1999-10-13October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
13, 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. Charles S. Martin, Mr.
Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
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.
No. one came forward to speak.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Item No. 5.1. Springwood Drive "Watch for Children" Sign.
The executive summary states that the residents of Springwood Drive (Route 1237) request the
Virginia Department of Transportation to install a "Watch For Children" sign on Springwood Drive. This
request requires a resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors to the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
On March 3, 1999, the Board of Supervisors endorsed new guidelines for the installation of
"Watch for Children" signs. Staff used these new guidelines to review this request.
"Watch for Children" signs shall only be considered on secondary roads. The residents
have requested the sign(s) to be located On SpringWood Drive (ROUte 1237) - a SecOndary road in the
Free Union area of the County. This will alert all vehicles to be cautious as they travel from Cascade Drive
entering the subdivision to Springwood Drive.
The request must come from a Homeowner's Association where applicable. Please find
attached (on file) the letter of request from the reSidents on SpringWood Drive.
There must be child activity attraction nearby for the sign to be considered. There is an
open field at a quadrant of the intersection of Springwood Drive and Cascade DriVe. The children of the
community play there and walk or ride their bikes there. This sign would alert vehicles that children may
be near.
The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. The
proposed location of the sign will not conflict with any exiSting traffic cOntrol devices. Staff will work with
VDOT to determine the exact location for the sign.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse the attached resolution supporting a "Watch
for Children" sign on Springwood Drive.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, the residents of Springwood Drive is concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the
potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a "Watch for Children" sign would help alleviate some the concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports
the community's requests for VDOT to install the necessary "Watch for Children" signs on Spdngwood
Drive (Route 1237).
Item No. 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for September 21, 1999, was received for
information.
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-99-$. Goodlow Mountain (Signs #.46&47). Request to remove &
reconstruct existing tower on Goodlow Mountain. Znd RA. Consists of 121 acs. TM36,P16. Rivanna Dist.
(deferred from March 17, 1999) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported on SP-97-51 which is an application for a special use permit to construct a
cellular tower to provide improved cellular phone coverage for northern Albemarle County and portions of
Greene and Orange. The proposed location is on Goodlow Mountain on the existing Columbia Gas
pipeline easement. He reminded Board members that they have received an updated report covering a
lot of information regarding the area where the tower will be located, as well as the Supervisors'
considerations previously. This deferral was last seen by the Supervisors on March 17,1999 and, at the
time, the Board deferred action to allow additional review including a propagation analysis to be provided
by the County through consultant assistance.
It is noted in the report that negotiations have been initiated for preparing the propagation
analysis, and the staff has gotten feedback from the consultant as to what it might accomplish. Based on
this information and the cost of the review involved, the staff did not pursue the propagation analysis. This
report supersedes prior staff reports prepared for this application for three reasons.
First, the initial analysis was based on the assumption that the proposed 120 foot tower would
replace an existing 123 foot tower on the site. Since then the Zoning Administrator has determined that
the 123 foot tower was a nonconforming tower which was damaged in late 1996 and was repaired only to
a height of 60 feet within the two year period allowed by Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance. He next
referred to an October 7, 1999 memorandum from Amelia McCulley which provides an overview of her
findings. Secondly, since the original staff report was prepared, the Board has amended the Comprehen-
sive Plan by adopting a new chapter on Natural Resources and Cultural Assets on March 3, 1999. This
chapter includes a section pertaining to historic scenic resources and mountains which are areas pertinent
to this request. The third reason Mr. Cilimberg mentioned was that since the original staff report was
prepared there have been significant advancements in wireless technology such that alternative designs
and equipment allowing shorter towers, different and less intrusive antenna arrays and collocation on
existing utility structures, including high voltage lines, are feasible and commonly used. The staff report
goes into an analysis regarding the relationship of this proposal to aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
He will focus on the Mountain Protection aspect of the Plan and guidelines in the section on
Mountain Protection under Chapter Two which provides some guides in consideration of any development
on mountaintops. He said because the proposed 120 foot tower would be located on the ridge line of the
mountain and would extend 40 to 50 feet above the tree canopy, the staffs opinion is that the proposed
tower is inconsistent with these guidelines. Staffs opinion is that approval of a facility no taller than the
existing tree canopy in a construction of the existing 60 foot tower, or a wood pole, would not result in
increased impacts to the area. The report notes the applicant has not demonstrated there are no other
locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. The staff
cites various alternatives which include use of a tower not more than six to ten feet taller than the existing
trees adjacent to the site, and those trees are estimated to be 70 to 80 feet. He noted that this alternative
would be similar to the many other tree top towers approved by the Board in the past two years. The
second alternative relates to the use of a tower no taller than the existing 60 foot tower, and a third
alternative would be the use of a tower no taller than the existing tower and antennae of 82 feet. A fourth
alternative would be the use of the 120 foot tower as it was originally requested, and a fifth alternative
would be no use of Goodlow Mountain with the required location of multiple facilities to provide
comparable service.
Mr. Cilimberg said the facility recommended by staff with a condition limiting the height of the
tower to no more than seven feet above the surrounding tree canopy with an antennae design that is flush
with the pole, has been successfully used by a PCS provider in Albemarle County. He commented that an
engineer representing a cellular service provider told the Planning Commission that such an infrastructure
works better for cellular service than it does for PCS. He emphasized that the staff has recommended
approval of the request with modified conditions. The most significant relates to the first condition which
indicates that the height of the tower shall not exceed the height of seven feet above the tallest tree within
25 feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement of the height of the tallest tree, and
the antennae may extend three feet above the height of the tower. This would also require that the
antennae be flush mounted, and it allows Up to three flush mounted panel antennae not to exceed six feet
in height and one foot in width. He pointed out that these conditions are similar to other tree top design
towers this Board has approved.
