1998-03-18March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 18, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
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. Marshall.
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.
Ms. Patricia Slahoda asked the Board to reconsider its consideration of
closing the Ivy Landfill. She said that CDD and composting should not
continue, as they are environmental concerns. She played a portion of a tape
recording of noise at the Ivy Landfill from 1,000 feet away. Mr. Marshall
suggested Ms. Slahoda contact Mr. David Weber, at the Health Department, about
her health hazard concerns.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, 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: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 5.1 Appropriation: Emergency Communications Center, $16,000
(Form #97050) .
At its September 16, 1997 meeting, the Emergency Communications Center
(ECC) Management Board approved the transfer and expenditure of $16,000 from
the ECC fund balance account to the ECC operating budget.
This transfer of funds will be used toward the purchase of mandated
replacement equipment for the three Police Departments' VCIN system. All new
equipment will be purchased from state contract through the City of Char-
lottesville.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation, in
the amount of $16,000, as detailed on Form #97050.
The Board approved the following resolution of appropriation by the
above shown vote:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 97/98
NI3MBER: 97050
FI/ND: ECC
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT FOR
POLICE VCIN SYSTEM.
March 18, 1998 (Regular Nigh~Meeting)~"~:~ ..... ?~<
(Page 2)
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1410031041312710
DESCRIPTION
COMPUTER SUPPORT
TOTAL
000096
AMOUNT
$ 16.000.00
$ 16,000,00
REVENUE
2410051000510100
DESCRIPTION
FUI~D BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$ 16,000.00
$ 16,000.00
Item No. 5.2. Authorize County Executive to submit Community Develop-
ment Block Grant (CDBG) application for the Porter's-Yancey Comprehensive
Community Improvement Project.
Pursuant to a public hearing on the CDBG program held on
February 4, 1998, the Board voted to submit an application for funding for a
housing rehabilitation and new construction project, community center improve-
ments, acquisition and park construction, and removal of dangerous neighbor-
hood buildings. A second public hearing was held March 11, 1998 allowing
comment on the proposed project and past use of CDBG funds. After the second
public hearing, the Board must indicate approval of the proposed project and
pass a resolution authorizing the County Executive to submit an application to
the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development.
The County is seeking $1,025,000 in CDBG funds which will: 1) assist
with the rehabilitation of twenty-nine single family homes, 2) help pay
acquisition and site development costs for a parcel on which five new homes
for first-time buyers will be constructed, 3) help pay for additional improve-
ments to the W. D. Ward Community Center in which Albemarle County has
recently located a police satellite office, 4) offset the costs of removing
numerous abandoned, dangerous buildings in the neighborhood, and 5) augment
$125,000 County funds already set aside for the construction of a park in the
Porter's Road/Yancey School neighborhood. Total project cost is estimated to
be approximately $1.97 million dollars.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Community
Improvement Project and adoption of the resolution authorizing the County
Executive to submit the application to the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development.
CDBG Program Costs are as follow:
$1,025,000
$ 428,000
$ 125,000
$ 10,000
$ 250,000
$ 70,0o0
150,000
140,000
CDBG
AHIP/Albemarle County Contribution
Parks & Rec/CIP
Indoor plumbing
5 new construction homes
HOME Consortium
The Board adopted the following resolution, by the above shown vote:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that decent, safe,
sanitary, and affordable housing is available for all its residents; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to building strong neighborhoods
which provide recreational and community facilities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring the public safety of
all of its residents; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held February 4, 1998, and March 11, 1998
the County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $1,025,000 in Community
Development Block Grant funds for a Comprehensive Community Improvement
Project for the Porter's Road/Yancey School neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, $125,000 from Albemarle County's Department of Parks and Recreation,
$428,000 in operating support for the Albemarle Housing Improvement
program provided by Albemarle County, funds from the Virginia Indoor
Plumbing Program, HOME funding available from the Thomas Jefferson
Regional HOME Consortium, family savings and borrowed funds, and
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night ~g)
(Page 3)
numerous hours of community volunteer hours and private contributions
will be invested in this project; and
WHEREAS, a recent survey of the target neighborhood has determined that some
75 percent of the residents of the community have incomes below 80
percent of the Area Median Income; and
WHEREAS, it is projected that this project will result in the following
achievements:
Rehabilitation of twenty-nine single-family homes, which will
benefit approximately seventy three low- and moderate-income
residents;
The acquisition and site development on which five new homes will
be constructed for first-time buyers, which will benefit approxi-
mately fifteen low- and moderate-income residents;
· Improvements to the W. D. Ward Community Center;
· Development of a new park; and
The removal of dangerous abandoned buildings in the neighborhood,
all of which will benefit the neighborhood as a whole.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive,
is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for
submittal of this Virginia Community Development Block Grant applica-
tion.
Item No. 5.3. Proclamation proclaiming March 18 through
March 22, 1998 as the Fourth Annual Virginia Festival of the Book.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following proclama-
tion:
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS, our love of literature and writing has led our community to rank
first in the nation in book reading households; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Festival of the Book has celebrated the extraordinary
writers who grace Albemarle County, and the children and adults who read
books; and
WHEREAS, over two hundred writers will participate in more than one hundred
and fifty (150) programs; and
WHEREAS, numerous local businesses and individuals, civic groups and cultural
organizations, have contributed time and resources to make this event
possible;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1998 THROUGH SUNDAY, M_ARCH 22, 1998 as
the Fourth Annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the
wide variety of available events and activities.
Item No. 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission minutes of
February 10, February 17 and March 3, 1998, were received for information.
Item No. 5.5. Letter dated March 4, 1998, from Mr. Jay Roberts,
Environmental Engineer Senior, re: Public Notice of Draft VWPP Permit,
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, North Fork Research Park (JPA
97-1961), was received for information.
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night ~~i 00009
(Page 4)
(The Board discussed Agenda Items No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 together. )
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-97-60. Central Virginia Electric Cooperative
(CVEC) (Sign #13). Public hearing on a request to construct communications
facility on 0.194 acs. Loc on W side of Rt 680 (Browns Gap Tnpike), approx
0.77 mls N of Beaver Creek Reservoir. Znd RA. TM57, P2B. White Hall Dist.
(This property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on March 2 and March 9, 1998.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-97-61. Central Virginia Electric (Sign #14).
Public hearing on a request to construct communications ~acility on .53 acs.
Loc on W side-of Rt 602 (Howardsville Tnpike), approx 0.8 mls S of Rt 800
(Schuyler Tnpike). Znd RA. TM132, P5A. Scottsville Dist. (This property is
not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on March 2 and 9, 1998.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-62. Midway Substation. (Signs #15 & 16).
Public hearing on a request to install communications tower inside fenced area
at existing electrical substation. Loc on W side of Rt 635 (Millers School Rd)
at inter of Rts 635 and 688 (Midway Rd). Znd RA. TM72, P6. White Hall Dist.
(This property is not located in a designated growth area. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on March 2 and 9, 1998.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-97-63. Cash's Corner Substation. (Signs #23 and
24). Public hearing on a request to install communications tower inside
fenced area at existing electrical substation. Loc approx 1/3 ml W of Rt 231
(Gordonsville Rd) and approx ~ ml N of inter of Rt 231 and 615 (Lindsay Rd).
Znd RA. TM, P45C. Rivanna Dist. (This property is not located in a desig-
nated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2 and
9, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg said CVEC has applied for four Special Use Permits to
allow the construction of towers at various CVEC substations in the County.
These substations are described as Whitehall, Schuyler, Cash's Corner and
Midway. Staff has reviewed each application individually.
