1999-06-16June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (~iO02~l
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 16, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman; Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris; Mr. Walter F. Perkins; and
Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. and Mr. Charles S. Martin.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
Mr. Larry W. Davis; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, County Planner.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by the Vice-Chairman,
Ms. Thomas.
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.
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve items 5.1 through
5.3, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Education, $9,982.59 (Form #98076).
Th executive summary states that, at its meeting on May 24, 1999, the School Board approved
the following appropriations:
Appropriation of $4,500.00. Murray Elementary, Woodbrook Elementary and Burley Middle
School received grant awards from the Foundation of the Litton Industries in the amount of
$1,500.00 each. These funds will purchase equipment such as a video microscope for
Murray, 5 Apple presentations systems and license for Woodbrook, and several World and
United States Wall Maps for Burley.
Appropriation of $2,000.00 for Stony Point Elementary School. Stony Point Elementary
received a grant-award from the UVA School of Education Foundation, Inc. in the amount of
$2,000.00. This grant will fund the program What a Great Idea: Children Teaching Children.
The fifth grade students will create and distribute original and highly interactive books to help
younger students in the school to learn to read.
Appropriation of $340.00 for Murray Elementary School. Martha Jefferson Health Services
(MJHS) awarded Murray Elementary a grant to fund the Child Health Improvement Initiative for
preschool students.
Appropriation of $3,100.00 for Western Albemarle High School. Western Albemarle High
School received donations from Helen Lockwood in the amount of $100.00 and the Western
Albemarle Band Boosters in the amount of $3,000.00. These funds will be used to offset the
cost of new band uniforms for the school.
Appropriation of $42.59 for the Textbook Fund. The textbook fund collected $42.59 this year
from the school for textbooks that were lost, damaged or sold. These funds will be used to
purchase replacement textbooks.
Appropriation of $4,225.01. Albemarle County Schools received a grant in the amount of
$4,225.01 from the State Department of Education. These funds will be used to pay for
postage for schools to mail School Performance Report Cards.
Staff recommends the Board approve the appropriations totaling $9,982.59, as detailed on
Appropriation #98076.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
000252
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
Foundation of the Litton Industries Grant
Revenue:
Expenditure:
2-3104-18000-181230
1-3104-60251-601300
-60212-800100
-60216-800100
Foundation Litton Grant
Inst/Rec Supplies
Machinery/Equipment
MachneryEquipment
$4,50O.OO
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$4,500.00
UVA School of Education Foundation Grant
Revenue:
Expenditum:
2-3104-18000-181230
1-3104-60211-601300 -800100
UVA Foundation Grant
Inst/Rec Supplies
Machinery/Equipment
$2,000.00
$1,750.00
250.00
MJHS Health Improvement Grant
Revenue:
2-3104-18000-181222 MJHS Child Health Grant
$340.00
Expenditure:
1-3104-60216-601300 I nst/Rec Supplies
Donation - Western Albemarle Hi.qh School
$340.00
Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Donation
$3,100.00
Expenditure:
1-2302-61101-601300 Inst/Rec Supplies
Textbook Appropriation
$3,100.00
Revenue: 2-2000-19000-190214 Textbook Fund
$42.59
Expenditure:
1-2114-61101-602000 Textbooks
S~te Depa~ment Grant
$42.59
Revenue: 2-2000-24000-240351 State Dept Grant
$4,225.01
Expend itu re:
1-2201-61411-520100
1-2202-61411-520100
1-2203-61411-510100
1-2204-61411-520100
1-2205-61411-520100
1-2206-61411-510100
1-2207-61411-510100
1-2209-61411-520100
1-2210-61411-520100
1-2211-61411-520100
1-2212-61411-520100
1-2213-61411-520100
1-2214-61411-520100
1-2215-614110-52010
1-2216-61411-520100
1-2251-61411-520100
1-2252-61411-520100
1-2253-61411-520100
1-2254-61411-520100
1-2255-61411-520100
1-2301-61411-520100
1-2302-61411-520100
1-2303-61411-520100
1-2304-61411-520100
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
$157.98
93.10
119.19
167.86
218.64
166.80
62.06
79.34
180.55
90.28
127.30
57.13
189.02
94.51
198.18
164.68
209.47
177.38
207.00
221.81
541.30
339.24
26.45
$335.74
$4,225.10
Ms. Humphris noted that several of the appropriations are due to gifts given to schools by private
industry and individuals.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Housing Initiatives Fund, $50,000 (Form #98075).
0002153
The Board of Supervisors approved $50,000 for a Housing Initiative Fund in the current FY99
budget, which was appropriated into the Housing Office budget. The idea of this flexible revolving fund
had been recommended by the County's Housing Committee, and in January, 1999 the Committee
officially approved a program design for the use of these funds. The funds will primarily serve as "bridge
funds" to assist affordable housing providers in effectively utilizing or leveraging other federal, state and
private funds for affordable housing. Targeted activities for the fund are flexible rehabilitation, home-
ownership for first time home buyers and creation of Iow cost rental opportunities. The funds will be
disbursed through grants, loans or deferred loans.
The appropriation requests approval to transfer the FY99 allocation of $50,000 from the Housing
Office to the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA), who will manage the funds and distribute them in the form
of loans, deferred loans and grants for affordable housing projects. Transferring these funds to PHA's
management provides more flexibility, since their non-profit status enables them to loan these funds, while
the County by state statute is not allowed to lend funds. Additionally, PHA will be able to use these local
funds to leverage federal matching funds for Albemarle County through the Community Development
Financial Institution Funds (CDFI). Therefore, the $50,000 initial contribution to PHA will enable the
County to have an additional $50,000 in CDFI funds that may be lent to affordable housing providers for
as little as one percent.
in the FY00 budget, the Board approved the second round of Housing Initiative Fund monies to be
directly appropriated to PHA. Therefore, with this approved transfer of FY99 funds to PHA along with the
FY00 allocation, PHA will have $100,000 to use as local leverage for matching CDFI funds, enabling the
County to have a potential revolving loan fund of $200,000.