Mr. Martin asked for an explanation of Condition #6 involving fully shielded lighting of the outdoor
luminaries. Mr. Cilimberg responded that this condition is referring to lighting at the equipment area, and it
is a standard condition used for previous towers.
Mr. Martin inquired if the applicant would like to speak.
Mr. Steve Blaine stated that he is representing the applicant who is licensed by the FCC to
provide wireless cellular service.
Mr. Davis noted that the public hearing on this matter was held at another meeting and has
already been closed. He pointed out that there is no public hearing scheduled for today on this item.
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting/
(Page 3)
Mr. Blaine explained that he was going to direct his remarks to the staff report which was
prepared since the public hearing. He noted that the applicant was provided with this staff report within
the last week.
Mr. Martin stated that if it meets with the other Board members' approval, he would like to hear
from the applicant and anyone else who would like to speak about this matter, since it has been awhile
since it was presented to the Board.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there was no public hearing advertised for this item today, but he
would also entertain any comments from the applicant or anyone else interested in speaking to it.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she is sure members of the public understood this was not a public
hearing, and that is why they are not here. She said, though, if the Chairman would like to hear from the
applicant, it is fine with her.
Mr. Martin commented that there are some people who would like to speak to the issue.
Mr. Blaine continued by saying that this Board all but approved the original application for this site,
and it has been in process for nearly two years. However, for reasons contained in the record, the
applicant is back before this body today. He noted that the original staff report recommended approval of
a 120 foot tower, and the October 13, 1999 staff report, just summarized by Mr. Cilimberg, still
recommends approval of a tower for this site. He believes there are only two differences in the staff
reports which are the height of the tower and the antennae array. He plans to describe why this facility is
needed and at what height it will work. He noted that there has been a trend in this County to lower the
heights of towers for aesthetic reasons, and the applicant respects this. He said for aesthetic reasons, the
staff has recommended that the tower be lowered to a height just above the tree canopy, and the record
reflects that the trees in this area are 80 feet tall. He referred to the staff report which recommends
allowing a tower to a height something above the tree canopy recognizing that a signal must project above
the trees. Again for aesthetic reasons, the staff has recommended that an antennae array be flush
mounted to the pole, but the staff report does not recommend any radio frequency basis for this design
and does not take into account the needs of the facility. The staff report does not reflect any analysis from
a radio frequency standpoint in terms of how this system is designed. He is not capable of providing this
information, and that is why he has a radio frequency engineer present with him tonight. The applicant
understands the Board's constituents' concerns about the aesthetics of these towers, and he thinks the
record reflects and will support a 120 foot tower. However, in respect for the concern about aesthetics,
the applicant's engineer is prepared to accept a tower at a lower height than the original request. He
stated that the engineer has done an analysis, and he will describe how he arrived at this change in
height. Based on the engineer's opinion, the applicant can achieve the coverage objective by lowering the
tower to 90 feet.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that because of the many variables involved with this project, he is
uncertain how the Board members can make decisions, based on the information given to them from the
applicant's engineer.
Ms. Thomas responded that the Supervisors can inquire as to the software the applicant used and
how the propagation results were obtained. She understands the staff has been requesting information
from the applicant for several weeks. If the applicant's representatives describe new evidence tonight that
the staff has not received, this request may have to be deferred again so the staff can consider the new
information.
Mr. Davis stated that he would certainly agree with Ms. Thomas. It is his understanding the staff
members asked for this information so they could analyze it. He said it was not forthcoming, even though
it was promised. He also noted that Mr. Blaine has not characterized the staff report correctly in that the
issues he referenced are not aesthetic issues at all. They are issues of the character of the rural and
mountain areas of the County, and this has been pointed out in the past.
Ms. Thomas referred to the 90 foot tower and inquired if it involves extensions and wires above
this height or is 90 feet the top of the highest antenna. Mr. Blaine replied that the applicant feels the staff
report and the radio frequency engineer's requirements are very close. He is asking the Board to work
with the applicant to try and achieve the coverage objective. He explained that this coverage objective
involves a mandate to provide cellular service in the service area, as well as to address the visual
concerns. He believes the western district has characterized these as aesthetic concerns.
Ms. Humphris inquired if Mr. Blaine has the answer to Ms. Thomas' question. Mr. Blaine
answered that this matter is unfairly stated in the staff report. He provided the results of the drive tests to
Mr. Fritz, Senior Planner for Albemarle County, in the same way he received them. Mr. Blaine said the
drive tests reflect that the engineer has analyzed the frequencies and can make the site work at 90 feet,
and this was reported to Mr. Fritz. The way he planned to present this information to the Board of
Supervisors was through a radio frequency engineer, because he is not capable of presenting the
information as an analysis and an opinion. If the County chose not to have an expert do a drive test or a
propagation analysis, that is the County's choice. The applicant has an engineer who has used accepted
technology that is available in the industry, and he has been responsible for designing the site. The
engineer will explain why it is needed and how he thinks the tower can work at 90 feet.
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Thomas repeated her question as to whether the 90 foot tower includes a 90 foot pole with an
antenna added or does it mean the top of the antenna is 90 feet. Mr. Blaine said the 90 feet is based
upon a test where the signal was projected at 90 feet, and he explained that this can be measured from
the center of the antenna. If the antenna is mounted on the pole, some portion of it will have to extend
above the pole.