The four requests are to accommodate installation of a Supervisory
Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that will become a part of its
daily operation of the electrical distribution system, monitoring and control-
ling substation equipment remotely on a real time basis. SCADA systems
control switches that are necessary for the safety of line crews working on
overhead power lines, and facilitate restoration of power during outages. The
proposed towers would be located inside the fenced area of existing substa-
tions. The tower height is determined by the line of sight requirement
between various substations. Whitehall, Schuyler, and Midway substations will
communicate with an existing CVEC tower at the wintergreen substation. The
Cash's Corner substation will communicate with an existing CVEC tower in
Palmyra.
It is intended that this new communication system will improve the
delivery of electricity in the County. The applicant has submitted informa-
tion addressing the general operational characteristics of the system. Staff
previously provided the Board a photograph of the type of antenna proposed to
be located on each of the towers. These four towers are intended to function
as a network. The proposed towers do not provide service to anyone other than
CVEC. Three of the proposed towers are wooden poles and one is a steel
lattice structure. It is unlikely that the three wooden towers will be
available for collocation due to the height of the towers and the load bearing
capacity of the towers. The steel lattice tower maybe able to provide
collocation opportunities in the future. At this time none of the licensed
personal wireless service providers has expressed any interest in use of the
tower.
Staff has investigated with the applicant alternatives which wOuld
alleviate the need for the construction of these new towers. One alternative
would be the use of existing phone lines to achieve the same service. The
applicant has commented on the use of land phone lines. The use of land phone
lines is not desired by the applicant due to the cost and the lower reliabil-
ity of phone lines compared to the wireless system proposed. The use of the
existing personal wireless service providers is not desired by the applicant,
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night M~n~)
(page 5)
due to the fact that it would not achieve the same level of service proposed
by the CVEC wireless system.
0000:99
Staff also requested that the applicant comment on the use of the
existing power transmission towers for the wireless system. The applicant has
submitted information addressing this issue, saying the use of existing
structures at Cash's Corner and White Hall is an option. However, co-location
requires a temporary outage during placement of the communication equipment
and in the cost of use of the towers at Whitehall is anticipated to be one-
third of the total communication project budget for CVEC. At Midway and
Schuyler substations the existing poles are not tall enough to provide the
necessary communication. The Board will need to determine if cost and a
temporary power outage creates a sufficient obstacle to co-location which
warrants approval of a free standing facility.
Staff has reviewed the provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act for
provisions applicable to the review of the CVEC applications. Mr. Cilimberg
said the 1996 Telecommunications Act places limitations on the review of
personal wireless service providers. CVEC is not a licensed personal wireless
service provider. Therefore, the County is not limited by the 1996 Telecommu-
nications Act in its review of the CVEC applications.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission recommended approval of all four
towers, and have recommended similar conditions for all the towers. There was
some discussion regarding the Midway substation, and it was recommended by the
Commission in a different manner than applied for by the'applicant.
Mr. Marshall then asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Bruce Marhoff, Planning Engineer for CVEC, said the goal is to
establish communications with equipment in all substations, so that they can
be monitored and controlled from a'central office in Lovingston. This
increased service reliability, reduces costs, and results in faster response
when there is a problem. All four sites require the same structure, a wooden
pole, 75 feet in height, and an antenna two feet long and seven inches high.
The communications method will be a 900 MGz multiple address radio system,
where it is necessary to have line-of-sight communications to each tower.
He addressed the screening condition. The Commission said screening has
to be on all sides of each substation; he felt that screening already exists
at some stations. An additional concern was the requirement for a sediment
control plan, which was the result of a discussion with Midway's adjacent
landowner, who complained about runoff water. They met with the landowner and
appeased her with their plans to install gravel. Mr. Marhoff was unaware of
any complaints at the Cash's Corner station.
Ms. Thomas asked about a landscaping plan at the Midway site. She asked
if it would be close to the fence or road. Mr. Marhoff said the plan dis-
cussed with Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner, is to install two.staggered rows of
white pines along the road, along with sawtooth oak trees and bayberry bushes
around the fence on the inner side of the substation. Ms. Thomas said this
was adequate. Mr. Marhoff felt they did not need to do it on the back side of
the property since there is 150 feet of existing timber between the site and
the next property owner. Ms. Thomas asked if existing planting would be taken
into account, and Mr. Cilimberg said it could be, but it may not eliminate the
need for doing something on that side.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg about the approval of the sediment and
erosion control plan, suggesting that granting a waiver of such a condition is
up to the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the application would have to be
sent back to the Commission if the waiver is to be granted. Mr. Marhoff said
the waiver was given to all four sites but only two required a sediment
control plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff could take the applicant's concern
back to the Commission.
Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearings.
As no one was present to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
SP-97-60 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000 00
The height of the tower shall not exceed seventy-five (75) feet.
Lightning suppression equipment not exceeding three (3) inches in
diameter may extend up to an additional twelve (12) feet above the
top of the tower;
3 o
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as fol-
lows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
b. The tower shall have no lighting; and
c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood
color.
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:~
a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan
entitled "White Hall Substation" and initialed "WDF
1/15/98";
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to two Yagi antenna not to exceed
two (2) feet in length or seven (7) inches in diameter. The
antenna type shall be as shown on an untitled plan for a
SCADA 900 Mhz Substation Structure which is initialed "WDF
1/15/98"; 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 wireless telecommunications pro-
viders to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the
site, subject to these conditions:
1. Prior to approval of a building permit, 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 to locate on the tower or the site; and
2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon re-
quest, 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.
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 de-
signed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps,
and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
7o
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, 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 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 communications
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 and purposes for whiCh the tower is being
used; and
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
11.
000:1.0 .
Removal of existing vegetation shall be allowed only after staff
approval of a landscape plan according to Section 32.7.9.8 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
SP-97-61 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
The height of the tower shall not exceed seventy-five (75) feet.
Lightning suppression equipment not exceeding three (3) inches in
diameter may extend up to an additional twelve (12) feet above the
top of the tower;
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as fol-
lows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
b. The tower shall have no lighting; and
c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood
color.
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan
entitled "Schuyler Substation" and initialed "WDF 1/15/98";
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to a single Yagi antenna not to
exceed two (2) feet in length or seven (7) inches in diame-
ter. The antenna type shall be as shown on an untitled plan
for a SCADA 900 Mhz Substation Structure which is initialed
"WDF 1/15/98"; and
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
5o
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 wireless telecommunications pro-
viders to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the
site, subject to these conditions:
1. Prior to approval of a building permit, 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 to locate on the tower or the site; and
2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon re-
quest, 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.
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 de-
signed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps,
and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, 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,
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8) ..... ~
the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred
(200) feet of the tower;
000:1.02
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 communications
purposes is discontinued; and
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 and purposes for which the.tower is being
used.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve
SP-97-62 subject to the following conditions recommended.by the Planning
Commission:
The height of the tower shall not exceed seventy-five (75) feet.
Lightning suppression equipment not exceeding three (3) inches in
diameter may extend up to an additional twelve (12) feet above the
top of the tower;
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as fol-
lows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
b. The tower shall have no lighting; and
c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood
color.
Staff approval of a landscape plan according to Section 32.7.9.8
of the Zoning Ordinance to provide buffering or screening on all
sides of the site with the tree type to be of the maximum height
feasible;
The tower shall be located on the site generally as shown on the
attached plan entitled ~Midway Substation" and initialed "SET
12/15/97";
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to a single Yagi antenna not to
exceed two (2) feet in length or seven (7) inches in diame-
ter. The antenna type shall be as shown on an untitled plan
for a SCADA 900 Mhz Substation Structure which is initialed
"SET 12/15/97"; 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 wireless telecommunications pro-
viders to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the
site, subject to these conditions:
1. Prior to approval of a building permit, 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 to locate on the tower or the site; and
2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon re-
quest, 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
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 00010~
(page 9)
owned or controlled by another provider within
Albemarle County.