Staff requested approval of Appropriation#98075, which transfers $50,000 in Housing Initiative Funds
from the Housing Office budget to the Piedmont Housing Alliance.
By the above-shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99
NUMBER: 98075
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM HOUSING TO PIEDMONT HOUSING
ALLIANCE.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 89000 563130 PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE $ 50,000.00
1 1000 81030 580050 HOUSING (50,000.00)
TOTAL 0
Item No. 5.3. Resolution Granting SP-98-03, 360 Communications, Pursuant to Court Order.
By the above-shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution Granting Approval
of SP-98-03, 360 Communications, Pursuant to Court Order:
RESOLUTION GRANTING SP 98-03
PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER
WHEREAS, on September 16, 1998, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (the "Board")
exercised its legislative authority and denied 360 Communications Company's ("360 Communications")
application for a special use permit ("SP 98-03") to erect a one-hundred foot tower on the ridgeline of
Dudley Mountain; and
WHEREAS, 360 Communications brought an action in the United States District Court alleging
that the Board violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because its decision to deny SP 98-03 was
not supported by substantial evidence and because its decision had the effect of prohibiting the provision
of personal wireless services; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 1999, the United States District Court adjudged that, although the Board's
decision was supported by substantial evidence, the denial of SP 98-03 violated the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 because it had the effect of prohibiting 360 Communications from providing personal wireless
services; and
WHEREAS, the United States District Court ordered that the Board grant SP 98-03 within 45 days
of May 19, 1999; and
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
WHEREAS, the Board has directed that the decision of the United States District Court be
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that SP 98-03 is granted under protest and only because
this Board is ordered to do so by the United States District Court, subject to the corrected conditions of
approval set forth in the Staff Report for SP 98-03 attached hereto and incorporated herein.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that a site plan waiver and a modification of Zoning Ordinance
§ 4.10.3.1 to allow the tower to be located approximately forty feet from the property line are granted as
ordered by the United States District Court, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board reserves any and all rights that it may have to seek a
stay of the United States District Court's decision and to compel the removal of all wireless facilities and
enjoin all uses authorized by the granting of SP 98-03 if the United States Court of Appeals determines
that the Board's denial of SP 98-03 did not violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Conditions of Approval of SP 98-03 and Related Approvals
SP 98-03
The height of the tower shall not exceed 100 feet. Whip antennas and lightning
suppression equipment not exceeding three (3) inches in diameter may extend up to an
additional twenty (20) feet above the top of the tower.
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower
and all of its components will remain within the lease area.
The tower shall be of self-supporting lattice-type construction. Guy wires shall be
not permitted.
c. The tower shall have no lighting.
d. The tower shall be gray, blue or green in order to reduce its visual impacts.
3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled 360
Communications Dudley Mountain and initialed "WDF 7/14/98."
The tower shall be located so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and
all of its components will remain within the lease area.
4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
Omnidirectional antennas or whip antennas (also subject to condition 1) shall not
exceed twenty (20) feet in height and seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be
of a color which matches the tower.
Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height or two (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower.
c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
Antennas may be installed in addition to those installed by the permittee when the
tower is first constructed without amending this special use permit, provided that
all necessary building permits are obtained from the building official and the
antennas otherwise comply with these conditions.
The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other
wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
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
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the
site.
(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.
o
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 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. All lighting shall be
shielded from Route 29 and Route 706. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods
of maintenance.
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
County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The County staff shall identify which
trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within
two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility
access.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued.
10.
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.
11. The access road shall be subject to the following:
a. The access road shall be gated.
The minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be
40 feet.
The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on
cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter.
d. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section.
12.
No slopes associated with construction of the 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.
Site Plan Waiver
The permittee shall obtain Planning Commission approval of a modification of Section 4.2
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow activity on critical slopes.
The permittee shall obtain approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3. One parking space shall be provided on the site.
Ms. Humphris said it is important to note that the Board is granting the request under protest and
only because it has been instructed by court order to do so.
Item No. 5.4. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for May 11, May 18, May 25, and
June 1, 1999, were received for information.
Item No. 5.5. Report by the Virginia Department of Taxation - 1997 Assessment Sales Ration
Study, was received for information.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Item No. 5.6. Copy of Joint Petition of Dominion Resources, Inc., and Consolidated Natural Gas
Company, filed with the State Corporation Commission, for approval of agreement and plan of merger
under Chapter 5 of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia, was received for information.
Item No. 5.7. Letter dated June 8, 1999, from Ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning
Administrator, to Ms. Marilyn Gale, re: Official Determination of Parcels of Record/Development Rights -
Section 10.:3.1, Tax Map 86, Parcels 13, 13A, 16C, 22, 26 and 26 (property of Hightop, LP); Tax Map 86,
Parcel 16A (property of Elizabeth P Scott); Tax Map 86, Parcels 22, 23 and 25A (property of Frederic W.
Scott, Jr.); Tax Map 87, Parcel 2 (property of Frederic W. Scott, Jr.); and Tax Map 87, Parcel 3 (property
of Carpenter Place, LP), was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-99-21. John Casteen (Signs #31&$2). Public hearing on a request to
allow home occupation for furniture making in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31of the Zoning Ord. Znd RA
TM19,P7E, contains 2 acs & is loc on the W sd of Rt 604 (Buffalo River Rd) approx 0.6 mis N of the
intersect of Rt 604 (Buffalo River Rd) & Rt 664 (Frays Mtn Rd). (This property is not loc in a designated
growth area.) White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 31 and June 7, 1999.)
