512004TRANSFER FROM G/F 705.00
TOTAL$2,955.00
_______________
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Brownsville Elementary Gym Improvement, $12,655 (Form #99057).
The Brownsville Elementary School gymnasium does not have basketball goals at either end, and
the side-mounted goals bolted to the wall cannot be adjusted to accommodate different age groups. The
gymnasium is not usable for games for the school or community recreation programs because the court is
too short. The usefulness of the gym for practices is limited by the space and basket height.
The cost of equipping the gym with new adjustable end baskets and protective padding is $12,655.
These improvements will benefit both school and community recreation programs. Brownsville Elementary
has requested funding assistance from the Parks and Recreation Department. The Parks and Recreation
Department has $8,162.23 remaining of an appropriation to equip the Monticello High School gym with side
baskets and volleyball equipment. That project has been completed, and Parks and Recreation staff is
recommending that the unexpended balance be appropriated for these improvements at Brownsville
Elementary School. The Brownsville PTO will donate additional funding necessary for the project.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99057 in the amount of $12,655; $8,162.23
transferred from Monticello H/S Facilities; and the balance being a donation from the Brownsville PTO.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the following appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99057
FUND: CIP-GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR BASKETBALL GOALS AT BROWNSVILLE.
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9010 71000 950070BROWNSVILLE REC. PROJECTS $12,655.00
1 9010 71000 950063MONTICELLO REC. PROJECTS (8,162.23)
TOTAL$ 4,492.77
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9010 18100 181109DONATIONS$4,492.77
TOTAL$4,492.77
_______________
Item No. 5.3a. Proclamation designating February 14 through February 18, 2000 as Eligibility
Worker Appreciation Week.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following proclamation, which Mr. Martin
read:
ELIGIBILITY WORKER APPRECIATION WEEK
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
WHEREAS, Virginia’s landmark welfare reform legislation has significantly impacted the services provided
by our local eligibility workers, calling upon them to creatively promote individual self-
sufficiency and personal responsibility; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County continues to experience unprecedented implementation of complex policies
and procedures in all major benefit programs; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County’s 21 eligibility workers have been at the forefront of public efforts to meet
that need, steadily maintaining a high rate of application processing to ensure that those
qualified for social services receive them; and
WHEREAS, approximately 1017 children are served monthly through the Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families, Medicaid and Food Stamp Programs, depending on the dedication and commitment
of eligibility workers who handle their cases in an accurate and timely manner; and
WHEREAS, our eligibility workers are continually faced with reconciling an environment of rapidly changing
policies, procedures, and technological advances with quality control requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors,
do hereby commend all eligibility workers in the County of Albemarle for a job well done and
recognize the week of
February 22 through February 26, 1999,
as
ELIGIBILITY WORKER APPRECIATION WEEK
and call upon all County residents to join in acknowledging their public service and
contributions on this 17th day of February, 1999.
_______________
Item No. 5.3b. Proclamation recognizing CENSUS 2000.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following proclamation, which Mr. Martin
read:
PROCLAMATION
CENSUS 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
and the
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
CHARLOTTE REGION
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is an active and committed part of the Central Virginia community;
and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County understands that this is a unique opportunity to participate in and
have influence on CENSUS 2000;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in order to accomplish the goal of a more accurate and cost efficient Census in
CENSUS 2000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby take the
following actions:
1.appoint members to the Regional Census Complete Count Committee; and
2. charge the Census Complete Count Committee with working with the Census
Bureau and its representatives in promoting CENSUS 2000 to all of its
citizens; and
3.authorize the Census Complete Count Committee to provide assistance to
the Census Bureau to recruit temporary employees; and
4. direct the Census Complete Count Committee to make every effort to develop
outreach activities especially designed to meet the needs of all residents and
to reach those considered "hard to enumerate”; and
5.direct the Census Complete Count Census Committee to encourage every
resident to accurately complete the Census questionnaire and promptly
return it by mail; and
6.designate April 1, 2000, as CENSUS DAY in Albemarle County.
th
ADOPTED this 16 day of February, 2000.
_______________
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item No. 5.4. Copies of Draft Planning Commission minutes for January 18 and
February 1, 2000, were received for information.