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 de-
signed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps,
and to connect the lamps to the power supply}
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, 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 permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
10.
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications
purposes is discontinued;
11.
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator
once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report
shall identify each user and purposes for which the tower is being
used; and
Roll was called and the motion pasSed by the follOwing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve
SP-97-63 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
The height of the tower shall not exceed seventy-five (75) feet.
Lightning suppression equipment not exceeding three (3) inches in
diameter may extend up to an additional twelve (12) feet above the
top of the tower;
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as fol-
lows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
b. The tower shall have no lighting; and
c. .The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood
color.
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan
entitled "Cash's corner Substation" and initialed "SET
~2/15/97,,;
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to a single Yagi antenna not to
exceed two (2) feet in length or seven. (7) inches in diame-
ter. The antenna type shall be as shown on an untitled plan
for a SCADA 900 Mhz Substation Structure which is initialed
"SET 12/15/97"; 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 wireless telecommunications pro-
viders to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the
site, subject to these conditions:
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000104
Prior to approval of a building permit, 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 to locate on the tower or the site; and
The permittee shall provide to the County, upon re-
quest, 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.
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 de-
signed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps,
and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, 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;
8 o
The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.i2 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
9°
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications
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, identifying
the users and purposes for which the tower is being used; and
11.
Staff approval of a landscape plan according to Section 32.7.9.8
of the Zoning Ordinance to provide a buffer on all sides (except
the side shared with the VEPCO substation). No screening shall be
required which will interfere with the access to the property.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-97-65. Greenwood Farm Bridge (Sign $27) .
Public hearing on a request to allow fill in of the flood plain [Sec
30.3.5.2.1 (2)] to construct road and bridge over Yellow Mountain Creek. Road
and bridge will serve timbering and recreational activities of property owner
& provide access to future home on property. Loc on S side of Rt 250, approx
2400' from inter w/Rt 690 and approx 3000' from inter w/Rt 689. Znd RA.
TM71, P2. Samuel Miller Dist. (This property is not located in a designated
growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2 and 9, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant requests permission to fill in the
flood plain in association with the bridge crossing of Yellow Mountain Creek.
The property is located about one mile south of the IntersectiOn of Route 250
and 1-64. It is about 275 acres, with 90 acres located south of Yellow
Mountain Creek. The proposed span bridge would be made of prefabricated
laminated wood, with concrete abutments designed to the 100-Year Storm
guidelines, and would be 14 feet wide. The bridge would provide permanent
access to the 90 acres on the south side of the creek. The area is identified
in the Open Space Plan as significant as a mountain resource, for forests and
farms and stream valleys. The impact of crossing the stream should not be
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
oooa. os
major because of wideness of the flood plain allows a gradual approach to the
bridge, and the construction of the bridge itself is for water to flow around
it, rather than pushing through it.
Staff raised concerns, one of which addressed the recommended condition
that no more than two residential dwellings be located on the southside of the
stream, and that both dwellings be built at an elevation of less than 900
feet, in keeping with the Open Space Plan. The Engineering Department
provided various conditions recommended for environmental protection. Staff
also is concerned that allowing more than two dwellings on the southside of
the stream would cause the need for an upgraded road, which would necessitate
major fill in the flood plain. Staff is also concerned that construction of a
home or homes not take place on the ridge top, since that would.necessitate
construction of a driveway on sleep slopes.
The Planning Commission discussed the matter extensively. The applicant
and the Commission agreed to the nine recommended conditions, which would
address staff concerns, while meeting the needs of the applicant. He noted
that Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, suggested a change be made
to condition number five, which would better reflect the current Water
Ordinance adopted by the Board after this matter was considered by the
Commission. It does not change the content; rather it more correctly ad-
dresses the language in the Ordinance. Therefore, condition number five would
read, ~Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan outlining measures
to mitigate encroachments into the stream buffer." The Water Quality Impact
Assessment is now called the ~Mitigation Plan" in the Ordinance. The ~water
resources protection area" is now a "stream buffer".
Mr. Cilimberg said questions were raised today regarding the potential
for additional analysis of the impact to threatened or endanger species.
Mr. Hirschman reviewed the matter and suggested a recommended condition,
should the Board wish to include the condition. He added that the applicant
has minor modifications to a couple of conditions too. Mr. Marshall then
asked the applicant for comments.
Ms. Nancy Brody, the applicant, discussed her recommended changes to
conditions, saying they were meant to clarify, but not alter the Commission's
conditions. She distributed copies of her recommended changes to the Board.
Regarding condition number one, she did not want to be precluded from
putting up accessory structures, such as a barn or garage. The County
Attorney said this was not a problem, but she asked that the language be
changed to reflect that opinion.
Regarding condition number nine, Ms. Brody said when she filed the
application she was told she had to present preliminary plans. She wanted to
make sure she could change the plans if they are approved by the Engineering
Department.
Regardin9 condition number ten, pertaining to the bridge, she wants the
language to state that she can replace the bridge if it is destroyed, as long
as it meets staff guidelines.
Mr. Marshall asked the County Attorney's opinion of the applicant's
proPosed language for the conditiOns.
Mr. Davis said attached buildings require a special use permit (SUP);
other buildings do not. An SUP does not preclude building a barn or garage.
He has no problem with the language, if the Board does not mind agricultural
buildings on the south side of the stream. Ms2 HUmphris said accessory
structures could not be converted to dwelling units laterl ' Mr, Davis had no
problem with condition number one as suggested by the applicant, since it is
consistent with what is recommended by the Commission. However, he added that
the Engineering Department does have to review any plans.
Regarding condition number ten, Mr. Davis said the Zoning Ordinance
states that, if there is an act of God, the applicant has a right to replace a
structure within two years. This would be a non-conforming structure. The
condition, as suggested, is consistent with what was recommended by the
Commission. Mr. Martin asked if the condition should state that the bridge
would have to be replaced within two years. Mr. Davis said he did not think
that would be necessary. He added that the applicant would have to replace
the bridge if there were houses there.
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12) ........ . ~.i.~.~
O00 .OG
Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak,
he closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas wondered if the Commission felt a biological survey needed to
be conducted. She said it would not be expensive, and it is something that is
asked of other projects that may disturb waterways or the Reservoir.
Ms. Humphris said the James River Spiney Mussel, an endangered species,
lives in Stockton Creek. She felt that the requirement should not be made of
some projects and not others. It was her understanding that when the joint
permit application was made, unless someone in the locality brings to light
the possible existence of an endangered species, only a routine check is made.
When the endangered species was found at Millington Bridge, the mitigation was
that the species had to be gathered and relocated to another habitat closeby.
She believes that a condition of approval, when dealing with stream crossings,
should be to deal with mitigation of encroachments on endangered species'
habitats. She does not feel it would be a hardship to applicants.
Mr. Bowerman said the CommissiOn had discussed the possibility of having a
survey done, but then dropped the matter. He added that Mr. Cilimberg had
said such a survey would be relatively inexpensive. But, Mr. Bowerman then
expressed concern over what the County would have to do if the mussel was
found in this area. Mr. Hirschman said he had discussed the James River
Spiney Mussel with Ms. Brody today. It is only going to be found in riffles
and runs, and it is highly likely the builder could avoid the habitat area
during construction.
Mr. Marshall asked about potential construction damage to the creek.
Mr. Hirschman said the banks are eroding and will eventually damage the
habitat. The bridge would preserve the habitat instead of destroying it. He
added that Mr. David Tice, of the Commission, indicated the mitigation plan
provides the opportunity to add vegetation to the stream site.