Mr. Martin asked if the pole, itself, would be 90 feet in height. Mr. Blaine replied that the center of
the projected signal would have to be at a 90 foot height. He then introduced Jeff Barlow, a radio
frequency engineer.
Mr. Martin commented that since this is not a public hearing Mr. Barlow would be treated as a
member of the public who is speaking.
Mr. Jeff Barlow, a radio frequency engineer with United States Cellular, announced that he has
been in this position for two and one-half years, and the whole time he has been the principal radio
frequency engineer for the Charlottesville Metropolitan Service Area, of which Albemarle County is central.
The site in question is a rural site, and he is trying to provide coverage for Route 231 from the border of
Louisa County to the signal at the Boyd Tavern site. At this point in time, there is not a quality hand held
cellular phone signal on that road. He mentioned that someone had made a statement about coverage
already in that area. However, it is roaming service or the person using the phone would be on someone
else's system. He has done extensive propagation studies on potential sites, and for two and one-half
years it was his company's understanding that it was the County's preference to use existing structures
and collocate wherever possible. Goodlow Mountain certainly fit into this category, so he proceeded to
design the site for coverage of Route 231 and to find antennae for the Goodlow Mountain site in order to
have a quality hand held signal. The drive test analyzed the situation. He recalled that such a test was
suggested when he was present at the Board of Supervisors' March meeting, but he does not know if it
was requested of another engineer. The drive test, when contrasted with the propagation analysis or
modeling, is a real measurement of the signal being generated on top of a crane. He explained that the
crane was raised to 90 feet, and an antenna was attached, although the antenna did not have the same
characteristics as the one requested. He let the neighbors' market know he was going to be doing this
test so he would not cause any interference. He explained that an omni directional antenna was used
atop the crane as opposed to a panel antenna. The last time he appeared before this Board, he explained
that he was using panels instead of an omni directional antenna because of the proximity to the neighbors'
market.
Mr. Martin asked if Board members had any particular questions for Mr. Barlow.
Ms. Thomas clarified that Mr. Barlow used a crane to emit a signal at 90 feet. Mr. Barlowe
answered affirmatively. Ms. Thomas asked where Mr. Barlow drove to test the signal. Mr. Barlow
indicated that he drove on Route 231 and Route 20. Ms. Thomas inquired if Mr. Barlow was able to get
the desired coverage on both of these roads with the 90 foot antenna. Mr. Barlow answered, "yes."
Ms. Thomas asked the results with the antenna at 80 feet. Mr. Barlow replied that the tests were
done at 60 feet, 90 and 120 feet, and it was not done at 80 feet. He was not aware there was a request to
have the test done at 80 feet. Ms. Thomas wondered about the signal at 60 feet. Mr. Barlow replied that
at 60 feet, it was not acceptable. Next, Ms. Thomas inquired as to the height of the antenna, if 90 feet is
the center of it. Mr. Barlow responded that there will be four feet of panel above the top of the structure.
Ms. Thomas clarified that it is an eight foot panel. Mr. Barlow responded affirmatively. Mr. Martin clarified
that four feet of the panel would be on the pole, itself, so only four feet of it will be above. Mr. Barlow
answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the same coverage could be achieved if the tower was located on the
side of the mountain, if the signal was still able to get over the top. Mr. Barlow replied that the same
coverage would not be achieved. Mr. Bowerman commented that perhaps the same coverage would be
available in one direction, but not the other. Mr. Barlow responded that whichever side of the mountain
the tower was installed, the other side would not get the same coverage. He probably would not even get
as good a coverage on the side of the mountain where the tower was located.
Ms. Thomas asked if two smaller sites on the side of the mountain would create the same signal
on Route 231. Mr. Barlow answered that these would be hypothetical structures whereas the Goodlow
site is an existing site. Mr. Davis asked if the answer is yes as far as getting the same coverage with two
smaller sites. Mr. Barlow replied, "no."
Mr. Davis wondered if the propagation analysis has been done on this issue. Mr. Barlow replied
that he has modeled every structure and power pole, as well as the cement stanchions where the
substation used to be located. Mr. Davis inquired if Mr. Barlow could provide the Board with the results of
the analysis. Mr. Barlow answered that he does not have it with him at this meeting. Mr. Davis again
asked if Mr. Barlow could provide the results of the analysis. Mr. Barlow responded that he could provide
it if necessary, although he does not know what good it will serve.
Ms. Thomas explained that this analysis relates to alternatives, and it is a question this Board
always asks, and it is very relevant to this issue. Mr. Barlow stated that there are no other viable
alternatives with existing structures. He has modeled everything. Mr. Davis remarked that the Board
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
members are not talking about existing structures. They are talking about shorter poles that could be
located on the mountainside. Mr. Barlow commented that this would be the same problem, since there is
already an existing structure that could be used. Ms. Thomas stated that the existing structure is not 94
feet in height. Mr. Perkins referred to Mr. Barlow's comment that at 60 feet the signal does not clear the
trees. Mr. Barlow concurred that the signal does not clear the trees at 60 feet and the signal dies.
Mr. Perkins referred to the staffs recommendation that the antennae be located above the tree
tops. He wondered if Mr. Barlow is indicating that the pole has to be at 90 feet of height to provide
coverage for Route 231. Mr. Barlow answered that anything lower than 90 feet causes the coverage to be
lost on Route 20.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the signal needs to be approximately ten feet above the tree line. Mr.