_______________
Item No. 5.5. Copy of letter dated February 3, 2000 from ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning
Administrator, to Mr. Mike Brown, re: Official Determination of Development Rights Under Sections 10.3.1
and 10.3.2, Tax Map 47, Parcel 39, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 5.6. Notice of Citizen Information Meeting on the Route 250 Corridor Study, from the east
corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville to Route 795, Louisa County (Albemarle, Fluvanna and Louisa
Counties), was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 5.7. Copy of public notice and map of public workshop on the Route 29 Corridor
Development Study (Proj: 6029-963-F01, PE-100) from I-64 to North Carolina state line (Amherst,
Appomattox, Nelson, Albemarle, Bedford, Pittsylvania and Campbell Counties), was received for
information.
_______________
Item No. 5.8. Copy of First Annual Report from the Citizen Advisory Committee of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Public Defender Office, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 5.9. Second Quarter Report for JAUNT services in Albemarle County for FY 2000, was
received for information.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman arrived at 7:05 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing on development and adoption of the Year 2000 Consolidated
Plan for affordable housing. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 6 and 8, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the executive summary, which states that the Year 2000 Consolidated
Plan sets the affordable housing and community development goals for the region, and specifically guides
the use of the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium funds managed by Planning District 10 and the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in the City of Charlottesville. The Consolidated Plan is
a required document, submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Other federal funding opportunities, i.e., fair housing and homeless assistance, special Housing
Choice vouchers, such as welfare-to work, and housing for persons with HIV/AIDS, require that any future
funding requests be consistent with the approved Consolidated Plan. Therefore, the Plan sets forth the
overall housing policy for the region that assists in the receipt of additional resources.
The Consolidated Plan is normally a five-year plan, but because the Year 2000 Census data will not
be available until 2002, HUD is allowing for the preparation of a three-year plan using current census data, with
a five-year plan prepared in 2003. In addition to this public hearing, representatives of PDC 10 will make a
formal presentation of the draft plan to each governing body in March with the final approved plan submitted
to HUD by May 15, 2000.
A public hearing is not required, but was requested by the Housing Committee to afford an
opportunity for the general public to have input into the development of Albemarle’s affordable housing
priorities for the regional plan.
The member governments of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District entered into a formal
agreement to participate in the federal HOME Program as a Consortium and to receive annual entitlement
of HOME funds. The original agreement among the members was to share the annual entitlement funds on
an equal basis to assure the creation of the consortium. (Local need and/or local capacity to utilize the
funds was not considered. However, the PDC will be discussing the issue of “ fair share” funding in future
meetings).
The City of Charlottesville was designated as the lead agency for the HOME consortium and the
PDC as the designated Program Manager for the Consortium.
The participating governments are the of the Consortium. Although it is not a
“MEMBERS”
requirement of the Consortium, each Member has previously designated a “to receive the
SUBRECIPIENT”
annual one-sixth allocation. Albemarle has annually designated its share, which is approximately $94,000
in the current year, to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and the City has designated
the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA). The total FY 2000 allocation to the
regional consortium is $753,000.
The Board had also been provided the following documents (on file in the Clerk’s office) for its
review prior to the public hearing:
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
1. This includes the regional and
Section IV. Strategic Plan, Consolidated Plan, 1995.
individual localities affordable housing priorities.
2. The These are the regional
Housing Directors’ Goals for Year 2000 Consolidated Plan.
goals developed by the Directors of the sub-recipient organizations.
3. The current
Housing and Community Development Needs Assessments Data for the Year
2000 Consolidated Plan.
The document also details the use of the HOME funds over the last five years.
Staff recommends the Board receive public input on the County’s priorities for the Year 2000
Consolidated Plan.
Mr. Leigh B. Middleditch, Jr., Chair of the Housing Committee, said the Albemarle County Housing
Committee has developed a three-year plan that will be presented to the Board in March. Affordable
housing is a difficult and complex topic. Funding sources are plentiful, but many require the County to have
a funding plan. The 2000 Consolidated Plan’s emphasis is on $100,000 in HOME funds the County
receives from the federal government annually. There is almost $800,000 in block grants, from the same
source, for the County’s six constituencies in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. In addition, the City
depends, in part, on their community development block grants from the same source.
The Housing Committee developed a three-year plan which identifies the following priorities: to
rehabilitate substandard owner-occupied homes; to increase opportunities for first-home buyers; to
rehabilitate substandard renter-occupied homes in multi-family units; to increase mixed-use high-density
development in designated growth areas; and to assist special needs groups, such as the elderly, disabled,
homeless, and single-parent families.