Mr. Hirschman said if the Board wanted to pursue the matter, it can make
getting a stream-crossing permit a condition. The Army Corps of Enginneers
has placed information on endangered species into a data base and can raise
red flags if necessary. If other agencies are involved, this may have already
been done, although he had not been able to find any information when he
researched the matter earlier that day. He then provided the following draft
condition: "In coordination with the appropriate state and federal agencies
and the Engineering Department, the applicant shall verify that the proposed
stream crossing will not adversely impact or threaten an endangered species.
This verification shall be part of the mitigation plan required in condition
five." That way, if something has already been done by another agency, such
as the Game Department, the condition could piggy-back any others already in
place, by coordinating with the other agencies.
Ms. Brody said although she does not object to having it done, she also
does not want to spend several hundred of dollars on having a survey done.
She wants to minimize the negative impact on environment, but is concerned
that the wording of the language prohibits the bridge if there is even very
minor damage to environment. She felt that Mr. Tice's language gives more
leeway, saying the applicant can do what is necessary to protect the area, and
she would prefer that language. She wants to address the spiney mussel, not
endangered species in general. Mr. Hirschman, as Water Resources Manager,
could always intercede if some other endangered species was found. She
believes Mr. Hirschman said the difference between this type of development
and others is the nature of the encroachment. This is going to be a span
bridge, short and narrow; it is not like the Route 250 bridge which is six
miles long. This crossing is subject to an sUp because it is in the flood
plain, yet other crossings not in a flood plain can create damage too.
Farming over the years has eroded the stream. She could not understand why
the Board would impose a condition like this, when Mr. Hirschman already has
the authority to impose mitigation measures by the Water Conservation Act. If
such a condition is required, she requested the language be limited to the
mussel, and that language be such that the bridge can be constructed as long
as the applicant takes measures to protect the mussel as much as possible.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Hirschman might not know about any other species
unless they are included in an environmental survey. If additional species
are found, the Army Corps of Engineers will require other mitigation pro-
cesses. The SUP would not have to address the issue.
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13 ) ~ ............. ~...~
000107
Mr. Martin said that, if the applicant is making improvements to the
habitat, the application should be granted. Mr. Davis said federal agencies
do not work that way. Mr. Martin then said the Board should let the federal
government make its own requirements.
Mr. Perkins asked if the applicant had a permit. Ms. Brody responded
that she had a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. She added that
encroachments into the stream would be minimal, since ba~ks are high above
water level, having been eroded by farming.
Ms. Brody said the Board might be opening a Pandora's Box with state and
federal agencies. She suggested letting Mr. Hirschman determine the mitiga-
tion techniques needed. She was hot aware that this requirement has been made
of other applicants in similar situation.
Ms. Humphris said the County has never dealt with a federally-designated
endangered species before, because it was not known that one was present until
the spiney mussels were found nearby. When permitting is done through the
joint permit application process, unless someone in the locality brings it to
their attention, no one will look for endangered species. Mitigation means
gathering the mussels and moving them to another habitat nearby. No one would
forbid construction. She feels that since the County is aware the species is
present, the Board is obligated to see that from now forward there be a
condition of approval for stream crossings to deal with endangered species.
This would not be a hardship to applicants.
Mr. Hirschman noted that any movement of endangered species would be up
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
Ms. Thomas said she trusts local officials more than federal agencies.
The Board cannot ask the Water Resources Manager to require mitigation for
endangered species if he does not know they are present. Mr. Hirschman said
he does not know them when he sees them. He would need to work with state and
federal agencies. Ms. Brody said Mr. John Koffman, from Game and Inland
Fisheries, said he could come to see if the mussels are present. She sug-
gested that the condition relating to the mitigation be changed to say that
Mr. Hirschman could require consultants from other agencies as appropriate,
and could then order a biological survey if needed.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would have to rely on Mr. Hirschman's recommenda-
tion. Mr. Martin suggested staff draft appropriate language for a condition
and place it on the consent agenda for the Board's next meeting.
Ms. Thomas moved that staff review the language of the conditions for
SP-97-65 and place it on the April 1, 1998 consent agenda, accepting the
language as suggested by the applicant for conditions one and nine, the
addition of condition ten, and restating condition number five. Ms. Humphris
seconded the motion. Mr. Davis clarified that if an environmental survey is
required, the Board feels it should be under County supervisiOn.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphri~, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-97-02. Jamie Lewis. Public hearing on a
request to amend Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Supplementary Regulations
Sec 5.1.25 Farm Winery and Section 5.1.19 Wayside Stand to allow farm winery
festivals and larger sales/ tasting floor area by right~ to delete commercial
entrance requirement for farm wineries & to delete other requirements.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2 and 9, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the ZTA affects Supplementary Regulations for Farm
Winery, Section 5.1.25. The Planning Commission took action on
February 17, 1998, amending staff's recommended language as follows: in b:
inserted "and protection of adjoining property"; in c: allowed four festivals
per year in addition to rather than included in the 12 events per year
recommended by staff; asked for a written notice rather than a zoning clear-
ance for each event; changed the wording, but not the intent of the food
preparation wording and inserted "outside" before amplified music. The
Commission also chose not to take action on the Wayside Stand regulations.
000:1.08
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
He advised the Board that Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administra-
tion, wrote a memo to Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, dated February 20,
1998 regarding: 1) concerns of the applicant and the Planning Commission
regarding zoning clearances for farm wineries, and 2) Zoning's concern
regarding food preparation in the form of a commercial kitchen on'site. The
County Attorney's office had additional concerns about the proposed language
of the ZTA, as outlined in the staff report and amended by the Planning
Commission, and submitted a revised version.
Changes made by the County Attorney's office are as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Section 5.1.25 is reorganized,
New subsections a and b replace previous subsections a and d, with
same intent,
Special event and festival are now defined,
The food preparation language in subsection e.2. has been revised
with similar intent,
New subsection e.5. has been added, and
Subsection e.1. specifies that the notice be sent to additional
agencies. A single zoning clearance is permitted under certain
conditions.
Staff noted that the County Attorney's proposed wording regarding zoning
clearances differs slightly from both the Commission's recommendation and
Zoning's recommendation. Otherwise, the County Attorney's proposed language
is cleaner and reflects the Commission's intent.
Mr. Marshall wondered how the Board could vote on this issue, in light
of the legislation passed by the State. He suggested the item be deferred
until the new legislation has been signed. Mr. Bowerman asked what would
happen if the Board did not change supplemental regulations and the law is
passed. Mr. Davis said the changes to State Code requirments only relate to
building permits and the BOCA Code standards. They do not in any way infringe
upon the County's zoning powers, and the Board has the ability to control
agricultural uses within rural areas. The buildings would not be able to be
used for special events, and the sales area would be limited to 600 square
feet under the current zoning requirements. Other events could be allowed
under an SUP.
Ms. Thomas said she has not had a chance to read the information given
to the Board today, but it appears to simply be a compilation of what the
Board had already received.
Mr. Tucker said the issue tied to item number five, Supplementary
Regulations, deals with the County Attorney's suggestion'that these activities
can occur either outdoors or in a building that has been approved by the
Building Official. Mr. Davis said this item was drafted under current law,
which requires those uses. to be subject to the Building Code. These are
places open to general assembly, and a Building Official must determine the
building is safe. This would also have application if the General Assembly
does not take action to include buildings constructed prior to the Building
Code. Staff could then inspect existing farm structures to determine whether
they were safe for these events. After July 1 State law provides that the
County cannot require building materials or construction standards greater
than the Building Code. Since the Building Code would no longer be applica-
ble, the County could not require building standards in the Zoning Ordinance
at all. He believed it could be argued that condition five would not stand
up, since it conflicts with the State Code's prohibition of regulating
building standards.