Barlow replied, "yes."
Ms. Humphris remarked that one of the main things the Board members do when making
decisions about towers is to make sure they know about all of the available alternatives. She is surprised
the applicant hasn't let County officials know anything about alternatives, since the application has been in
existence for so long. She stated that very obviously the pole did not have to be on this particular existing
tower, and alternatives can be anywhere.
Mr. Martin pointed out again that this is not a public hearing. However, because time was allotted
to the applicant, members of the public, who wish to speak, will be permitted to do so. He asked Board
members, as well as members of the public, to understand that this was not announced as a public
hearing. It should also be recognized that if such an announcement had been made, there probably would
have been more people present.
Mr. Hal Young, a property owner in the area, mentioned that he estimates the tree height on the
site to be 60 feet. The closest tree is 40 feet, and it is an 80 foot by 80 foot clearing. He hopes Board
members received his March 9, 1999 letter, and he mentioned the deceptive policies which he believes
have been presented to the Board of Supervisors throughout this process by the applicant.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the applicant proposed to move out of the cleared right-of-way into the
tree line. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the location of the existing tower has trees on three sides, and the
cleared right-of-way for the gas line is on the fourth side. The applicant is proposing to still locate there
within 25 feet, which would cover three areas, since one area has no trees.
Ms. Thomas wondered how steeply the land slopes away from the tower. If the land slopes very
steeply, there could be an 80 foot tree that would not have the effect of covering an 80 foot tower at the
top. Mr. Cilimberg answered that there is a topo map included in the staff report which will depict this
situation. There is a relatively flat area on top of the ridge, and the tree cover, within 25 feet, is close to
the same elevation. It was also noted in the report that the critical slopes are away from the site on either
side of the mountain. He explained that it is not a perfectly fiat site nor a plateau, but it has a very gentle
slope.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the scale shown on the map. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the map
is probably at ten foot intervals. Ms. Thomas stated that it does not look as though the site has gentle
sloping. Mr. Bowerman commented that the intervals are more than ten feet. Mr. Cilimberg corrected his
statement by saying that a lot of maps are done at 20 feet intervals in mountainous areas. He stated that
he would distribute some photos the staff has had for some time to show the top of the mountain, but they
do not all show the ground.
Mr. Davis noted that the basis for the staff analysis and recommendation on this matter was that
this tower, at seven feet above the tree line, would provide a significant valuable usable signal for US
Cellular service. If there was some reason it did not provide the maximum desired coverage, then there
are alternatives at lower elevations along the area which is intended to be served. He added that shorter
tree top towers could be provided in order to provide the maximum coverage, and the applicant has not
demonstrated that this cannot be accomplished. ·
Mr. Cilimberg referred to the discussion about the middle of the antenna as being a point of
reference for propagation. The elevation under this recommendation would put the middle of the antenna
at 87 feet, if an 80 foot tree height is being considered. If the panels are mounted in the middle of the top
of the pole, with three feet below and three feet above, the top of the panels are 90 feet in height.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the tree height has not been officially measured. The staff
recommendation is that the height of the antenna be above the tree line in a measured amount of feet so it
would guarantee that there is a useful signal over the trees. He added that the height of the pole and
antennae depend on the trees. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that the height of the trees is only an estimation. To
measure the trees exactly would require a certified tree surveyor.
Mr. Martin stated that it appears a decision needs to be made as to whether or not the additional
information should be given to staff for further examination or whether the Board should accept the staff's
recommendation.
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Perkins suggested that the Board approve the staffs recommendations, and although this
may not satisfy the applicant completely, other sites can be presented to the Board to fill certain voids in
service if necessary in the future. However, he does not think there is a guarantee that the applicant will
cover everything desirable from this site because of the terrain.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that a cellular user's phone could be roaming and continuing to receive a
signal, even if it is not from this tower.
Mr. Bowerman said it is important to note that one of the premises from which the applicant is
operating is from two years ago where collocation or mounting an antenna on an existing structure was
one of the Board's primary considerations. There has been a substantial amount of education and
information as well as other sitings throughout the County that have mitigated the effect of using an
existing structure with an alternative which is as effective and less intrusive but not necessarily as high.
Ms. Thomas said this is not a Board that is turning down towers. She read from the staff report
that since 1990 the Board of Supervisors has acted on 46 special use permits and approved 40 of these
requests.
Mr. Martin referred to Mr. Perkins suggestion to use the staff's recommendation. Mr. Martin asked
if Mr. Cilimberg has any comments relating to the six foot panels and flush mounting versus the applicant's
request. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff recommended panel antennae like those this Board has
approved with numerous other applications, which allows for up to three, flush mounted, six feet by one
foot antennae. He said he can't comment on anything different than that, because he does not have
expertise as far as the different types of antennae nor how they may work.
Mr. Martin remarked that a discussion may be needed at this point since the staff's recommen-
dation is very close to the applicant's expert's recommendation. He went on to say the staff is
recommending an 87 foot tower, and the applicant is asking for a 90 foot tower.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Perkins is suggesting that the tower be higher than the tree tops, and that
this measure should be used as opposed to an actual height measurement. She pointed out that the
estimates may not be accurate, so the height of the tower could be higher than 90 feet. The important
thing is the amount of space it extends above the height of the tree canopy.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the applicant has indicated if the antennae is above the tree canopy, it
will give the amount of propagation needed at that site.