Mr. Middleditch then introduced Mr. Bill Warner, representing the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission, and author of the plan. Mr. Warner said the Commission manages the Thomas
Jefferson HOME Consortium. The plan is a federally required document that guides the use of
approximately $100,000 in Consortium HOME funds in Albemarle County. It also guides the use of
community development block grants, which are entitlement funds, for the City of Charlottesville. The
Consortium is required to address affordable housing for low- and moderate-income citizens, moderate-
income being 80 percent of the median income of households in the County (approximately $44,000 for a
family of four). This hearing is designed to gather information prior to preparing the plan. He said so many
other funding sources require consistency with local and regional plans, that the consortium must take a
broad look at housing and community development in order to put the County in a better position to receive
other funds, as well.
Mr. Bowerman said this is the culmination of previous decisions made by the Board when it decided
to work through the PDC to allocate funds more equally among the six localities.
Mr. Warner said the decision has been to make HOME funds available on an equal share basis, even
though the dynamics of each county may differ.
Mr. Dorrier asked what was meant by “numbers of housing units authorized”. Mr. Warner said this
is a total count of all building permits issued by the County. Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage of the
permits is for low-income housing. Mr. Warner said that statistic is not captured. Mr. Cilimberg said
Planning gathers data on the value of property at the time of issuance of the special use permit.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the figure includes mobile homes. Mr. Warner replied that mobile homes are now
considered manufactured housing, so they are included in single-family statistics. Mr. Perkins noted that
the report compares median sales costs between the localities. Albemarle County’s median cost is higher
than other counties, so housing is less affordable to median families. Mr. Warner added that the price
includes the cost of the lot.
Mr. Martin said he strongly supports affordable housing, but the County also needs to be able to
provide job opportunities so that people can afford to buy homes. The cost of County homes is high, and
the report should reflect a goal of providing good education and training so that citizens can afford them.
Ms. Thomas said the City has asked whether the various counties in the Planning District are doing
their fair share of meeting affordable housing needs. She said it is difficult to define “affordable” housing,
and it is interesting to compare each locality’s goals.
Mr. Martin then opened the public hearing.
Ms. Theresa Tapscott thanked the Board for the monies AHIP (Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program) receives through HOME. AHIP has been using the money exclusively for homeowner
rehabilitation since there are few funds for that purpose. The state has withdrawn all its financial support
except for indoor plumbing. She suggested the Board continue to designate its portion of funds as it has in
the past.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many homeowners are in the program. Ms. Tapscott said AHIP could serve
from five to eight projects a year with the $90,000 it receives annually, with most projects costing between
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
$15,000 and $25,000 each. She added that AHIP receives additional funds from other resources, so it can
serve between 25 and 40 families per year. She noted that the program requires that all deficiencies be
addressed at one time. Mr. Bowerman observed that prices are going up, but funds are not.
Mr. Martin commented that Proffit Road looks much better (no details provided).
Mr. Overton McGhee, representing Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity, said all
neighborhoods in growth areas should have an affordable housing requirement. His organization assists
low-income people with buying homes appraised at between $75,000 and $85,000 for $45,000 with an
interest-free mortgage. To help manage costs, it is important to keep the costs of building at $23,000 per
lot. Therefore, Habitat for Humanity has not been able to afford to purchase any land in a growth area. His
hope is the plan will encourage all new neighborhoods in growth areas to have an affordable housing
component. This would mean that developers might make less profit and would have to adjust covenants
to allow low-income housing.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he has discussed with Mr. McGhee the possibility of adding one more
division per subdivision, which might encourage developers to put land into low-income housing.
Mr. McGhee said he would like to see suggestions for encouraging affordable housing to be dispersed
through the County. If a developer were motivated to set aside lots for affordable housing, it would be
easier for non-profit organizations to develop in growth areas and allow developers to sell directly to low-
income families.
Mr. Martin said DISC (Development Initiatives Steering Committee) often has heated discussions
regarding making it as difficult to build in a rural area as it is to build in a development area. His argument
is that affordable housing must be available. Other people counter that low-income housing is going to be
in growth areas. However, he has seen no proof of that. The Board favors having affordable housing while
keeping growth out of rural areas, so the two goals conflict.
Mr. Bowerman noted that if a developer builds a subdivision with affordable units, the value of the
houses would eventually increase. If the house is resold, he wondered who determines a reasonable
selling price to the new owners. To make affordable housing part of the growth strategy, a developer has to
hold down the cost of the units to counteract market strategy. Mr. McGhee said AHIP puts a right of first
refusal on houses at their appraised value. When a family sells their home, AHIP shares in the equity. This
is to ensure that affordable housing does not become rental property.