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 four conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on May 18, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the request with
four conditions.
Ms. Humphris said the letter to the applicant should have been amended to show the two
conditions regarding setbacks and general regulations. Mr. Cilimberg agreed.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, she closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Perkins offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-99-21 with six
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Conditions are as follow:
2.
3.
4.
5.
No more than one employee shall be permitted.
No on-site sales;
All equipment shall be enclosed within the proposed building;
The area devoted to the home occupation shall not exceed 1,500 square feet;
Any building constructed to house the home occupation shall comply with the following
setbacks: front (existing public roads)-75 feet, front (internal public or private road)-25
feet, side-25 feet, and rear-35 feet; and
Use shall comply with the following provisions of § 4.14 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-23. Triton (Ramada Inn). (Signs #63,64&65). Public hearing on a
request for personal wireless service fac in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord which allows for
radio-wave transmission & relay towers. Znd RA & EC. TM78,P45A contains approx 0.69 acs & is loc at
the intersect of Rt 250E (Richmond Rd) & 1-64. Rivanna Dist. (This property is not loc in a designated
growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 31 and June 7, 1999.)
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 ten conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on May 18, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the request with
four conditions.
Ms. Humphris said the conditions state "shall be enclosed with", but should state "shall be
enclosed within" the tower structure. The height should read "40 feet", not "25 feet" as stated in the letter
to the applicant.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the applicant, said the applicant agreed to the conditions as
presented by Mr. Cilimberg.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the
public hearing.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
00025"?
Ms. Thomas, referring to condition #5, said that since the tower is not fully used by Triton, there is
the possibility of co-location by other companies without adding more panels onto the poles. She
suggested changing condition #5.a.1. to read "...the permittee shall allow other wireless
telecommunications providers to locate or utilize antennas...". Mr. Blaine said he was not aware of that
technology, but that the company is open to future technology, as long as it does not interfere with the
company's signal.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the site is level. Mr. Blaine said there is a change in elevation from 1-64 to
the proposed location. The area where the tower would actually sit is level. Mr. Bowerman asked if there
is anything visible beyond the tower. Mr. Blaine said trees surround the site, so the background would be
wooded. A variance was granted for the application to allow the tower to be placed in the proposed
location.
Ms. Thomas asked if the height of the tower could be kept to five feet instead of seven feet above
the elevation of the top of the trees within 40 feet of the tower. Mr. Blaine said the company requires
seven feet for engineering purposes, and indicated that he had documentation to that effect.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-99-23 with ten
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, changing condition #1 to read, "the height of
the tower shall not exceed seven feet above the elevation of the top of the trees within 40 feet of the
tower", changing condition #4a to read, "Antenna shall be enclosed within the tower or attached such that
no portion of the antenna is more than 1.5 feet from the tower, and changing condition 5a to read, "The
permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate or utilize antennas on the
tower and the equipment on the site, subject to the conditions." Roll was called and the motion passed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Conditions are as follow:
The height of the tower shall not exceed seven (7) feet above the elevation of the top of
the trees within forty (40) feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified
statement on the height of the tallest tree;
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be painted to look like wood;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. The tower shall have no lighting;
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located approximately as shown on the attached plan
prepared by staff and initialed "WDF 5/9/99";
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be enclosed within the tower or attached to the tower such that no
portion of the antenna is more than one-and-one-half (1.5) feet from the tower;
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited;
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
or utilize 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;
(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 proivders 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;
[The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this
special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses
for this facility or this property.]
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
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
8.
9.
10.
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;
No trees of more than three (e) inches in diameter may be removed;
The permittee shall comply with {}5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease
area shall not be required;
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; and
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.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-63. Trinity Presbyterian Church (Signs #34&35). Public hearing on a
request to allow an add'l bldg & parking in accord w/Sec 13.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ord which allows
churches by SP. Znd R1 for single-family residential uses & uses supportive of residential uses. TM76,
Ps17C&17C1. Property is loc at 3101 Fontaine Ave where Fontaine Ave deadends near the NW
interchange of 1,64 & Rt 250 Bypass. Samuel Miller Dist. (The Comp Plan designates this property as
neighborhood density residential in Neighborhood. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 31 and
June 7, 1999.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 7:22 p.m.)
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 six conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on May 18, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the request with six
conditions.
Ms. Humphris asked who has the maintenance agreement on the stretch of old Route 29, the
road leading to the church. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant will have to work this out with whomever is
considered an owner or user.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 7:25 p.m.)
Ms. Thomas asked why BMP's were not listed in the conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said they would be
part of the site plan.
Mr. Fred Missel, representing the Cox Company, said the applicant addressed BMP's in the site
plan. They will be in installed behind the building to control runoff.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is possible to have a surface that is less impervious than what is proposed.
Mr. Missel said this type of surface is required to be sure drainage is adequate. In addition, the surface
will match what was used on the rest of the site.
Ms. Thomas asked whether the applicant plans to use the access from the reservoir road.
Mr. Missel said, "No."