At this time, Mr. Perkins offered a motion to approve SP-97-51, as recommended with the eleven
conditions.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, although she called attention to Condition #2 dealing with the
design, construction and maintenance of the tower. The condition indicates that the tower shall not be
painted and shall be natural wood color. A lattice construction may not necessarily be °f Wood, so this
condition may have conflicting points. She wondered if the wording should be clearer to indicate that the
tower should be of a natural wood color, since it may have to be painted to achieve this result.
Mr. Martin said he and Mr. Blaine had discussed a steel pole at the higher height, and they
discussed painting it brown. Mr. Martin stated that he is unsure if a steel pole is still necessary at the
lower height, although he is not sure if this would make a difference.
Ms. Thomas then suggested that Condition #2(d) should read, "The tower shall be natural wood
color." Mr. Cilimberg and Board members indicated that this wording was agreeable to them.
Mr. Martin inquired if Condition #2(a) should say that the tower shall be of wood, lattice or metal
pole. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the word, "lattice," could be dropped from Condition #2(a). The wording in
Condition #2(a) would then state, "The tower shall be of wood or a construction similar to the design and
dimensions (other than height) as the existing tower." Mr. Cilimberg noted, though, that the existing tower
is a lattice wood pole. He also noted that if the applicant finds the condition of height cannot be met, no
matter how many feet are involved, the matter will have to come back to this Board as an amendment to
the special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman clarified that the tower height is tied to a specific number of feet, and the total
height is tied to specific feet above the tree canopy. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that this is true. It has been
determined by the Zoning Administrator that, over time, the height can be increased with tree growth.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that if it is a 50 year old tree stand, the trees will not grow much taller.
According to the picture of the site, it also looks as though there has been substantial ice damage to the
tree tops.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Blaine stated that there was some question among staff members as to whether they have
retained the propagation analysis. It was submitted with the original application in 1997, and it was
referenced in March, 1999. He has a copy of it which he would like to submit for the record. Ms. Thomas
said the Board members.have not seen this analysis. Mr. Blaine responded that the Supervisors saw it in
1997 and again in March, 1999.
A gentleman asked a question from the audience. Mr. Martin informed him that if he wanted to
speak, he must come forward to the microphone. Mr. Martin said, though, the answer to the question is
that no specific height was approved. He explained that Board members indicated the facility could
extend seven feet above the tree line. Mr. Perkins stated that the facility can extend seven feet above the
height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower.
Mr. Mark Mitchell commented that he lives on the mountain, and the trees there are no more than
50 feet tall. Mr. Martin responded that if this is the case, then the tower facility would be 57 feet in height.
Mr. Mitchell remarked that he heard the radio frequency engineer state that he could not get cellular
coverage at 60 feet. However, the trees in that area are only 50 feet tall. Mr. Martin reiterated that the
Board approved a facility seven feet above the tallest tree within a certain radius. It would not matter if the
trees are only six feet tall, because the facility can only extend seven feet above tree height. Mr. Mitchell
thanked the Board members for their time on this matter.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Tower height shall not exceed seven (7) feet above the height of the tallest tree within twenty-five
(25) feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest
tree. Antenna may extend three (3) feet above the height of the tower.
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be of wood or construction similar to the design and dimensions (other
than height) as the existing tower;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. The tower shall have no lighting; and
d. The tower shall be natural wood color.
The tower and the secured yard shall be located, and the mechanical building shall be located and
sized, as shown on Attached plan titled "Proposed Cellular Antenna Site" and initialed WDF
November 7, 1997 and on untitled topographic map initialed WDF November 7, 1997.
o
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. The antennas shall be limited to three (3) flush-mounted panel antennae not to exceed six
(6) feet in height and one (1) foot in width; and
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 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.
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.
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. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of
maintenance only.
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
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Planning to remove existing trees on the site. 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 building, or the vehicular or utility access.
The permittee shall comply with section 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 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.
Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading
necessary to improve travel surface and the application of gravel.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-53. Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital (Si_~n # 26). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to construct addition of approx 620 sq ft to existing veterinary hospital on .913
acs. Znd HC. TM61K, Sec9, Pl. Loc S sd of Rt 743 (Hydraulic Rd), ¼ mi W of Rt 29. Jack Jouett Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. The original request would allow expansion of approximately 620 square feet to the
existing Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital. However, now the square footage has been changed to
approximately 638. The addition will house an x-ray examination room and provide for storage, but it will
not provide housing for the animals. He then described a number of favorable factors as shown in the
staff report.
The Planning Commission has recommended approval with four conditions, although there has
been a change in one of the conditions, since the Commission's approval. The first condition is retained
from the original SP-96-28. Conditions #2, #3 and #4 will replace Condition #2 in SP-96-28. He then
referred to the adjusted condition which relates to Condition #2. Since the addition will actually be 638
square feet, the staff is suggesting that for Condition #2, the proposed additional area identified shall not
exceed 650 square feet.
There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Supervisors, so Mr. Martin inquired if the
applicant would like to speak.
Dr. Raymond C. Doss, owner of the Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital, stated that his own business
has been located in this building since 1983. He would be happy to answer any questions, and he would
clarify the reasons for the addition, if Board members would like for him to do so.