Ms. Thomas said Maryland’s system of requiring that a certain number of affordable housing units
be part of large developments is not yet allowed in Virginia, but she suggested Mr. McGhee look into the
matter. She then asked about density credits for affordable housing units. Mr. Cilimberg said density
credits have only been used once, and that was at Wilton Farms apartments.
Mr. Martin added that home ownership is the best way to discourage crime.
Mr. Dorrier suggested setting up an ad-hoc committee to work with Habitat for Humanity.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the County already has a Housing Committee, which Mr. Middleditch chairs.
Mr. Martin said it is important that organizations coordinate their efforts. Ms. Ginnie McDonald, Housing
Chief, said the Housing Committee has a Public Incentive sub-committee, and she will ask
Mr. McGhee to serve on that committee.
Mr. Nicholas Munger, President of AHIP, thanked the Board. He added that Ms. Tapscott is the
President of the Virginia Housing Coalition and meets with housing providers interested in affordable
housing. AHIP is the envy of the state due to the Board’s support, and he noted that the Housing Initiative
Fund is particularly helpful.
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tucker said item will be brought back to the Board in March.
_______________
Not Docketed
Mr. Martin introduced Ms. Tracey Hopper, the newest member of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission.
_______________
Mr. Martin read a copy of a letter he planned to send thanking an anonymous donor and the Dave
Matthews Band for monies donated to establish the Esmont Park.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-61. Pinnell Custom Leather (Sign #48). Public hearing on a request to
allow craft workshop in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.36 of the Zoning Ord. Znd RA. TM 40, P 12, contains 7.953
acs. Located on W sd of Whitehall Rd (Rt 810) approx 1/4 ml S of intersect of Bearwood Rd (Rt 811).
(This property is not located w/in a designated growth area.) White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 31 and February 7, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s office and a permanent
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
part of the record. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to two conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on February 1, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the request with
two conditions.
The applicant, Ms. Virginia Pinnell, made no comment.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that conditions did not address restrictions on sales and events, although such
a restriction is implied in the application. Ms. Thomas said she did not want to put in such a condition, as it
could be restrictive to a future owner.
Mr. Perkins offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-99-61, Pinnell Custom
Leather, with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Humphris.
Conditions are as follows:
1. Total number of employees is limited to four (4), not including residents; and
2. VDOT approval of entrance permit as noted in the letter from Mr. Bill Mills dated
January 18, 2000 (copy on file in the Clerk’s office). No parking is permitted on, or
adjacent to, Whitehall Road.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP 99-62. CFW CV 160 Route 638/Interstate 64 (Signs #44&45). Public
hearing on a request to construct wooden pole telecommunications facility at treetop height. Znd RA. TM
72, P 43B consists of 34 acres. Located on N sd of I-64, approx 1 ml E of St Rt 635. (This property is not
located w/in a designated growth area.). White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31
and February 7, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s office and a permanent
part of the record. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to 14 conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on January 18, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the request with
14 conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked about the significant clearing of trees. Mr. Perkins said the area has already
been replanted.
The applicant, Ms. Debbie Balsor, said she has taken the position at CFE formerly filled by
Mr. Dick Shearer. Ms. Figgatt (first name not provided) presented photographs of the site.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the tower will tie into other towers since the application says it supplements
the existing system. Mr. Stan Alexander, Radio Frequency (RF) Manager for CFW/Intelos, said the site will
be a “repeater” that communicates back to other sites via RF. Mr. Bowerman said other providers have
said this type of tower has been impossible to use. Ms. Thomas said the General Assembly is discussing
whether the County makes things impossible for tower developers. She said she has reported to legislators
that CFW has been a good company with which to work.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Perkins offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-99-62 CFW CV Route
638/Interstate 64, with the 14 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and
the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Humphris.
Conditions are as follows:
1.The height of the tower shall not exceed five (5) feet above the height of the tallest tree
within twenty-five (25) feet of the tower. Antenna may not extend above the height of the
tower, and therefore shall not exceed a total height of ninety-five (95) feet;
2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be of wood;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. The tower shall have no lighting; and
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
d. All equipment mounted to the pole shall be painted or otherwise treated to match
the pole in color.
3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled “lease parcel
CFW Site CV 160” (on file in the Clerk’s office).
4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. The antennas shall be limited to those shown in a plan titled “CFW Wireless
Mechum’s River CV160” (on file in the Clerk’s office);
b. Antennas shall be flush mounted to the pole; and
c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other
wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions:
(1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site
plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that
it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in
good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the
site; and,
(2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable
evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location.
Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to
evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate
on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site
owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County.
6. 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 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. Outdoor lighting shall be
limited to periods of maintenance only. A lighting plan must be provided with the building
permit application;
7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or
installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from
the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site outside the access easement
and tower lease area. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed
for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by
the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred
(200) feet of the tower, the equipment;
8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
9. Fencing of the lease area shall consist of a wooden fence of wood color, which is limited to
a 10-foot by 10-foot (10’x10’) area and six (6) feet in height;
10. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date is use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
11. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify
each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
12. No slopes associated with construction of tower and accessory uses shall be created that
are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures
acceptable to the County Engineer are employed;
13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; and,
14.The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet in cross section.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-99-71. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (Sign #98). Public
hearing on a request to allow expansion of existing gift shop in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.36 of the Zoning Ord
which allows for gift, craft, and antique shops. Znd RA. TM 78, P 22, contains 592 acs. Located on
Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Rt 53), approx 2 mls from intersect of Rt 20 & Rt 53. (This property is not
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
located in a designated growth area.) Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
January 31 and February 7, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s office and a permanent
part of the record. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to one condition. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on January 18, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the request with
one condition.
Mr. Michael Merriam, the applicant, said he was present to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier asked
about the square footage addition. Mr. Merriman said it would increase square footage approximately 30
percent.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Dorrier offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-99-71 Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Foundation, with the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called
and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Humphris.
The condition is as follows:
1.Gift shop limited to a total of 2,000 square foot for retail and office area.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on Six Year Secondary Road Plan for FY 2000-2006.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board already held a work session on the plan. Then, on
January 5, 2000, staff discussed further how to deal with Old Ivy Road, and recommended the Board use
the next year to study the project’s feasibility. The results would be included in next year’s six-year priority
update. In response to a request from Mr. Dorrier, staff prioritized paving Route 712 from Route 713 to
Route 795 as 24th on the list of paving projects. Staff recommends approval of the priority list as provided.
He added that the Wyant Lane hard surfacing project has gotten some attention lately, and that input has
been received from the public.
Ms. Thomas said the Wyant Lane project has been on the list a long time, and the neighborhood’s
interests have changed. Residents were polled to find out if they want the road paved. She thanked
Ms. Angela Tucker and Mr. Juan Wade for explaining the project fully to the public at a recent meeting.
Nearly everyone present at the meeting voted, and since the majority was in favor of paving the road, she
recommends it remain on the list.
Mr. Dorrier said President Theodore Roosevelt’s Pine Knott hunting lodge is located on Route 712,
and is being upgraded as a tourist attraction. He asked Mr. Cilimberg if anticipated additional tourist traffic
was considered when the road was placed on the priority list. Mr. Cilimberg said there are 130 trips on the
road per day now, and that a dramatic increase in traffic would affect prioritization. Rights-of-way have not
been donated. Mr. Dorrier asked if VDOT could pave a section of road from the current paved section at
Route 713, to the entrance to Pine Knott. Mr. Cilimberg said that would require purchasing rights-of-way,
and moving it up on the list would affect other projects. Mr. Martin said other projects have been in line for
years, and it is not easy to move projects ahead of one another. Mr. Tucker said staff would also need
plans to know where to purchase dedicated rights-of-way, if they have not yet been dedicated. Mr. Perkins
said only one landowner would be involved. Mr. Dorrier said the increased number of visitors will affect
traffic, and the road deserves special treatment due to Pine Knott’s historic significance.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Martin said he opposes spending $300,000 in public funds to pave a one-mile segment of
Catterton Road, and $260,000 to pave Wyant Lane. He lives on Catterton Road, where over 60 percent of
the residents want to preserve the gravel road, and 70 percent of resident property owners seek to preserve
the road. Only two resident property owners have road frontage on the one-mile segment scheduled for
paving, with a third resident property owner having only a driveway opening onto the road. Of the property
owners with road frontage, one favors paving, and the other does not. One person, a non-resident property
owner, owns one mile along the south side of the road, and is against paving the road. The road is not
needed as a cross-country transportation artery, and it is safe and maintainable. It is also beautiful,
peaceful, low-speed, quiet, and located in the center of one of the most important County watersheds. He
asked if public interest is required to proceed with the project. It is regrettable that no guidelines exist to
determine how to schedule paving of roads at public expense. In all other matters concerning spending
public funds, County decisions are premised upon objective need, on the assessment of the overall public
interest, and spending decisions have a rational basis. The problem is that VDOT’s and the County’s
procedures for identifying roads for paving are antiquated. The procedures are based upon the assumption
that all gravel roads must be paved, but the paramount goals now are to preserve rural areas, limit
development, and protect the watershed and environment. The procedures need to be revised to establish
objective criteria to guide the Board’s discretion, since Section 33.1-23.1:1 of the State Code says the
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
County may use funds provided by the state for road paving, to make improvements on paved secondary
roads. The County apparently has never exercised this option, added in 1985. Accordingly, the issue
presented is now whether the Board should spend $560,000 for secondary road paving purposes, or
whether this money might better be spent upon safety improvements on scores of paved roads that would
benefit thousands of County residents, rather than a scant few.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Martin how he found this section of the Code. Mr. Martin said he
contacted Ms. Angela Tucker and then researched the Code.