Ms. Humphris said the County Attorney should examine the materials and
make it clear what can be done now and after July 1. The CoUnty must protect
the safety and welfare of its citizens. Mr. Davis said if the authority is
taken away from the County, there will be no way to guarantee the safety of
attendees at events in farm buildings. Mr. Tucker said this could potentially
happen state-wide after July 1 if the uses are allowed.
Ms. Humphris said the State Code provides that during this next year,
the Department of Housing and Community Develoment is supposed to study this
use in marketing and sale of agricultural goods and services. The Department
then determines feasibility and appropriateness of establishing certain
requirements under the Uniform Statewide Building Code for farm buildings
constructed and used in the marketing and sales activities to protect the
March 18, 1998 (Reqular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
000 .09
public health and safety. Mr. Marshall said this places the burden on the
Board without the power to back up the law. Ms. Humphris said, within the
Comprehensive Plan, the Board is trying to support agricultural uses in the
County, but the State is getting in the way.
Ms. Thomas said the Board should hold the public hearing, even if it
decides to defer its decision. Mr. Bowerman said nothing has changed since
the staff report was written and the recommendations were made by the Commis-
sion. There has been no substantive change to prevent the Board from handling
the matter tonight, if it understands the ramifications of its decisions in
light of State regulations.
Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jamie Lewis, owner of Totier Creek Vineyards, addressed the Board.
In 1973 the General Assembly exempted farm buildings and structures from the
Uniform Statewide Building Code. Since then, the Virginia's Finest Program
was created, and is a sparkling banner to Virginia. The Program contains many
different groups of farm operations, not just wineries. Farm operations sell
directly to the consumer. In some instances people come to taste the product.
In the case of farm buldings and structures erected in the past 25 years,
there has not been any incident of anyone being injured in these buildings.
Over the last 17 or 18 years since wineries came to the County, there have
been no incidents.
There is interest in the General Assembly for farm operations to conduct
business operations while recognizing safety as an issue. When Delegate Guest
created the bill, there was another piece of legislation proposed by Delegate
Woodrum.'~ That bill was introduced by the Virginia Building Code Officials
Association (VBCOA) to reverse and strip away everything the General Assembly
did in 1973 and subsequent years. The bill was rejected at the committee
level. Then the VBCOA, along with the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Housing, supported HB935. In committee, it was established that
one thing that needed to be done was that business owners must ensure that
public safety is not jeopardized, and so far nothing bad has happened.
Mr. Lewis said he wanted to be certain that an adequate opportunity
would be given to recommend to the General Assembly and the Governor regula-
tions that might affect buildings located on farms, not as commercial struc-
tures, not as quasi-commercial businesses, but as a farm classification. This
is the opportunity to create regulations. In the meantime, the General~
Assembly has recognized legiSlation can come from other places trying to
dilute what was passed before, so the sunset clause was put there in order
that the Department of Housing, the VBCOA, and the Winery Association could be
part of forming this developing classification of farm operations. Farming
operations need to have the public coming into buildings, and the vast
majority do have activities like this. It is incumbent upon wineries to
establish, through the Building Code, a means to recognize this is a farming
operation. Good products should not be subject to BOCA Code regulations that
are unnecessary.
Mr. Lewis said his business is required by the Alcohol Beveral Control
Board to adhere to rules concerning consumption of alcohol. Since 1981 many
wine-selling activities have taken place at his location and at many others.
Albemarle County is the only County that has regulations to this extent. When
the recommendation for a Zoning Text Amendment was brought forth, it was to
bring zoning regulations up-to-date. Years ago it was necessary to regulate
them because there was no prior experience with wineries, and the old regula-
tions were not upheld by the Zoning Department. This came to light with a
situation last summer where a building was being erected with the intention to
promote the sale of a product, but that matter is not before the Planning
Commission. Staff recommended numerous changes, and Mr. Lewis said he is
pleased to see willingness on the part of the County to look beyond zoning
regulations to consider different possibilities. When the Commission accepted
the recommendations, he was surprised to see what the County Attorney pre-
sented. Members of the Commission had not heard of the new changes.
Five wineries in the County bring in 18,000 to 22,000 tourists per year,
who spend millions of dollars in winery and other entertainment areas. He
does not plan to construct buildings or bring people into an unsafe environ-
ment. HB935 was unanimously passed by the House and Senate four times. The
General Assembly has taken on responsibility for producing protection for the
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
000 0
farmers and providing an opportunity to create realistic regulations directed
toward farm operations.
Mr. Lewis said he gave a lot of information to the Board. He is
entering the tourist season and depends on visitors. Forty-five percent of
the state-wide average of income is from farmsales. His is 65 percent,
because he does not distribute state-wide. His business has grown from
nothing to one of the premier wineries in the state. Local wineries have been
awarded many accolades on both the state and national level. This is more
than just a casual matter.
With the General Assembly taking on this responsibility, it has
clarified for the building officials what is a farm building and structure and
what can take place in it. HB935 states that farm buildings or structure
means ~a building or a structure not used for residential purposes, located on
property where farming operations take place, and used primarily for anyone
for any of the following uses or combination thereof..." When referring to
"used for any of the following uses", Mr. Lewis said it refers to the storage,
handling and production display, sampling or sale of agricultural or horticul-
tural products produced on the farm. There is also a secondary application to
use primarily, which would mean that if it is a primary use, there are other
secondary uses under which a business might be able to produce sales of its
product. Item number three refers to business and office uses and uses
relating to farm operations, use of farm machinery or equipment or mainte-
nance, storage or use of supplies of materials or supplies on the farm, which
are done by almost all farmers. The legislation says, ~not withstanding
provisions of this section, farm buildings and structures shall be exempt from
the provisions of the Building Code." He said it is clear that the General
Assembly wants to provide a means to assist officials to not continue to
hassle with one another. The VBCOA supported adoption of the Bill.
Mr. Lewis then provided the names of all persons who proposed the adoption of
the Bill.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left at 8:45 p.m.)
Mr. Lewis said the only responsibility of the County is for the Building
Official to realize exactly what is allowed in the farTM buildings and struc-
tures. Albemarle County has good enforcement already. Wineries have not done
anything to have regulations slapped on them that prevent them from doing
business when they have not caused problems in the past. Other counties with
more and larger wineries have not placed such stringent requirements on their
wineries. He asked the Board to give the wineries the opportunity to have the
leeway recommended by the Commission.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 8:47 p.m.)
Mr. Anthony Champ, owner of White Hall Vineyards, said he thought he had
come to a zoning hearing on the ability to hold special events. He appeared
before the Board in 1995 to request permission to expand from 600 square feet
to 1,700 square feet, and his application was approved. Then he began
construction and ran into some of the problems with farm buildings. His
structure was built as a commercial building, and at greater expense than he
had anticipated. His business holds events and festival~, and he was unaware
of any prohibition against doing so. Now he is afraid the Board is confusing
the BOCA Code with the ability of a winery to have wine festivals.
White Hall Vineyards receives 60 percent of sales at the winery. The
object is to get people to come back again for events. He asked the Board to
address the issue of festivals and events as zoning issues, and deal with the
Building Code through other avenues. He has no problem with the regulations,
but is concerned about some of the notification details. He thinks a business
owner should be able to do one single letter to accomplish everything, but he
now sees that the issue is obviously larger. He asked the Board not to adjust
zoning regulations because of what the State wants.
Mr. Bowerman said if the law passes, Mr. Lewis would not have any
problems with his business, as his structure would be approved. Mr. Champ
said he has been holding events, including charitable events, which are not
permitted, but did not realize it until now. He wants the ability to have
festivals. Mr. Tucker said that is included in this proposal.