There were no questions for Dr. Doss.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing, and he asked if anyone from the public would
like to speak to this issue. No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris announced that when the building was new, she and her husband lived in an
upstairs apartment there for two years. At that time all the boarding dogs were outside in rooms
underneath the kitchen. In those days there was nothing but woods and farmland in the area, and there
was not a person within a long distance. It was a wonderful place to live. She then suggested that the
way the conditions are written be changed, and she called attention to the statement indicating the
retention of Condition #1 of SP-96-28. After Condition #1 there is a statement indicating that there should
be a substitution of condition #2 of SP-96-28 for Conditions #2 through #4. She noted that this statement
is not very clear, so she would prefer to change it to indicate that there will be a substitution of the
following four conditions to SP-96-28.
Mr. C'ilimberg agreed. He had made a note from the Planning Commission meeting which said
that staff recommends substitution of Condition #2 of SP-96-28 with the following conditions. Mr.
Bowerman concurred that this wording is acceptable. Ms. Humphris said this is fine with her, but the way
it was originally written was not correct grammar. Mr. Cilimberg explained that in actuality there will be a
list of conditions for the applicant.
Ms. Humphris also noted that Condition #2 should refer to the Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital
instead of "Animal Road Hospital." She then called attention to Condition #3 which she suggested should
state, "Construction materials including 'windows' of glass block shall be generally the same as or better
than the previous additions... "instead of the way it is currently written. She went on to say there has
been nothing but compliments about the way the hospital has expanded and the quality the Doss' have
put into it. She next moved approval of SP-99-53, subject to the four conditions as recommended. Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion.
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
No outdoor runs are permitted and all existing outdoor runs should be enclosed before a
Certificate of Occupancy for any expansion of the existing building will be issued;
Development of the site shall be in accord with site plan amendment titled "Hydraulic Road Animal
Hospital" dated 7/20/99. The proposed addition identified theron shall not exceed 650 square
feet. The addition shall not encroach into the 40-foot side setback. Any further expansion will
require an amendment to the special use permit;
Construction materials including "Windows" of glass block shall be generally the same as, or
better than, the previous additions in their sound attenuation properties; and
4. The addition will not house any animals.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-57. Averett College (Si_cln ~f49). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to establish business school of approx 2,000 sq ft w/in Greenbriar Office Park (23.2.2.6) on 4.3
acs. Znd CO. Contains 4.3 acs. Portion of TM61W, Sec, Ps1,2&3. Loc on E side of the Whitewood
Rd/Greenbriar Dr inter. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4,
1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg explained that SP-99-57 involves a request to establish a business school within the
existing Greenbrier Office Park. The school would utilize approximately 2,000 square feet of the Office
Park's total 43,200 square feet. He described the factors favorable to the request, and noted that the
Planning Commission and staff recommend approval with three conditions.
There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would like to
speak.
Ms. Kendall Carter, interim Assistant Dean for the Southern Virginia Regional District of Averett
College, said the Greenbrier Office Park is a central location for the students. She noted that now space
is being utilized on the University of Virginia campus as well as the Holiday Inn. It is felt that a permanent
spot for Averett's students would be the most viable thing at this time.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if this facility is already constructed. Ms. Carter replied affirmatively.
There were no further questions for Ms. Carter, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. No one
came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this project fits into this small commercial area very well, and he sees
no adverse effects. He next offered a motion for approval of SP-99-57 subject to the three conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll 'was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Ms. Thomas wondered if the Board had to act on the cooperative parking involved with SP-99-57.
Mr. Bowerman indicated that this was included with the Planning Commission's approval. Ms. Thomas
said she wanted to applaud the cooperative parking aspect of this permit even though the Supervisors did
not have to take action on it.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The total business school square footage shall be limited to the internal 2,000 total square feet;
Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. on Saturdays. The school shall not operate on Sundays; and
3. The total school enrollment shall not exceed forty-five (45) students per day.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-99-8 White House Motel (Siqn #89), PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to rezone 1.497 acs from R6 to HC to allow expansion of Free Bridge Auto Sales loc on adj parcel
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
(TM78, P57B). TM78E, P A, part thereof. Loc on N sd of Rt 250 E (Richmond Rd) approx 0.2 mi from
inter of Rt 20 N (Stony Point Rd). (Comp Plan designates this property as Regional Service in the Urban
Area Neighborhood 3 Development Area.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September
27 and October 4, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg indicated that ZMA-99-8 relates to a proposal to rezone a strip of land '
approximately 50 feet by 1,$18, containing one and one-half acres. The rezoning would be from R-6
Residential to HC, Highway Commercial, and it would match adjacent zoning. This is property that will be
added to the adjacent properties currently owned by the White Rouse Motel and Free Bridge Auto Sales,
both of which are HC properties. This is a regional service area as designated on the Land Use Plan, and
the staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the request. He also noted that there are no
proffers nor conditions involved.
Mr. Katurah Roell, representing the applicant, stated that the strip was actually added to the White
House Motel property when it was purchased, and it was a portion of Fontana and North Pantops
property. He stated that it is more or less a back yard to the Motel, but it is desirable to have consistent
zoning on everything that is a part of one site. He referred to a special use permit application for Free
Bridge Auto which will soon be before this Board. This matter needed to take place before the site plan for
Free Bridge Auto was done.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak to this issue. No one
came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris moved approval of ZMA-99-8. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Roell for an update on the soccer field on Polo Road. Mr. Roell answered
that the biggest delay relates to the archaeological study being performed on the site. It is costly to
excavate inches by inches in a ten by ten square foot area in a grid pattern to determine what is there. He
noted that small artifacts have been uncovered, such as chips of quartz, animals' teeth and bone
fragments, etc. The Soccer Organization has requested the University of Virginia, its Archaeological
Department and its students, as well as anyone else who would qualify, to volunteer as much time as
possible in order to try to accomplish this study.