Ms. Lori Royce, a resident of Wyant Lane, said she opposes the paving project. This is a dead end
road with an excellent safety record. The money it would take to widen the road could better be spent on
other roads. Although she commends Ms. Thomas’ efforts, the public meeting was limited to residents of
Wyant Lane, but other taxpayers will be paying for the road. Environmental degradation will be detrimental,
and the tree canopy will be destroyed. Since Sprint already has an easement to install cable, 90 feet of the
area surrounding the road may be completely cleared, so that it could resemble Miller School Road. She
proposed that the Board speak with legislators about allowing deviation from VDOT standards.
Reverend Mitch Hemswaller, Pastor of Paran United Methodist church, said he previously wrote the
Board and submitted a petition to have the road paved. Dickerson Road is comprised of a dirt surface with
some gravel, and it is treacherous in poor weather conditions. In particular, some portions are very slick
when braking. The church is open to the community, and provides a meeting space for Boy Scout Troop
111, a parking lot for two County deputies, a classroom for a driving school, a preschool on weekdays (only
one child out of 50 attendees is a church member), and a JAUNT loading point. He then gave Board
members a copy of a letter JAUNT wrote in support of paving the road. Seventy people attend church
services weekly. In addition, the church is considering other uses, each of which will increase traffic. He
added that the stretch of road from Dickerson Lane to the church is wide enough for two-way traffic.
Ms. Ginger Ashcomb, a resident of Catteron Road, opposed paving the road, and said she was
representing other landowners unable to attend the meeting. The County should spend the money where it
is needed. Currently children can ride ponies on the road without fear.
Mr. Larry Cohen, a resident of Wyant Lane, opposed paving the road. He said he reviewed with
residents various alternatives to paving, and 46 people signed a petition (presented to the Board) asking
that the road be left the way it is. Dust is a problem, but there is something special about the road. VDOT’s
proposal is better suited to a city location. He suggested the speed limit be dropped to 25 m.p.h., and that
the County preserve the rural character of the road, widening it as little as possible, and leaving the trees.
He asked the Board to delay taking action until other alternatives are proposed. Eventually the rest of the
County’s country roads will follow the same fate. He then commended Ms. Thomas for her effort to work
with residents. Mr. Dorrier asked if the people who signed Mr. Cohen’s petition live on the road. Mr. Cohen
said, “Yes, they are owners and tenants.”
Ms. Althea Wyant said her family has owned property on Wyant Lane for 76 years, and that VDOT
took the road over in the 1940’s. In the 1980’s her family asked that the road be widened and hard
surfaces provided. The family donated easements and did all they could to facilitate improvements. Gravel
roads are rough surfaces, subject to potholes and dust. Wyant Lane is not wide enough to accommodate
school buses, trash trucks, and emergency vehicles. VDOT determined that the traffic count justifies
making improvements, and she therefore urged the Board to support staff’s recommenda- tion that the
project proceed.
Mr. Jason Daniels, a member of Paran United Methodist Church, asked that at least two- or three-
tenths of the road be paved. Membership in the church is growing, and over 100 church members signed a
petition in favor of paving the road.
Mr. Tim Hall, a lay leader in Paran United Methodist Church, said all the church members favor
paving the road leading to the church. He is concerned when driving his child on the road.
Mr. Jack G. Peltier said he owns 1,549 feet on two sides of Wyant Lane, and stands to lose more
trees than anyone else does. He thought the Board had already decided the matter after careful review,
and he was surprised to see that it is so easy for newcomers to purchase property and try to get the Board
to reverse its decision. A paved road is a natural evolution, and the Board should stick with its decision.