Mr. Pete Hallock, from the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), said,
with one exception, PEC supports the zoning text amendment as proposed by
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
000111
staff because it will help keep land open. Farm wineries support local
agriculture. The more grapes they process and the more wine they sell, the
more likely it is that vines will be planted, rather than lots platted.
PEC is concerneded about the requirements for zoning clearances and
notification. PEC supported the changes recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion, which call for the applicant to provide written notice to the Zoning
Department. That section has been rewritten to require the owner to notify
four separate departments before an event. Zoning clearances are still
required for each event, unless the applicant knows in advance the yearly
schedule. It seems redundant to require wineries to undergo site review. At
least three of the four departments required to be notified participate in the
County's site review process. This gives them an opportunity to review the
plans for wineries, learn from the owner what the maximum attendance at the
events might be, and require that the facilities be sized to fit the crowd.
Mr. Hallock said a representative of the Police Department has stated
that he has "no concerns regarding the minor events. He believes that events
with a cap of 150 participants can occur with little to no disruption that
would necessitate police involvement." He did recommend notice for the larger
events, or festivals.
While one zoning clearance may be necessary to signal that the applicant
has complied with all the conditions and the use has officially begun, it
seems cumbersome to require zoning clearances for every event. Compared with
the requirements and conditions imposed upon the outdoor theater, approved in
1993, under that SUP, up to 2000 people can attend plays on property located
in the rural areas. Nothing in the Supplementary Regulations requires that
the owner of the theater seek a zoning clearance before each performance.
Therefore, he asked why the County should regulate more strictly a business
which supports the number one priority set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for
the rural areas, which is preserving agriculture and forestry activities.
Mr. Champ also provided the Clerk a letter from Jefferson Vineyards,
which is on file with the records of this meeting.
There being no other public comments, Mr. Marshall closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Perkins asked why the regulations were needed, since thusfar there
have been no disruptions. The only problem has been parking outside the
event. If the County is handling the situation well, the Ordinance is too
restrictive and needs to be changed to reflect participation by 150 persons or
more. A facility dictates how many people can attend. He added that a
business should not have to notify so many departments.
Ms. Thomas wondered about condition number four, regarding limiting
festivals to two consecutive days. She did not wish to be arbitrary, and
suggested that it be changed to three days for long weekends.
Regarding site plan approval for a faciity, Ms. Thomas said an owner
should not have to make notification for every such event. Mr. Cilimberg said
this is separate from the zoning clearance section. Ms. Thomas said she was
concerned about Item E. An owner should not have to notify everybody. One
notice could be sent to the Zoning Administrator, and staff could then
distribute it internally.
Ms. Thomas asked how the Zoning clearance would work. The goal is not
to overburden staff, but she did not expect the applicant to have to do
something cumbersome. Mr. Davis said the intent was to address the Commis-
sion's and the Zoning Department's concern about how to make this work.
Single zoning clearance could be done for numerous events at one time, thereby
addressing all issues efficiently in one clearance. If other events arise
later, it would require notifying the Zoning Administrator the same way as one
does with agricultural sales, carnivals, etc. Mr. Tucker said this helps the
Police Department and others plan staffing. Mr. Marshall asked whether an
applicant would have to wait 14 days with a wedding. Mr. Tucker said this
addresses festivals. Mr. Marshall said it address special events, and a
wedding could be construed a special event to those involved. Mr. Davis said
weddings would require 14 days' notice, but they could possibly be processed
more quickly.
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
O00:I. L;
Mr. Perkins again asked why the Board needs this regulation. He asked
if the public thought this offered any public protection. The Board should
not adopt ordinances if they do not do anything to protect the public. He
added that the people directly affected need to be able to provide input.
Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant would like to see the ordinance done
away with, and Mr. Lewis replied, ~Yes." Mr. Champ also agreed. He thought
there should be some way to notify the County of special events, and reiter-
ated his request that the current regulations indicate a winery can host
special events. He further suggested that locations be inspected on-site one
time per year, and that the results be recorded.
Regarding kitchen facility regulations, Ms. Humphris asked that the word
~preparation" be deleted, saying that no restaurant should operate in rural
areas. She believed that a caterer could have access to a kitchen, but that
food should not be prepared on-site.
Ms. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said she appreciated the applicant's
and staff's concerns that things be made as simple as PoSsible. She is
concerned about events drawing more than 150 persons. She believes this site
will be designed to handle up to 150 people, with up to 12 events per year.
The Police and Health Departments need to be advised about events drawing over
150 people for planning purposes. She envisions that a business would send in
a request for each clearance, and staff would provide the distribution.
Ms. Thomas said then the regulations should say, "Festivals would be subject
to the following...". Mr. Marshall pointed out that some weddings and other
special events, besides festivals, would have more than 150 people.
Ms. Thomas said an SUP would be required when holding any special event
with more than 150 people. Mr. Tucker said guidelines state there can be no
more than 12 festivals per year, or more than 150 people present without
obtaining a special use permit. Ms. Thomas asked if notification of special
events for less than 150 people need to be submitted to Building Codes and
Zoning Services. Mr. Bowerman said such notification would be handled at site
plan. Mr. Davis said if the Board does not care that Building Codes and
Zoning Services does not know when events will occur, there is no need for
notice of special events, because providing for public safety would be the
purpose of the site plan. Mr. Cilimbrg said event numbers would be self-
regulating.
Ms. Thomas asked why the Board should limit the number of special events
per year to 12. Ms. McCulley said her department simply chose that number
based on an average of one special event per month. The number could change.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission liberalized the guidelines begin-
ning with 12 special events per year and then added an additional four
festivals. Mr. Davis said if special events happened every night of the year,
that might change the use from a winery to a banquet hall or other more
intensive use. There needs to remain a farm use of the land, rather than
commercial use, which is why the Commission felt there should be a restriction
on the number of special events.
Mr. Marshall asked what the difference is between farm and commercial
use, adding that he does not want to restrict the wineries. He suggested the
Board limit the size of events based upon the size of the buildings, and deal
with food preparation separately. Ms. Humhris argued that a business could
put up a tent to accomodate more people. Mr. Marshall said the site plan
would deal with any traffic concerns. Mr. Cilimberg said the site plan is
based on the expected size of the operation. Identifying a maximum of 150
people provides a baseline from which to work during the site review.
Mr. Marshall asked what would happen if more than 150 people were
expected. Mr. Cilimberg replied the requirement of a special use permit
allows the County to look at the facility. Mr. Marshall asked what would
happen if a facility was built to hold more than 150 people to begin with.
Again, Mr. Cilimberg replied that this would be handled through the special
use permit process. The question is whether a clearance would be required
every time numbers are higher than 150.
Mr. Martin suggested the applicant, Ms. McCulley and a Board member sit
down to discuss the issues and determine what is needed by the wineries if
they are to remain in business and improve operations, while meeting County
regulations. He objects to the County regulating unnecessarily. Ms. Thomas
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
O00113
said that is how the Planning Commission left the matter, and that the
wineries support what was presented to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission made its recommendations based on
staff's original zoning text amendment, and the Commissign and the applicant
felt they had accomplished what had been requested. Issues that have risen
since the Planning Commission meeting have to deal with what a zoning clear-
ance will be required for, which is outlined in Sections E-1 and E-5. The
Board can address that matter directly. He added that Ms. McCulley has made a
suggestion as to the proper wording of Section E-1. Section E-5 deals with
how the County relates building requirements to what the State Code might end
up requiring.
Mr. Bowerman said the concern about the 12 events is handled by the site
plan. If more than 12 events are held, the applicant can obtain an SUP.