Mr. Bowerman asked how a person can volunteer his or her services. Mr. Roell replied that
volunteers needed to call the Archaeological Department at the University of Virginia. He said he would
forward the name of the contact person to Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Roell stated that the study has been interesting. About a dozen pits up to four feet deep have
been done at this point. He added that mostly it has been discerned that anything below three feet in
depth hits older soils which can be dated back to the 1500s and 1600s. Anything above this depth
represents the last 200 years of soils which have compiled upon the site during high water, etc.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the age of the artifacts has been estimated. Mr. Roell said there have
been no artifacts discovered earlier than the middle 1500s, and to his knowledge, there have been no
human artifacts found. The study has been very slow.
Not Docketed.
Mr. Cilimberg next called attention again to SP-97-51 relating to the Cellular Corporation at
Goodlow Mountain. at the time the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the special use
permit, it was for denial. The Commission also had before them a site plan waiver request which they did
not approve: The staff had recommended that if the special use permit for the tower was approved, then
the site plan waiver request should also be approved.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this Board can approve the waiver.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the Supervisors can do so because the applicant appealed the
decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors. If the Supervisors do not take action on
this item, it will go back to the Commission. The waiver was a very simple matter involving two
conditions. One condition required an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prior to the issuance of the
building permit. The second condition would require the provision of one parking space. The Commission
members could have taken this action had they recommended approval. However, because they did not
approve the application, they decided they would not grant the waiver. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not think
it was because of any problem with the site plan. The problem the Commission had related more to the
tower issue.
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Thomas inquired if Mr. Cilimberg is recommending that the Board approve the waiver. Mr.
Cilimberg answered, "yes."
At this time, Mr. Bowerman made a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to grant a site plan
waiver relating to SP-97-51, U.S. Cellular Corporation at Goodlow Mountain subject to the two conditions
referred to by Mr. Cilimberg.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; and
2. Provision of one (1) parking space.
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: March 10 (A), 1997; March 17 (A), 1999;
April 21, 1999; August 4, 1999; August 11, 1999.
Ms. Humphris reported that she had read the minutes of August 4, 1999 and found them to be
perfect.
Ms. Thomas stated that she read the minutes of March 10, 1997 (A) and April 21, 1999. She said
March 10, 1999 was perfect, but there were a few minor typos to be corrected on April 21, 1999.
Mr. Perkins said he has read the minutes of August 11, 1999, and he found one typographical
error.
Ms. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes of August 10,
1999; March 10, 1997 (A); April 21, 1999; and August 11, 1999 as they were read.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appointments.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Tucker reminded Board members that several weeks ago, they adopted a resolution regarding
the Express Passenger Rail from Washington, D.C. to Bristol and from Richmond to Bristol. Mr. Cilimberg
has been attending some of the meetings held by the state, and he will give an update on this item. Mr.
Tucker said a committee is going to be formed, and he thought perhaps one or more of the Supervisors
might be interested in serving on this statewide committee. However, in lieu of that, Mr. Cilimberg has
indicated his willingness to participate on the committee.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that he went to a meeting yesterday in Farmville and in Lynchburg a few
months ago. A study was done during the last couple of years addressing the feasibility of the state
funding additional rail service in the corridors between Bristol and Washington, D.C. and Bristol and
Richmond. He thinks the effort now is to get support from legislators and the Governor to begin funding
such service. There was a presentation made by a representative from North Carolina where there has
been state funded rail service since 1990. He noted that during the next five to eight years, North Carolina
is apparently going to be funding approximately $400,000,000 for rail service. He thinks some of this
funding will go toward introducing new train sets of higher speed. The Virginia initiative now is to get
funding to start this type of service and decide how it will actually be operated. He commented that there
are still a lot of decisions to be made in the future. It was pointed out at yesterday's meeting that this
service was not covered at all in the Governor's initiative for transportation relating to new funding. He
remarked that there is a feeling among those who support this initiative, including delegates and senators
in the southwestern part of the state, that this deserves funding and can provide a beneficial service which
may keep some automobiles off the road, particularly 1-81. Mr. Cilimberg noted that this service is being
called the Trans-Dominion Express, and energetic, committed individuals are being sought to serve on a
steering committee. Since the Supervisors passed a resolution supporting this initiative, he thought
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
perhaps some of them may want to serve, although he would also be happy to be a part of the committee.
There may be other people in the area who are also interested in serving.
He went on to say an analysis has been made based on a certain number of stops that were
occurring, and train service has been re-introduced to Roanoke and the southwestern part of the state.
He added that the hub would be Lynchburg, which is a big proponent of this service, because trains come
and go from Lynchburg from both Richmond and Washington. The service anticipates the use of tilt
technology, but there are some infrastructure and improvements to the existing railroad lines that will have
to first take place.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that support for funding of this service will also be included in the County's
legislative package, since it was just learned that it was not included in the Governor's transportation
initiative. Perhaps a resolution of support could be sent to the Governor as well as the legislators. If any
of the Board members are interested, he will send in the nomination.
Mr. Bowerman asked where most of the meetings will be held. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the
next meeting will be held in Roanoke. The Mayor of Roanoke is also on a national committee that deals
with rail service, and he will be hosting this meeting in early January right before the General Assembly
convenes. Mr. Tucker stated that it would not surprise him if all of the meetings are held in the corridor
between here and Bristol.