Ms. Thomas asked if the parking lots were available to other users during the week. Mr. Missel
said he did not know.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, she closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-98-63 with six
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Conditions are as follow:
Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the Master Plan
Exhibit, dated May 18, 1999 including a maximum of one hundred-five (105) new parking
spaces and incidental improvements such a storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play
equipment, and walkways;
Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on
the Master Plan Exhibit dated May 18, 1999;
Continuation of the preschool activity for up to sixty (60) children five (5) days a week
shall be allowed;
The church shall provide evidence of a maintenance agreement for Fontaine Avenue
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000259
Extended prior to approval of the final site plan;
Screening of the parking and new building areas shall be as shown on the Master Plan;
and
Amphitheater use shall be restricted to small outdoor gatherings. No mechanical sound
amplification shall occur in this area.
(Note: Ms. Thomas said the Board would hold the public hearings on STA-99-01 and ZTA-99-01
simultaneously.)
Agenda Item No. 9. STA-99-01. Public hearing on a request to amend Sec 14-203, Fees of the
Subdivision Ord, to eliminate all application, inspection & other fees for any project owned by Albemarle
County or the Albemarle County Public School system. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 31 and
June 7, 1999.)
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-99-01. Public hearing on a request to amend Sec 35.0, Fees of the
Zoning Ord, to eliminate all aPplication, inspection & other fees for any project owned by Albemarle
County or the Albemarle County pUblic School System. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 31 and
June 7, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff reports, which are on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. Staff recommended approval of STA-99-01 and ZTA-99-01, as did the Planning
Commission, at its meeting on May 25, 1999.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearings on STA-99-01 and ZTA-99-01. With no one rising to
speak, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearings.
Mr. Bowerman said adopting the ordinances seems to be a logical thing to do. Compliance is still
the same, and there is no sense transferring monies back and forth.
Mr. Bowerman then offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt STA-99-01, to
amend Sec 14-203, Fees of the Subdivision Ord, to eliminate all application, inspection & other fees for
any project owned by Albemarle County or the Albemarle County Public School system. Roll was called
and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
ORDINANCE NO. 99-14(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II, ADMINISTRATION
AND PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14,
Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-203 Fees.
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article II. Administration and Procedure
Sec. 14-203 Fees.
Except as otherwise provided herein, each subdividershall pay a fee upon submittal of a plat or other
request provided herein, in an amount according to the schedule set forth below. The fee shall be in the form
of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." Neither the County nor the School Board of
Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee required by this section if it is the applicant.
A. Preliminary plat for subdivision:
If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $570.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $880.00,
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,060.00.
2. If subject to review by the agent:
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(1 ) or if all lots front on
an existing public street: $75.00.
1 to 9 lots: $285.00.
10 to 19 lots: $440.00.
20 or more lots: $530.00.
3. Reinstatement of review: $50.00.
Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary plat for the same
property has been filed previously, shall be subject to the same requirements.
B. Final plat for subdivision:
If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $570.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $880.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,060.00.
2. If subject to review by the agent:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(1) or if all lots front on
an existing public street: $75.00.
1 to 9 lots: $285.00.
10 to 19 lots: $440.00.
20 or more lots: $530.00.
3. Condominium plat: $80.00.
4. Reinstatement of review: $50.00.
In addition to the foregoing, if the subdivider is required to construct a public street
or a private road, he shall pay to the county a fee equal to the cost of the inspection
of the construction of any such street or road. These fees shall be paid prior to
completion of all necessary inspections and shall be deemed a part of the cost of
construction of the street or road for purposes of section 14-413(B).
C. Plat for rural division: $75.00.
D. Plat for family division: $75.00.
E. Other matters subject to review:
1. Waiver, variation or substitution of subdivision requirements: $140.00.
Relief from plat conditions imposed by commission prior to the date of adoption of
this chapter: $140.00.
3. Appeal of plat to board of supervisors: $190.00.
4. Extension of plat approval: $35.00.
5. Request to defer action on plat to an indefinite date: $60.00.
6. Bonding inspection for plat: $45.00.
7. Vacation of plat or part thereof: $135.00.
(9-5-96, 12-11-91,6-7-89, 4-17-85, 12-1-82, 12-14-77, 3-2-77, 11-10-76, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988 Code, § 18-43;
Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 99-14(1), 6-16-99)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
Mr. Bowerman then offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt ZTA-99-01, to
amend Sec 35.0, Fees of the Zoning Ord, to eliminate all application, inspection & other fees for any
project owned by Albemarle County or the Albemarle County Public School System. Roll was called and
the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
ORDINANCE NO. 99-18(2)
0002,61
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 35.0 Fees.
Sec. 35.0 Fees.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article IV. Procedure
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning administrator, the
commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to
defray the cost of processing such application. Neither the County nor the School Board of Albemarle
County shall be required to pay any fee required by this section if it is the applicant.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Rural area division for the purpose of"family division" where all original 1980 development
rights have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under section 18-56 of the
subdivision ordinance- $175.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94)
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use- $780.00.
4. Industrial use- $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities- $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow minor expansion
of a non-conforming use -$85.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94)
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children -
$390.00. (Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00. (Added 6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8- 92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $175.00.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's
decision) - $95.00, to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned.
Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $945.00, plus $10.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,260.00, plus $10.00/1000 square feet.
Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site development plan -
$900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site development plan -
$630.00.
4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
5. For site development plan amendment: ·
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location -$75.00.
b) Major - commission review - $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board - $160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of super visors - $190.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of supervisors - $150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be refunded. $50.00 fee shall
be required to reinstate project.
For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by agent - $140.00.
Change in road or development name after submittal of site development plan:
1. Road - $15.00.
2. Development - $20.00.
Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use permit or zoning map
amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the first bond
estimate - $45.00.
Zoning clearance - $25.00.
Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $30.00.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Sign Permits:
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the architectural review board
- $25.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board - $60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 22, Title 15.2 of the
Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee
set forth in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any
application. For any application withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the fee will
be refunded. (Amended 5-5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-99-02. Public hearing on a request to amend Sec 35.0, Fees of the
Zoning Ordinance, to require payment of delinquent real estate taxes on properties subject to a zoning
application or approval. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 31 and June 7, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. Staff recommended approval of ZTA-99-02, as did the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on May 25, 1999.
Mr. Bowerman asked how long it takes for the County to advise an applicant of back taxes once
an application has been filed. Mr. Tucker said the applicant would be advised as soon as the application
is filed.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman then offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt ZTA~99-02, to
amend Sec 35.0, Fees of the Zoning Ordinance, to require payment of delinquent real estate taxes on
properties subject to a zoning application or approval. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
ORDINANCE NO. 99-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAIN ED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article 1, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 1.9
Application for land use permit; payment of delinquent taxes.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 1.9 Application for land use permit; payment of delinquent taxes.
Prior to initiation of the review of an application for a zoning map amendment, special use permit, variance
or other land use permit, the zoning administrator shall require the applicant to produce satisfactory
evidence that all delinquent real estate taxes owed to the County which have been properly assessed
against the subject property have been paid. The applicable time periods for the review, recommendation
and decision on an application for a land use permit shall be tolled until such evidence is received by the
zoning administrator.
Agenda Item No. 12: ZTA-99-03. Public hearing on a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance
to: define "animal shelter"; provide for "animal shelter" by SUP in the C-1, HC & RA zoning districts; and
provide supplementary regulations applicable to "animal shelter". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 31 and June 7, 1999.)
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
OOO 64
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. Staff recommended approval of ZTA-99-03, as did the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on May 25, 1999.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, had explained to the Planning Commission
this provided a way to handle the differences between the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(SPCA) and other "kennel" uses. Both have to meet certain noise restrictions or be enclosed, so as not to
be a nuisance.
Ms. Humphris asked why the amendment does not apply to non-profit entities. Mr. Davis said the
County was simply wishing to modify the Zoning Ordinance so that its language mirrors State Code
language pertaining to animal shelters.
Ms. Thomas said veterinary services are required to meet state Code, and asked if this also
applied to animal shelters. Mr. Davis said § 4.14 relates to noise, air pollution, etc. This is a use that is
subject to special use permit, so it is not necessary to add anything to conditions.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dan Meador, member of the SPCA, said he supports the Board's adoption of ZTA-99~03. He
said the proposed Bypass will reduce the amount of shelter space available, so it is necessary to build an
additional shelter off Berkmar Drive to accommodate the community's needs. He said this is an ideal
location since the SPCA also serves as the City and County pound. It also provides veterinary services
and services similar to office, kennel, and retail establishments since the public adopts animals. He felt
the ordinance was appropriate.
With no one else rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is simply adopting enabling legislation from the state, and C-1 use
has been adequately documented by staff and Mr. Meador.
Mr. Bowerman then offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt ZTAo99-03, to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to: define "animal shelter"; provide for "animal shelter" by SUP in the C-1,
HC & RA zoning districts; and provide supplementary regulations applicable to "animal shelter". Roll was
called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
ORDINANCE NO. 99-18(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.0.
Sec. 5.1.11.
Sec. 10.2.2.
Sec. 22.2.2.
Sec. 24.2.2.
Definitions.
Commercial kennel, veterinary, animal hospital.
By special use permit.
By special use permit.
By special use permit.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.0 Definitions. "
Animal Shelter. A facility which is used to house or contain animals and which is owned, operated,
or maintained by a duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society, society for prevention
of cruelty to animals, animal rescue group, or any other such duly incorporated organization devoted
to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of animals.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Sec. 5.1.11
000265
Article II. Basic Regulations
Commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital,_animal shelter.
Each commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital and animal shelter
shall be subject to the following:
a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings,
no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an external
solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the
animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material
approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89)
b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred (200)
feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed confinements, noise measured
at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels;
(Amended 11-15-89)
c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Noise
measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed forty (40)
decibels; (Amended 11-15-89)
d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as
shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the
public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may require among other
things: (Amended 11-15-89)
-Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts;
(Added 11-15-89)
-Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other means.
(Added 11-15-89)
Article Ill. District Regulations
Sec, 10.2.2 By special use permit.
1. Community center (reference 5.1.04).
2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.02).
3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16).
5. Private schools.
6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines,
pumping stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and
radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances.
7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
8. (Repealed 3-5-86)
9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5).
10. (Repealed 11-11-92)
11. (Repealed 3-15-95)
12. Horse show grounds, permanent.
13. Custom slaughterhouse.
14. Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards
in 4.14).
15. Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section 15.1-
486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.07).
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
O00 t/ 3
16. (Repealed 11-15-95)
17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in
4.14).
19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.01).
20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05).
21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14).
22. Country store.
23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89)
24. (Repealed 11-8-89)
25. Flood control dams and impoundments.
26. (Repealed 11-8-89)
27. Restaurants and inns located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive
plan provided such structure has been used asa restaurant, tavern or inn; in such case the
structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period
and shall be maintained consistent therewith. (Amended 11-8-89)
28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.
29. Boat landings and canoe livery.
30. Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5.
31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
32. Cemetery.
33. Crematorium.
34. Multi-crypt mausoleum.
35. Church building and adjunct cemetery.
36. Gift, craft and antique shops.
37. Public garage. (Added 3-18-81)
38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82)
39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4- 28-82)
40. Borrow area, borrow pit not permitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83)
41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87)
42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related to, and supportive
of the RA, rural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). (Added 12-2-87)
43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87)
44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92)
45. Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95)
46. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site employee parking
for an industrial use in an industrial zoning district (reference 5.1.39).
47. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11 ).
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Sec. 22.2.2 By special use permit.
1. Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling
alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines,
pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and
radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances.
3. Hospitals.
4. Fast food restaurant.
5. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
6. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0,
residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may
be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4.
7. Hotels, motels and inns.
8. Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the urban area as designated in the
comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1-83)
9. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-4)
10. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9-92)
11. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four
hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer,
involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89)
12. Body shop. (Added 9-9-92)
13. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11).
Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit.
1. Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling
alleys, pool halls and danCe halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Septic tank sales and related service.
3. Livestock sales.
4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.08).
6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines,
pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave and
radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12).
7. Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13).
8. Contractors' office and equipment storage yard.
9. Auction houses.
10. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0,
residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may
be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4.
11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11 ). (Added 1- 1-83)
12. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84)
13. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9-92)
14. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four
hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer,
involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89)
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
15. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.1.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91)
16. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11 ).
Agenda Item No. 13. Update on Juvenile Court Renovations.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, summarized the executive summary, which
stated that over a year ago, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville contracted with the
firm of Mosely, Harris and McClintock (MH&M) to study the County and City court facilities. The scope of
work included the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, both Circuit Courts and Clerks, both General
District Courts, the Commonwealth Attorney's offices, both Sheriff's departments and the Court Services
unit. A joint committee, consisting of county and city staff worked with MH&M over the past year to: 1)
evaluate the physical condition of the court facilities; 2) study the court functions and space utilization
within each of the facilities; 3) analyze caseload projections and future space needs; 5) recommend facility
modifications, additions or new construction, including parking solutions for current and future needs.
The consultants, with the help of the committee, developed several scenarios and phasing options
and prepared schematic drawings and cost summaries of the proposed improvements. These
improvements include renovations to the J&D Court, additions and/or renovation to the City and County
Courthouses, the construction of a new combined courthouse on High Street, and at least two parking
structure options. Ms. White said that before proceeding any further, the committee feels that the
community, including both the Board of Supervisors and City Council, should have an opportunity to look
at the possible alternatives and provide input prior to the final recommendation phase. A public meeting is
scheduled for Tuesday, June 22, 1999, at the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courthouse to hear a
presentation by the MH&M consultant, Mr. John J. Moore Ill.
Ms. White said the following renovation and expansion projects are designed to bring the court
facilities up to current standards and provide facility space for the next 20 years:
A new combined District Courthouse on East High Street that will include 2 juvenile and
domestic relations court rooms and 2 County General District Courts;
An expanded District Courthouse that will replace the current J &DR Courthouse and will
include a City District Court and a third Juvenile Court;
Two alternatives for a 295 space parking structure, one that impacts the historic jail
located behind the J&D R building between 4th and .5th streets. One alternative builds the
parking structure on the site of the old jail, while the second alternative leaves the old jail,
but takes the community attention home.
An expanded County Circuit Courthouse that will provide additional space for the
Commonwealth Attorney and an additional Circuit Court in the vacated space of the
current General District Court;
An expanded City C'ircuit Courthouse that will provide a second City Circuit Courtroom
and space for both the City and County sheriff's departments; and
A possible stand alone facility for the Court Services Unit.
Ms. White presented two schematic drawings that depicted Phases 1 and 2, as well as future
phases, and preliminary budget estimates for these proposed phases. As proposed, Phase I includes the
new combined J&DR Court and the Albemarle General District Court, the 4th street parking deck and
renovation of the old J&DR court building. Phase I also includes the cost of reusing the old jail, if that
design alternative is selected. The cost of Phase I is approximately $20.5 million.
Phase 2 replaces the current J&DR Courthouse with a new expanded facility to include a new City
District Court and a 3rd J&DR Court. The total cost of Phase II is $5.6 million. The "Future Phases" include
the renovation and expansion of the County Courthouse and the City Courthouse. An optional future
phase is a new Court Services building at a cost of $2.3 million.
Site Plan Phases 1 and 2 show the new combined court facility on High Street and the parking
structure with the old jail kept intact. In this scenario, the Community Attention Home at the back NW
corner of the property has been displaced by the parking structure, thus incurring an additional
replacement cost. The schematic drawing, "Site Plan - Future Phases", shows the fully built out
combined District Courthouse (the current juvenile court building has been replaced), the expansion of the
City and County Circuit Courts and the optional Court Services Unit facility. In this scenario, the parking
deck is built on site, but replaces the old jail while keeping the Community Attention Home.
Ms. White also distributed background information on the caseload trends for both the City and
County courts from 1988 to 2015 and the projected staffing levels from 1998 through 2018.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
OOO269
After next Tuesday's meeting, a model of the Court Square expansion and renovation project will
be on view for approximately three weeks in City Circuit Court. From mid-July, the model will be on
display in the lobby of the County Office Building. On August 5th, the committee will hold a second
workshop at the county to give the public another opportunity to learn about the project and ask questions.
Public input will be encouraged through comment sheets available at each presentation and e-mail or
phone contact with committee members. Summary information on the project will also be available on
both the City and County's web pages. A press briefing will be held on Thursday, June 17t~ to increase
public exposure for the June 22n~ meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said the only acquisition of property is between the City Circuit Courthouse and the
Juvenile Court. He asked if there had been any discussion concerning how the old jail could be used as
part of the new building. Ms. White said there had been a lot of discussion. The size of the walls makes
the space unusable. Suggestions included taking the walls and incorporating them into the new structure,
or moving it to a park for reassembly. Mr. Bowerman said he understood that to leave the jail where it is
and work around it is not a good use of the land since the jail is in the middle of the space. Ms. White said
the CommUnity Attention FaCility has to go someplace. There are advantages to it being located near
other services in that area.