Mr. Bowerman said someone can currently hold a festival without a special use
permit, so he asked why a permit would be needed at all. Someone could hold
up to four festivals a year with no special use permit, after notifying the
County and ensuring that a plan is in place to deal with whatever problems
might arise. He believed the only requirement the County has is the defini-
tion of such an event, the site plan for the use, that they hold no more than
four festivals, and that the County is advised of any problems expected. That
is easy and consistent with agriculture and tourism, and does not create
public health concerns. Ms. Humphris asked what would happen if someone
wished to have a wedding with more than 150 guests. Mr. Tucker asked what
would happen with "rolling" special events and festivals with over 150 people
present.
Mr. Bowerman said the concerns are with large events. Mr. Champ said
there had been a Farm Tour which had up to 400 people. They were spread out
over two days, so not more than 150 people were present at one time. A
business cannot accommodate over 150 people. Mr. Martin suggested leaving
item three alone.
Referrin9 to Section E-l, Mr. Bowerman asked why item three was in-
cluded. If a site plan is directed to 150 people, and the business can
accomodate that number, he suggested that the County should not care what
events are called or how often they are held. Mr. Davis said the'business
would then not be limited as to number of people who can attend. Mr. Bowerman
said the County can say there is a limit of 150 people, referencing back to
the site plan. Mr. Davis pointed out that since there is no restriction on
square footage, any number of buildings could be built to accomodate any
number of people. Mr. Cilimberg said one consideration is that if the County
does not limit the number of people who can attend, it must consider how that
relates to other rural area properties. Other people might then want to have
conferences and banquets, which are also special events. Meeting places
should be able to operate in a farm winery, but the number of attendees should
differentiate them from a commercial use, which could occur everyday.
Mr. Martin suggested leaving item three alone, and.putting this agenda
item on the next consent agenda after relaxing the provisions for festivals.
Ms. Thomas clarified this was for special events and festivals with more than
150 attendees. Section E applies only to festivals. An applicant will need
to only send one notice, which is to be distributed by staff. She added that
if a zoning clearance has to be stamped on it, it would not be a burden for
the festival.
Mr. Marshall asked that the word "preparation" be eliminated. This
would eliminate restaurants, which cannot be in rural areas unless they are in
an historic area. Mr. Martin suggested the work group look at Section E-2.
Ms. Thomas liked the wording suggested by Ms. Jan Sprinkle, of the Planning
Department, which states that ~No commercial kitchen shall be permitted by the
Health Department," and ~Kitchen areas are allowed only as a convenience to
support licensed caterers."
Mr. Cilimberg asked if festivals should be limited to three.days. It
was the consensus of the Board that they shoUld. ~
Ms. Thomas asked whether the Noise Ordinance deals with amplified sound
systems. Mr. Bowerman suggested it be stated that no amplified sound systems
be permitted. Ms. Thomas said bands should not be allowed to amplify their
music, but the applicant objected. Mr. Lewis disagreed, saying he was
satisfied with the requirement.
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000114
(Page 20)
Mr. Marshall said the applicant is also satisfied with the hours of
operation and number five, which states that ~All activities shall either be
outdoors or in a building or structure approved by the Building Official for
occupation by persons other than employees of the farm." Mr. Davis said, in
light of what the General Assembly has done, the County cannot require greater
building standards than what the Building Code requires. He, therefore,
recommended deleting number five, since it will probably be unenforceable
after July 1, 1998. Mr. Martin suggested leaving it in and then amending it,
if necessary, after July 1. Mr. Davis said that would require another zoning
text amendment, which would have to go through the Planning Commission,
requiring yet another public hearing. Mr. Marshall then sugggested item five
be deleted.
Mr. Bowerman then moved that ZTA-97-02 be continued to the April 1, 1998
Board meeting, for the consent agenda, for approval of an Ordinance substan-
tially the same as recommended by the staff, with a few changes. Under number
four, the single day or two cOnsecutive days will be amended to be a single or
two consecutive or three conseCutive days for a festival. Item E-1 will be
amended to state that there must be 30-days prior written notice to the Zoning
Administrator for festivals only. The Zoning Administrator will forward
notices to the other named departments and agencies for the zoning clearance.
It will not require a written notice of special events. Item E-2 will state
that there will not be any preparation of food in the kitchens. Item E-5 will
be eliminated. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing to solicit input on the proposed
Community Development Block Grant application to be submitted to the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development on the Microenterprise
Project. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2, 1998.)
Mr. Tucker said, pursuant to a public hearing on the CDBG program held
on February 4, 1998, the Board voted to submit an application for funding for
a housing rehabilitation and new construction project, community center
improvements, acquisition and park construction, and removal of dangerous
neighborhood buildings. A second public hearing was held March 11, 1998
allowing comment on the proposed project and past use of'CDBG funds. After
the second public hearing, the Board must indicate approval of the proposed
project and pass a resolution authorizing the County Executive to submit an
application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development.
The County is seeking $1,025,000 in CDBG funds which will: 1) assist
with the rehabilitation of 29 single family homes, 2) help pay acquisition and
site development costs for a parcel on which five new homes for first-time
buyers will be constructed, 3) help pay for additional improvements to the
W. D. Ward Community Center in which Albemarle County has recently located a
police satellite office, 4) offset the costs of removing numerous abandoned,
dangerous buildings in the neighborhood, and 5) augment $125,000 County funds
already set aside for the construction of a park in the Porter's Road/Yancy
School neighborhood. Total project cost is estimated to be approximately
$1.97 millions dollars.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Community
Improvement Project and adoption of a resolution authorizing the County
Executive to submit the application to the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development.
Mr. Tucker then asked for clarification of the public hearing process.
Mr. Davis said there is one potential problem in the advertising of this
public hearing. In examining the notice requirements, staff discovered that,
in addition to newspaper advertisements, it is required that another non-legal
advertisement be posted, which has not technically been done.
Mr. David Benish, of the Planning Department, said he believes this require-
ment may be waived. Mr. Tucker recommended the item still be adopted after
the public hearing is held.
Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing.
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
000 .5
Ms. Janet Dove, Director of the Current Microloan Program for the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), said the TJPDC supports the
application process. Over the past year the Microloan Program has expanded,
and the current loan pool is almost expended. In order to be able to continue
making microenterprise loans, they need additional funds.
Mr. Bowerman asked if these are all "performing loans". Ms. Dove
replied, ~Yes."
(Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 9:40 p.m.).
With no one else present to speak, Mr. Marshall clQsed the public
hearing. .
Ms. Thomas moved to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Application for a
Community Improvement Grant for Microenterprise Loan Capitalization in the
Nelson-Fluvanna-Albemarle Microenterprise Program. Mr. Perkins seconded the
motion.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
Authorizing Application for a Community Development Block Grant
Community Improvement Grant
for
Microenterprise Loan Capitalization
in the
Nelson-Fluvanna-Albemarle Microenterprise Program
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development is
soliciting applications for community Development Block Grant Community
Improvement Grants; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to expand the region's economic base and improve the
physical and social conditions of its iow- and moderate-income citizens,
Nelson County, undere the guidance of the Thomas jefferson Planning
District, has prepared an application; and
WHEREAS, the current MicroLoan Program of the Thomas Jefferson Program has
gotten off to a successful start; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to expand the MicroLoan Program throughout the region,
the Nelson-Fluvanna-Albemarle Microenterprise Program is designed to
help iow- and moderate-income individuals start or expand small busi-
nesses; and
WHEREAS, Nelson County's application includes matching funds from the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District/Virginia Economic Development Corporation
MicroLoan Program's budget and the region's banks;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to public hearings, the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, sitting in regular
session on March 18, 1998, authorizes the submissi6n of an application
seeking a Community Development Block Grant Community Improvement Grant
for $165,000 for Microenterprise Loan capitalization, training, support,
and staff for the Nelson-Fluvanna-Albemarle Microenterprise Program and
that the County Executive is authorized to submit all information
necessary to apply for the grant and to meet other program administra-
tive and reporting requirements.