Ms. Thomas inquired if any of this service will be coming to Charlottesville. Mr. Cilimberg replied
that the Washington service will come through Charlottesville. He has read how difficult it is to get a ticket
on AmTrak between Charlottesville and Washington, so this area would definitely benefit from the
additional rail service.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the trains coming through this area now have a schedule that fits lots
of people's workday if they are going to Washington and come back the same day. The additional rail
service has never been intended for commuter schedule.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that there has been discussion about running the train a couple of times a
day, and he thinks the schedule is to be determined to some extent. It has been noted that a number of
colleges are along the routes, and this service will provide another transportation alternative for students.
Ms. Thomas noted that this would be a great help to parents.
Mr. Tucker asked the Board members to think about the matter and let him know if they are
interested in serving on the steering committee. Otherwise, he would like to nominate Mr. Cilimberg.
Mr. Perkins mentioned a letter the Board received from Phil Bradley about a monument being
given to the County. He suggested that the County should reply to the letter saying the monument Will be
graciously accePted. Mr. Tucker said the staff will prepare a letter for the Chairman's signature.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the ceremony held at Mint Springs for the dedication of the monument
was excellent.
Ms. Thomas inquired as to whether or not there has been any improvement with the lights at
North Fork. 'Mr. Martin commented that he has not heard anything from anyone about thOse partiCular
lights. Mr. Tucker stated that he would get someone from the Zoning Department to check on this matter.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she was talking to the Town Manager of Scottsville, who was saying
he was interested in some decorative lighting for Scottsville. She told him to call UREF to see what type
of lighting was finally chosen by its representatives. She thought perhaps he may be able to get a lower
price with UREF's help.
Ms. Thomas next discussed the special use permit problems related to churches. This is being
considered by staff, and the question relates to whether small churches could be exempted or treated any
differently. She stated that Mr. Davis has indicated there could be real problems in differentiating between
big churches and small churches. She supports letting all churches know that they will need special use
permits when they are involved in certain projects, because she thinks it is the surprise aspect that
becomes such a problem. She asked if there has been any further work on this matter.
Mr. Tucker remarked that Mr. Davis has pointed out some problems, but no answers have been
found in terms of helping the smaller churChes so they will not find themselves in this dilemma. He said
legally it creates a problem to distinguish between the churches.
Ms. Thomas suggested that a way be found to inform applicants with small projects about special
use permits. She said small churches sometimes hire small contractors Who don't realize that a project for
a church is going to be different than a project for a house. Sometimes they don't get a special use permit
when they are supposed to do so, and then they run into difficulties.
Approved by Bo
Date [, ~. ?._oo~
Initials ~
October 13, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Martin said perhaps information could be sent to small churches with information about the
necessity of special use permits. He stated, though, that when people get this tyPe of information, they
will probably toss it in the trash, unless they are getting ready to build.
Mr. Tucker stated that it depends on who gets the information. He pointed Out that churches
change deacons and ministers, etc.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the problem is not just limited to churches. All small nonconforming
uses requiring a special use permit have this problem. There are other instances where small entities
want to expand, and then they are advised to get a special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if someone on staff could make such decisions on a case by basis. Mr.
Davis said it is a legislative decision.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that this may nOt be a problem much longer because the federal government
is going to supersede as far as churches are concerned. Mr. Davis announced that there is legislation in
Congress which may make it very difficult to have any regulation relating to religious organizations.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if churches are currently exempt from property taxes. Mr. Davis
answered that any property being used for church purposes, to a large extent, is exempt from property
taxes.
Ms. Humphris referred to the announcement of the Site Review Committee meeting for October
21, 1999. She mentioned a site development plan for Shadwell Antiquaries where there is a request for
approval to amend a site plan allowing a change from the approved repair shop to a restaurant. The
location is shown at the intersection of Route 20 West and Route 22 North at Shadwell, and it is noted as
being in a rural area. She did not think restaurants could be put in rural areas.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he will have to check into this matter. He pointed out also that there is
no Route 20 West in Albemarle County.
Ms. Humphris then mentioned the Board's vote on the appeal of the Architectural Review Board a
couple of weeks ago. She was driving down Pantops this past week, and she noticed the beautiful
landscaping at Brady Bushey Ford, which was done with tall trees and 24 inch shrubs. She stated that
what she found most interesting is that all of the vehicles are parked with their backs to the road. She said
evidently no importance is being put on being able to see the grill of a car, which was one of the big points
made during the Board's recent discussion of Colonial's request.
Mr. Martin asked if other Board members received the information from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The information indicated there was a problem, and to solve it, the Board members need to talk about it.
Ms. Thomas stated that this information referred to how the Census Bureau may list certain
populations. There is one school in her district that is more apt to have migrant and Hispanic populations
involved with it, and she was wondering if there was anything school representatives could say to people
to assure them that being counted will not have any adverse effects. She thinks one of the reasons
certain groups get under counted is that they are afraid of what happens if they get counted. She does
not know if this information went to School Board members, but she thought school officials might be most
aware of the populations that are likely to be undercounted, and they could try to communicate this
information.
Mr. Martin suggested that this information be sent to the school system. Although, it seems there
were no solutions shown. Ms. Thomas agreed that the Census Bureau did not have any solutions. Mr.
Martin said he brought up the matter because it seems to be a real issue, and whatever County officials
can do to communicate information about the problem would be helpful. ·
Ms. Humphris stated that sometime in January after all of the Y2K problems are over, perhaps
there could be a public relations focus for such matters in neighborhoods.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 8:25 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
;~Chairman