Ms. Thomas asked if the wall around the jail will be used. Ms. White said the historical nature of
the wall is debatable. That is why it is a good idea to present alternatives to the public to generate
discussion.
Ms. Humphris said if a new General District Court building is built, and the Juvenile and Domestic
Court is being expanded, she could not see the sense in combining them later. Ms. White said Phase 1
will construct the new facility that will house the Juvenile Court. The old Juvenile Court building would
then be renovated to make it useable by other people during the next three to five years during other
phases of construction. Ms. Thomas said if there is a decision to move forward on combined expansion,
there might be a possibility of saving some of the money. Ms. White said the present recommendation
was made due to funding constraints. Additionally, some of the space might not be needed later. Ms.
Thomas asked for more information on that issue.
Mr. Bowerman said if costs are not inflated in estimates, the actual cost could be higher due to
inflation. Ms. White said the projections are based on "1998 dollars". Mr. Bowerman noted that cost
estimates for future phases will therefore be inaccurate. Ms. White said there are still many questions
about moving people and phasing renovations. Ms. White said caseloads justify spending the money. An
additional 93 staff positions will be required by the year 2018.
Mr. Bowerman said the cost of Phase 1 is not an equal split between the City and County.
Ms. White said it now looks like there will be two Juvenile Courts and two County District Courts, so the
County's share will be more like 75 percent of the $21.0 milliOn. There will be an equal split of the costs
for the Phase 2 Juvenile Domestic Relations Court, and the City will pay all the costs of the City General
District Court.
Ms. White said there will be a workshop held next week to provide the public information regarding
the proposed project. A model of the project will be on display in the City Circuit Court for three weeks
and it will then be moved to the County Office Building's lobby for three weeks. A second workshop will be
held on August 5, 1999 to give the public another opportunity to hear more. The City and County will also
develop a web page. A final recommendation is expected by this fall.
Mr. Perkins asked how the cost of the parking deck will be determined. Ms. White said that has
not yet been determined, but the deck will likely be used by the entire community. Mr. Bowerman said
parking problems exist in the area already. If the deck is used by the public, funding should be examined
closely. He asked if the committee was unified on the use of the deck. Ms. White said this is still an issue
that has not been resolved. The City may have to consider a variance of their Zoning regulations. Under
current zoning regulations, the deck can only be an auxiliary use to that facility, so it could only be used by
patrons of that facility. Mr. Bowerman said the deck should be available to the people using the services
in that area. Ms. White said the problem is that parking is needed for the entire court complex. For
example, if the deck is open only to people located in the new facility, people working in the Courthouse
now could not use it.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: April 7, April 14 and April 21, 1999.
Ms. Humphris said she had read the minutes of April 14, 1999 and found them to be in order
except for a few typographical errors.
Mr. Bowerman then offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve the minutes of
April 14, 1999 with typographical changes. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
NAYS: None.
NT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
000270
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Perkins said Board members received a letter from Mr. Eric Haussmann (set out below),
who had included a petition signed by citizens asking that a community swimming pool be built in
Earlysville. Mr. Perkins said the County needs a policy on such requests. Mr. Tucker said staffwill
draft a policy to be given to the Board for its review.
"At a recent Earlysville Fire Department fund raiser, I initiated a petition on an issue which
is of continued interest for the Earlysville community. The signatures were gathered only
during the time of my visit, and everyone solicited provided their signature!
The .first petition addresses a need which has been discussed at length and for some time
in the Earlysville area. That is the request for the creation of a County outdoor swimming
pool, not unlike the one in Crozet, and for a recreation center, not unlike the one in
Greenwood. I first moved to Earlysville in 1987, and have witnessed many changes over
the years. It is time to provide some more recreational alternatives to the many families
and people who live in the northwest section of our beautiful county! We've even tried to
seek public tennis courts.
While Earlysville is no longer considered a County growth area, it has numerous
established neighborhoods, and actually has grown in the past few years. Much of your
attention, quire naturally, has been given to the Route 29 corridor and Forest
Lakes/Hollymead growth and sprawl. However, we Earlysville area residents want you all
to recognize and accede to our requests to see some recreational services established in
our area.
As more signatures are gathered at future Earlysville neighborhood meetings, and EARL
meetings, they will be forwarded accordingly. I am willing to work with the County
planners and yourselves to learn what our options are in terms of establishing these
recreational services. Your thoughts are also welcome."
Mr. Bowerman said he hopes the big basin located near the Church of the Incarnation as part of a
storm water project can become a neighborhood park enhancement. He will work with the appropriate
parties in an attempt to acquire property and obtain a necessary easement. Mr. Tucker said the County
Attorney, Planning staff, and Building Codes and Zoning Services staff will examine the issues for this
project as a possible open space feature in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Thomas said when the Board decided a year ago to allow "mother-on-law" units as additions
to homes, staff said they would provide statistics as to how many people are taking advantage of this
provision. Mr. Cilimberg said Building Codes and Zoning Services tracks these statistics. Mr. Tucker said
he would ask Ms. McCulley to provide a report to the Board at a later date.
Non-Docketed
Executive session
At 8:37 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Executive Session
pursuant to Section 2~1-344(A)of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
and staff regarding pending litigation concerning a police matter, pending litigation regarding the transition
of the City of Charlottesville to town status, and probable litigation regarding a zoning matter.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. ThOmas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Certify ExeCutive Session
At 9:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
executive session. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Mr. Davis presented a draft of a resolution condemning the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT)'s and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)'s plan to allow tall wireless
telecommunications towers within the Interstate 64 right-of-way.
