1998-07-01 000032
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 1, 1998, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.,
Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman,.
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 9:00 a.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. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation.
Mr. Marshall presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Thomas
Jakubowski for acting as the liaison between the Disability services Board and
the Jefferson Area Board for Aging. Part of the FY '99 DSB grant from the
State Department of Rehabilitative Services will go to Jefferson ElderCare (a
division of JABA) to build innovative, low-cost ramps at homes throughout
Planning District Ten. Tom also offered helpful suggestions during DSB
meetings with staff of the University Hospital on improving access to that
facility. He is clearly committed to improving the quality of life for people
with disabilities and senior citizens in the Planning District, and the Board
appreciates his services.
Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation: Walnut Creek Mountain Biking Chapter.
Mr. Marshall recognized the Walnut Creek Mountain Biking Chapter for its
efforts and enthusiasm in working with the County Parks and Recreation
Department in shaping the County's first public mountain biking trail. Since
the trail was opened last year, members of this group have invested consider-
able time and labor into creating a high quality, responsibly designed
mountain bike park providing trail access for beginners as well as advanced
riders. They have completed 12 miles of trails with varying difficulties.
Over 650 hours of volunteer labor, from over 50 dedicated riders, were donated
to build and maintain the trails. This group's dedication has allowed the
County to provide an outstanding biking experience to local riders, and,
indeed, the park is now attracting riders from all over the region and serves
as a venue for championship level races.
Mr. Marshall thanked the Chapter for their partnership with the County
in creating this recreational opportunity at Walnut Creek Park. This is an
example of the kind of success that can be achieved when working together
toward common goals. He then presented a plaque to the Walnut Creek Mountain
Biking Chapter. Ms. Amy Smith from the County's Parks & Recreation Department
accepted the plaque for the group. She handed to the Board a copy of a
brochure showing all of the trails.
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris,
seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve Items 7.1 through 7.4 and 7.4b (Item 7.4a
was the subject of a separate vote under Agenda Item No. 21 at the end of the
meeting) and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for informa-
tion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman
000033
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 7.1. Appropriation: Education Grants, $21,647.52 (Form #97067).
It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on June 8, 1998,
the School Board approved several appropriations for Education grants.
· Appropriation of $1000.00 for Stony Point Elementary School. The
Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded Stony Point Elementary School
an Arts Project Grant in the amount of $1000.00. Four local artists
will be involved in this program by working with students to help them
design and create sculptures representative of both classical and
organic contemporary art. This program will help with the active
integration of the visual arts and academic curricula.
· Appropriation of $19,111.66 for the Carl Perkins Grant.. The 1996-97
Carl Perkins Grant was not fully expended in the 1996-97 fiscal year, so
the carryover amount of $19,111.66 can be appropriated for the 1997-98
fiscal year. The money will be used to buy computer equipment for
Albemarle High School, Western Albemarle High School and Murray High
School.
Appropriation of $1535.86 for The Virginia Odyssey of the Mind Grant.
The Virginia Odyssey of the Mind (OM) State Board created a new OM
region to service Albemarle county and the surrounding districts. On
March 9, 1998, the School Board approved an appropriation of $4000.00
for the Virginia OM. The regional tournament was held on March 21 at
WAHS. Additional fees in the amount of $1535.86 were collected from
students purchasing T-shirts for this tournament.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following
Resolution of Appropriation totaling $21,647.52:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98
NUMBER: 97067
FUND: GPJINTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCHOOL GR3kNT ACTIVITIES
EXPENI)ITLIRE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1 3104 60211 601300
1 3207 61190 800100
t 3129 61104 601300
DESCRIPTION
ED/REC MATERIALS
EQUIPMENT
ED/REC SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$1,000.00
19,111.66
1,535.86
$21,647.52
REVENI3E
2 3104 24000 240322
2 3207 33000 330107
2 3129 18000 189918
DESCRIPTION
VA COMM OF THE ARTS
CARL PERKINS VOC GRANT
T-SHIRT TOURNAMENT FEE
TOTAL
$1,000.00
19,111.66
1,535.86
$21,647.52
Item 7.2. Appropriation: Cale Bright Stars Program, $74,929 (Form
#98OO1).