This Resolution is effective upon adoption.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing to consider granting a 20-foot-wide
sanitary sewer easement across a parcel owned by the County of Albemarle and
identified as Tax Map 91, Parcel 2. (Advertised in the Daily Pro~ress on
March 9, 1998.)
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Tucker said TMP 77-47, owned by Hillcrest Land Trust, was rezoned to
Planned Development Shopping Center (PD-SC) and the developer is preparing
design plans for the proposed shopping center to be constructed at that site.
The proposed shopping center would be served by public water and sewer. The
only available connection to an existing sanitary sewer manhole is located on
the Lakeside Apartments property. This requires the proposed sanitary sewer
extension cross either parcel TMP 77-43, owned by Calvary Baptist Church, or
the County-owned property. The Purchase Agreement for the Monticello High
School property contains a provision that states the County agrees to grant
"utility" easements necessary to provide utility service to certain other
parcels owned by the sellers (including TMP 7747), but a separate provision
dealing with sanitary sewer easements does not specifically obligate the
County to grant such easements.
The 20-foot-wide sanitary sewer easement, as shown on the plat and
sketch, runs along the property line and, according to the Engineering and
Public Works Department, will not have a negative impact upon future develop-
ment of the County parcel.
Va. Code §15.2-1800(B) requires the Board to hold a public hearing prior
to conveying any interest in County-owned property, including easements.
Staff recommends after this public hearing the Board authorize the
County Executive to execute proper documents to grant the proposed sanitary
sewer easement.
Mr. Marshall said he has inquired from the landown&r about the possibil-
ity of locating a pharmacy in the area. Mr. Davis recommended Mr. Marshall
not vote on this item because of the possible appearance of a conflict.
Because Mr. Martin was out of the room, Mr. Marshall designated Ms. Humphris
as Acting Chairman.
Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing.
(Note: Mr. Marshall left the room at 9:43 p.m.)
There being no one present to speak, Ms. Humphris closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Thomas made the motion to grant a 20-foot-wide sanitary sewer
easement across a parcel owned by the County of Albemarle and identified as
Tax Map 91, Parcel 2, and authorized the County Executive to execute the
easement document. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
(Note: Mr. Martin returned at 9:44 p.m.)
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphri~ and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr, Marshall.
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT dated this 23rd day of April, 1998, by and between
LA/CESIDE ASSOCIATES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a Virginia limited liability
company, the First Grantor ("Lakeside Associates"); the COU1TTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, the Second Grantor ("Albemarle County") and CHARLES WM. HURT and
SHIRLEY L. FISHER, as TRUSTEES for the HILLCREST LAND TRUST, pursuant to the
terms of a certain Land Trust Agreement dated November 1, 1990, the Grantees
(the "Hillcrest Trustees");
WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS, Lakeside Associates is the owner of Albemarle County Tax Map
77, Parcel 44, containing 12.476 acres, more or less, having acquired such
Property by deed of the Charles Wm. Hurt and Shirley L. Fisher, as Trustees
for the Hillcrest Land Trust (the "Hillcrest Trustees"), dated November 2,
1993, of record in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1382, page 510; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is the owner of Albemarle
County Tax Map 91, Parcel 2, containing 107.026 acres, more or less, having
acquired such property by deed of the Hillcrest Trustees'and Hurt Investment
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23) .....
000117
Company, dated September 18, 1995, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's office,
in Deed Book 1492, page 678;
WHEREAS, the Hillcrest Trustees are the owners of Albemarle County Tax
Map 77, Parcel 47, containing 6.717 acres, more or less, having acquired such
Property by deed of Hurt Investment Company, a Virginia corporation, dated
November 1, 1990, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1128,
page 103;
WHEREAS, Lakeside Associates and Albemarle County have agreed to grant
unto the Hillcrest Trustees an easement to permit the Hillcrest Trustees to
install sanitary sewer facilities across the land of Lakeside Associates and
Albemarle County in order to serve the lands of the Hillcrest Trustees.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing premises and TEN
DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all
of which is hereby acknowledged, Lakeside Associates does hereby GRANT and
CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE and Albemarle
County does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANT~ OF TITLE, as regards
their respective properties, unto the Hillcrest Trustees, a perpetual, non-
exclusive right-of-way and easement twenty feet (20') in width (the "Ease-
ment'') to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace extend SANITARY SEWER
LINES AND FACILITIES, consisting of pipes, manholes, and appurtenances
thereto, within those certain areas designated "Proposed 20' Sanitary Sewer
Easement", as shown and described on the plat prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman &
Associates, Ltd., dated April 20, 1998, entitled "Plat Showing Proposed 20'
Wide Sanitary Sewer Easement Across Parcel 2, Sheet 91 and Parcel 44, Sheet
77, Tax Maps Albemarle County, Virginia" attached hereto and made a part
hereof (hereinafter the "Plat").
Reference is made to said Plat for the exact location and dimensions of
the Easement as it crosses the properties of Lakeside Associates and Albemarle
County.
As a part of this Easement, the Hillcrest Trustees shall have the right
to enter upon the above-described property within the Easement for the purpose
of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and extending
sewer lines and facilities and appurtenances thereto, within the Easement, and
the right of ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct,
install, maintain, repair, replace and/or extend such lines. If the Hillcrest
Trustees are unable reasonably to exercise their right of ingress and egress
over the right of way, the Hillcrest Trustees shall have the right of ingress
and egress over the property of Lakeside Associates and Albemarle County
adjacent to the right of way.
Lakeside Associates and Albemarle County, their successors or assigns
agree that new trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improve-
ments or obstructions shall not be placed within the Easement conveyed herein.
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Easement area, the
Hillcrest Trustees agree to backfill such excavation in a proper and workman-
like manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as practical to the
same condition as prior to the excavation. In the event that any damage
results from said access, the Hillcrest Trustees agree to correct and repair
such damage in a proper and workmanlike manner, including the restoration of
any such damaged or disturbed grass surfaces.
The Easement shall include the right of the Hillcrest Trustees to cut
any trees, brush, and shrubbery, remove obstructions and take other similar
action reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe installation,
operation, and maintenance. The Hillcrest Trustees shall have no responsibil-
ity to Lakeside Associates and Albemarle County to repiace or reimburse the
cost of said trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions if cut, removed or
otherwise damaged.
The facilities constructed within the Easement shall be the property of
the Hillcrest Trustees, who shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove,
repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and'connections to or
extensions of the facilities within the boundaries of the Easement as are
consistent with the purposes expressed herein.
The Easement shall further include the right of the Hillcrest Trustees
to dedicate the Easement to the Albemarle cOunty Service Authority for the
March 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 0001~8
(Page 24)
public use and Lakeside Associates and Albemarle County agree to execute such
further Deeds of Easement or other documents as may reasonably be required by
the Albemarle County Service Authority to effect such dedication.
The Grantees shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, its employees, agents and officers from any claim
whatsoever arising from Grantees' exercise of rights and privileges stated
herein.
This Deed of Easement may be executed in one or more counterpart copies,
each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be an original, but all of
which shall constitute one and the same Deed of. Easement. Execution of this
Deed of Easement at different times and places by the parties hereto shall not
affect the validity thereof.
(Note: Mr. Marshall returned at 9:44 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Ms. Humphris mentioned the Festival of the Book, which was on the
consent agenda. Mr. Marshall said he would be unable to attend the ceremony
tomorrow, and Ms. Humphris agreed to take his place.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn to March 23, 1998, 1:00 p.m.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
- d~airman
Approved by
Board
initials ~