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perkins said Dickerson Road should be paved from the current paved area up to the church
entrance, since the church and other organizations heavily use it. Mr. Martin asked about the right-of-way.
Mr. Perkins said there is no right-of-way, and that the road cannot be paved in place. In addition, the
current road is wider than what would be paved anyway, since the banks are sloped. He said the same
holds true for Catterton Road, because any unpaved road is an unsafe road. He disagrees with the way
VDOT builds “too much road”. To take this road off the list, after so many people already worked hard to
get it on the list, would be unfair.
He then asked about Blair Park Road (Route 707), a dead-end road that goes from Route 691 to
the railroad track. Since it qualified for pave in place, he wanted to know why it was removed from the list.
Ms. Tucker said she did not recall taking it off the six-year plan or reprioritizing it.
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Tucker said a two-mile section of Dickerson Road is currently in the plan for improvement.
Although the entire length of the road does not qualify for pave in place, the 2.3 mile section leading to the
church does. However, this would require the Board to adjust current prioritizes in the six-year plan. Mr.
Bowerman said he thought VDOT usually wants a connection to another road. Ms. Tucker said VDOT
favors paving from one state road intersection to another. Pave in place would not require any additional
right-of-way. Mr. Bowerman asked about the cost estimate of paving that small stretch.
Ms. Tucker estimated it would cost around $50,000, and said that the bulk of the work would be the actual
paving. Mr. Dorrier asked what pave in place means. Ms. Tucker said in order for roads to qualify for the
program, there must be a minimum of 18 feet of roadway, two feet of shoulder, and a three-foot ditch line
within a 30-foot prescriptive easement. That is why only roads that require minimum grading qualify.
Mr. Tucker noted that the road is scheduled to be completed in December, 2007. Mr. Cilimberg said the
Board could break that section of Dickerson Road out as a separate project.
th
Mr. Dorrier asked how long it would take to pave a road ranked 76 on the list. Mr. Cilimberg said
a road with that ranking is outside the six-year project funding. It could be years away, based on monies
available and obtaining rights-of-way. Ms. Tucker said the majority of roads in the six-year plan do not now
have dedicated rights-of-way. VDOT is happy to work with any citizen living on a gravel road who can get a
dedicated right-of-way, and such a road could move into the plan more quickly. Mr. Dorrier asked again
that Ms. Tucker look into this. Mr. Perkins asked if tourism funds could be spent to pave that road since it
would help develop the southside economy. Mr. Martin cautioned the Board against terminating projects
that have long been in the system. If the Board arbitrarily moves projects around, it could lead to similar
requests and arguments between Board members. The Board created a policy due to problems in the
past, and should adhere to it. Mr. Bowerman said Wakefield Road was built with County funds, despite
being in the urban area and outside the six-year plan, so there is a way to deal with specific projects.
Ms. Thomas said it is important that the public knows exactly what a project is going to entail. It was
not the Board’s opinion that Catterton Lane should be paved, but with full information in front of them, the
area’s residents still want it done. The Board does not have a policy that examines how roads interact;
requests simply work their way up the list. The Board needs to examine its rural road policy to determine
which roads are a part of a necessary network. The current process is based upon the view that all roads
should eventually be paved as soon as possible, particularly if rights-of-way are available. Newcomers
have their own opinions, and she said she would listen to them if the majority does not want a road paved.
In her case, the Board decided it would be left up to the individual Supervisor to determine which roads
ought to be paved. Mr. Martin said that was an unfair statement. Such decisions have not been left to the
individual Supervisor, but there must be more than a simple majority of the Board before dropping a road
from the list. To him, opting out of being paved makes more sense than allowing someone with no right-of-
way to move to the top of the list. Ms. Thomas said she proposed a process that the Board refused to
adopt, so the decisions have been left to each Supervisor. She said the Board is in
danger of making wrong decisions, and should consider road paving as part of the rural section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said Route 743 divides the Rivanna and Rio Districts, but it is not on the unpaved
road list. It handles significant traffic, but there is no right-of-way. Under Ms. Thomas’ scenario, the Board
would give preference to roads that could solve traffic problems. Mr. Martin said the Board would have to
require a hold-harmless clause if it changed its policy when citizens can justify a road paving request. He
has always asked the Board to put more funds into paved roads, and he has many roads in his district that
he believes should be paved. He questioned how the Board would determine what roads should be
prioritized.