Ms. Thomas noted that VDOT's process does not allow input from the public, and the County was
only provided a two week review period versus the normal SO-day review period.
Ms. Humphris said Senator Emily Couric attempted to get legislation passed which would require
VDOT to follow local land use regulations, but it failed. Board members have heard from other localities
that these towers can literally spring up overnight. VDOT could use shorter poles for the highway
intelligence system, but installs taller ones in order to lease space to companies for private use. In
addition, the towers will be lighted (others that have been erected have strobe lights on them), making
them more noticeable. She said for years the Board has attempted to protect the area from these visual
obstructions, but now the County needs assistance from the Governor, legislators, and congressmen to
prevent the towers from being installed.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is in a position of reacting to a decision which has already been
made. He said the public has a right to know what is going on and what could literally be erected in a
matter of weeks. He encouraged residents who are concerned about the towers to contact VDOT or their
legislative representatives.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt the following
Resolution condemning the plan of VDOT and the CTB to allow tall wireless telecommunications towers
within the 1-64 right-of-way. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE PLAN OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TO ALLOW TALL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
WITHIN THE INTERSTATE 64 RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, this Board has the authority to regulate the private use of land through the planning,
zoning and subdivision powers granted it by Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2200 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, over the past 31 years this Board has strived to improve the health, safety and
general welfare of the community through good planning and zoning practices; and
WHEREAS, this Board has been notified that the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT")
and the Commonwealth Transportation Board ("CTB") plan to allow up to seven wireless
telecommunications towers, each 250 feet in height, to be erected in the County within the Interstate 64
right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, Interstate 64 is an entrance corridor within Albemarle County, and the Board has
adopted special regulations contained in an overlay zoning district to protect the corridor and to preserve
its natural, scenic, historic, architectural and cultural resources, so as to attract tourists and other visitors,
sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County from tourism, and to otherwise
promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the County and visitors thereto;
and
WHEREAS, tall towers such as those proposed to be allowed by VDOT and the CTB are not
necessary for the purposes of VDOT or for the provision of personal wireless services, have significant
visual impacts that mar the landscape, destroy the natural and scenic resources of Albemarle County,
irreparably damage the attractiveness of the County to tourists and other visitors, and are otherwise not
consonant with the general welfare of the citizens of the County and visitors thereto; and
WHEREAS, this Board supports wireless telecommunications and the erection of wireless
telecommunications facilities that are consistent with good planning and zoning practices, and it has
approved 29 of 35 applications for special use permits for such facilities since 1990; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the many public hearings on special use permits for wireless facilities,
3one 16, ~999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
the wireless studies conducted by the County's staff and the County's wireless consultant, and the
valuable information provided by some wireless service providers, this Board knows that wireless
technology is constantly changing and improving so that wireless service may be provided today by less
intrusive and destructive means than through the erection of tall towers, and that such alternatives are
reasonable and feasible as evidenced by the wireless infrastructures being pursued by some wireless
service providers in this County; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-2293 expressly grants to this Board the authority to regulate the
private use of land owned by the Commonwealth; and, this Board has not been requested to consider or
approve any privately owned or occupied towers or related facilities within the Interstate 64 right-of-way;
and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-183.1 requires that before the CTB may sell or lease the
airspace superjacent to any highway in the Commonwealth it must obtain this Board's approval and
comply with zoning regulations and take such other steps as this Board deems proper to regulate the type
and use of the improvements to be erected in the airspace; and, this Board has not been requested to
consider or grant such approval or to impose such regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly preserves local zoning authority over
the placement and construction of wireless telecommunications facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that this Board condemns the plan of VDOT and the CTB
to allow tall wireless telecommunications towers to be erected within the Interstate 64 right-of-way as an
unlawful usurpation and circumvention of the planning and zoning authority delegated to this Board; and,
this Board demands that VDOT, the CTB and the wireless service providers that plan to locate on the
proposed towers comply with Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2293 and 33.1-183.1; and
BE[ IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, even though this Board, VDOT and the CTB are each
instrumentalities of the Commonwealth, this Board must condemn VDOT and the CTB for refusing to
cooperate with this Board and the citizens of this County on this important land use issue which is properly
within the authority of this Board, not VDOT or the CTB; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board condemns VDOT and the CTB for proposing to take
such actions without first soliciting comments from the County in a timely manner by failing to allow County
staff even the 30 day review period provided by VDOT's own guidelines, and demands that VDOT extend
the review period and conduct properly noticed public hearings for each of the seven proposed towers to
allow citizen input into these important local land use decisions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board condemns VDOT's "Shared Resources Program,"
which combines wireless telecommunications facilities with proposed Intelligent Transportation System
facilities, because the combination results in towers much taller than necessary to serve VDOT's public
purposes, to the detriment of the general welfare of the citizens; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board demands that VDOT and the CTB take no action on
the proposed towers until the Virginia Supreme Court decides the Case, Board of Supervisors of Fairfax
County v, Washington, D. Co SMSA, a case challenging the authority of VDOT to construct such towers
without local approvals; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board will pursue any and all legal remedies, if necessary,
to assure that VDOT, the CTB, and the wireless service providers proposing to erect or lease such towers
and related wireless facilities comply with Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2293 and 33.1-183.1, and all other
applicable requirements.
Mr. Perkins said residents of Corville Farms are complaining about Iow water levels. Mr. Tucker
will ask Engineering staff to look into the matter.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn
At 9:45 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adjourn to
7:30 p.m., June 22, 1999, in the Juvenile Domestic Relations Courtroom, for a presentation on the
Juvenile Court renovations.
AYES Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
June 16, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
000;~73
~Ch'airman
lApproved by Board