It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on June 17, the
Board approved a fourth Bright Stars Program to be located at Cale Elementary
School. The Board also requested information on the possibility of using
these funds to provide scholarships for targeted children in private child
care facilities, rather than setting up another public program. This request
appropriates $74,929 for the Cale program, as well as addresses the possibil-
ity of such scholarships. This appropriation is from $22,375 in State funds,
$47,000 in local fund balance revenues, and $5,553 in FY 1996-97 carry-over
funds. The one-time FY 96-97 carry-over funds will be used to provide initial
start-up equipment and supplies.
Regarding the use of State funds for scholarships to private child care
centers, state officials have said that Pre-School Initiative funds could be
used for scholarships provided the child care centers met the program criteria
set out in the legislation. Although a child care center might be able to
meet these requirements, several of the basic Bright Stars program goals would
not be accomplished by utilizing private child care facilities. One major
goal of the Bright Stars program is to get the families involved early in the
education of their children, particularly with their individual schools. Many
000036
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
of these parents have had negative experiences with school, so often are
Lntimidated by schools~ Therefore, they are reluctant to become active in
their children's education. Utilizing the schools as the site for a preschool
program also encourages families to see the elementary schools as a community
resource and a center for family participation, a major goal of the County's
neighborhood team.
Staff recommended approval of Appropriation Form #98001 in the amount of
$74,929 for the Cale Bright Stars program. Staff, upon direction from the
Board, would be glad to pursue communication with any of the private child
care providers to determine if there is any interest in providing this type of
at-risk pre-school program.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of
Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99
NI3MBER: 98001
FUND: BRIGHT STARS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CALE BRIGHT STA~S
PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1 1553 61152 112100
1 1553 61152 114100
1 1553 61152 130000
1 1553 61152 210000
1 1553 61152 221000
1 1553 61152 231000
1 1553 61152 232000
1 1553 61152 270000
1 1553 61152 310000
1 1553 61152 420100
1 1553 61152 550100
1 1553 61152 550400
1 1553 61152 580000
1 1553 61152 600400
1 1553 61152 601300
1 1553 61129 112100
DESCRIPTION
SALARIES-TEACHER
SALARIES-TEACHER AIDE
PART-TIME WAGES
FICA
VSRS
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
WORKER'S COMP
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FIELD TRIP MILEAGE
TRAVEL-MILEAGE
TRAVEL-EDUCATION
MISC
MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES
EDUC/REC SUPPLIES
SALARIES-TEACHER
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$40,043.00
9,861.00
1,271.00
3,914.00
6,731.00
5,870.00
175.00
189.00
1,000.00
600.00
200.00
1,000.00
1,520.00
100.00
6,000.00
(3,545.O0)
$74,929.00
REVENI3E
2 1553 24000 240283
2 1553 51000 512004
2 1553 51000 510100
DESCRIPTION
BRIGHT STARS PROGRAM
TR3LNSFER FROM GENEP~AL FUND
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$22,376.00
47,000.00
5,553.00
$74,929.00
Item 7.3. Appointment of Richard L. Jennings as the joint City/County
appointee on the Jail Authority. It was noted that on June 16, 1998, City
Council recommended the appointment of Mr. Jennings as the Joint City/County
nominee to replace Ms. Patricia L. Smith on the Jail Authority. This term is
to begin on June 16, 1998, and expire on June 30, 2001.
By the recorded vote set out above, Mr. Richard L. Jennings was
appointed to serve as the Joint appointee on the Jail Authority Board, term to
be from June 16, 1998, to June 30, 2001.
Item 7.4. Authorize County Executive to execute Monticello High School
Connector Road Easement Plat.