Mr. Dorrier said tourism income should be taken into consideration, since it would benefit the entire
area. The Board needs to consider economic development in its criteria. He then suggested the Board
establish a committee to develop a policy for examining roads. It was the consensus of the Board that there
are already enough committees involved in this matter. Mr. Martin said DISC is not recommending paving
roads in the rural area in order to discourage growth. Board members can easily get into arguments over
prioritizing roads. Ms. Thomas said the Board should deal with this subject when
examining the rural areas portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker suggested the Board wait until
Ms. Humphris is present to make a decision.
Mr. Cilimberg said the funding to pave the roads is a long way off. The Board can always approve
the plan at this meeting and later examine specific projects. In the meantime, staff can develop a policy for
rural area paving. He added that staff did that a few years ago, and the Board rejected the policy.
Mr. Bowerman said there must be good public reason for making changes to the existing policy.
Mr. Cilimberg said rights-of-way are now available for roads through the year 2003, so the Board can move
forward with them.
Mr. Martin said the Board already looked at all gravel roads to see if they qualify for pave in place.
Ms. Tucker said very few roads are eligible. Mr. Perkins said he thought a road had to be a dead end road
with less than 50 vehicle trips per day in order to qualify. Ms. Tucker said that is technically true, but the
pilot program has, in fact, expired. Mr. Perkins said he had hoped there would be more funds available for
paving roads. For example, VDOT has paved roads where there are flooding problems.
Ms. Tucker said those decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. She added that construction is slated
to begin on Catterton Road late next summer, before the next plan revision, so if the Board is interested in
changing priorities, she asked them to recommend changing the commencement date to later in the fiscal
year. Mr. Bowerman said three unpaved roads that are scheduled to be paved in the near future have
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
already been postponed once due to funding.
Ms. Thomas said the public wants “real” pave in place. County staff says they are getting some
cooperation from VDOT in dealing with urban roads. However, VDOT’s rural road standards are ridiculous
and are turning the County into a bunch of subdivisions. This issue needs to be addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said VDOT is committed to spending $500,000 to pave County roads this year.
He asked how much is set aside for unpaved roads. Mr. Cilimberg said there are four projects in next
year’s plan, totaling $800,000 in unpaved road funds. Mr. Bowerman asked if that money is “lost” if the
Board does not spend it. Mr. Cilimberg said there is no County match for those funds. Mr. Martin added
that the Board has to spend a certain percentage of the funds on unpaved roads each month. Mr. Davis
said there is an amount of money available from the state each year, and the County’s percentage is based
on the percentage of unpaved roads in the County when compared to the rest of the state. If that money is
not spent, it can be carried over from year to year. The County could use the funds on paved roads, but
would be penalized for each $250,000 spent on paved roads from this fund, reducing future paving projects
by a matching one mile of unpaved road money. The money would then go to other counties.
Mr. Perkins offered a motion to adopt the Six Year Plan as submitted by staff. The motion failed
for lack of a second.
Mr. Martin said if the plan is adopted, citizens will have at least a year to convince the Board to
change things. Mr. Tucker said no roads will be addressed if the Board does not adopt the plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen to the funds for paved roads. Mr. Perkins and Mr. Martin said the
Board needs to move forward with the plan so that VDOT can move forward with contracts.
Ms. Thomas said she is not opposed to paving Wyant Lane, and scheduled work to Catterton Road is far
enough away that there will be time to examine the project further, if needed. She also disclosed that she
has an interest in West Leigh Drive, since she lives on that road.
Mr. Perkins again offered a motion to adopt the Six-year Secondary Road Plan for 2000-2006 as
recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.Roll was called and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Dorrier said the system is not working well. When he served on the Board in the 1970’s, the
“squeaky wheel process” drove decisions. Tourism is a big issue and a presidential hunting lodge should
receive the Board’s attention. Mr. Martin said he did not want the Board to go back to the old method. He
added that it is unfair for citizens to challenge decisions that were made years previously.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Davis to put into “plain language” the options available to the County for
using VDOT’s unpaved road money.
_______________
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
February 16, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: October 6, November 3, and November 10 (A), 1999.
No minutes were read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Tucker advised the Board that late this afternoon Mr. Cilimberg received a fax from the
County’s legislative liaison to the General Assembly, which indicated that additional monies might be
applied to transportation needs. There is a proposal to accelerate some funding projects, which may
include the Route 29 bypass. It was the consensus of the Board to have Mr. Tucker advise Legislators that
the Board does not support accelerating the project.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
Initials