It was noted that the referenced plat is to provide drainage, sidewalk
and guardrail easements associated with construction modifications made along
the connector road (Mill Creek Drive). The modifications were forced outside
of the dedicated right-of-way because of topography and installation
techniques. The plat is a requirement for the acceptance of the roadway by
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) . A surveyor is presently
creating the plat for the Engineering and Public Works Department. The
Department is anticipating the roadway to be under V]DOT maintenance prior to
the Monticello High School opening. The plat documents would be signed by the
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000025
(Page 4)
County Executive and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
after Board of Supervisors' authorization.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized
to execute the plat documents.
Item 7.4a. Request to Set a Public Hearing to Amend Section 12-41.1 of
the County Code to Include West Leigh Drive in West Leigh Subdivision into the
County Road System for Law Enforcement Purposes.
Mr. Tucker said the following letter had been received from Mr. Frank
Grice Whiteley, President of the West Leigh Property Owners Association:
"June 15, 1998
Mr. Forrest Marshall, chairman,
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Marshall,
For some 30 years West Leigh Property Owners have operated and
maintained West Leigh Drive, a private road dedicated to the
public. West Leigh Drive connects two county roads, Old Baltard
Road and US 250 West.
When West Leigh was first developed in the middle 1950's, there
were only a few families living here. The first, original
section contains 60 lots; Section II has 29 lots, and Section
III has 31 lots. In addition to these residents, there are four
or five families who live out here, but are not literally part
of West Leigh subdivision. There are more than 100 families in
this community.
There has been a great concern about traffic conditions for some
time. We have had the County's "Smart Sign" set up on a couple
of occasions, but I have never received any official notice of
the results. The traffic on West Leigh Drive has reached what I
would term "critical" conditions. We conducted a road survey
last year (results enclosed) and discovered that more than 600
cars use this road daily. On an annual basis, that comes to
more than 200,000 cars on West Leigh Drive, about 1/3 of which
do not live here.
There are many instances of speeders who seem to think West
Leigh Drive is for their enjoyment only:
1. Mailboxes are vandalized.
Cars run into the plowed and sown fields worked by
Mr. Sprouse.
'At least one resident on West Leigh Drive will not
allow his children to play in their front yard
because of speeders.
My wife and I witness reckless driving on a daily
basis on West Leigh Drive.
The property owners of West Leigh, Section I, voted in annual
meeting this year to bring traffic on West Leigh Drive under
state regulations. Accordingly, I ask the Board of Supervisors
to include West Leigh Drive in the county road system for law
enforcement purposes. We ask this of West Leigh Drive only."
(Note: Discussion of this item will be held later in the meeting, and a
vote taken under Agenda Item No. 21.)
Item 7.4b. Letter from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator,
Virginia Department of Transportation, was received requesting that a
resolution be adopted for the addition and abandonment on Route 682
000036
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
necessitated by recent construction of this road (Project #0682-002-
P33,C501) .
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution was
adopted:
RESOLUTION
W~EREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
provided the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
with a sketch dated June 11, 1998, depicting the abandonment
required in the secondary system of state highways as a result
of the construction of Project #0682-002-P33,C501, which sketch
is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and
W-~EREAS, the portions of the old road identified on the
sketch as Sections 1 and 3 through 12 to be abandoned are deemed
to no longer serve public need; and
W~EREAS, the portions of road identified on the sketch as
Sections 13 through 23 to be added to the secondary system; and
W~EREAS, the portions of road identified on the sketch as
Sections 2 and 26 to be renumbered as part of the secondary
system; and
W~EREAS, the portions of road identified on the sketch as
Sections 24 and 25 to be added as a connection, to the secondary
system; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as that
portion of old road identified to be abandoned;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors hereby abandons as part of the secondary system of
state highways that portion of Route 682 identified on the
sketch as Section 1 and Sections 3 through 12, a distance of
1.73 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, of the Code of
Virginia, and adds Sections 13 through 23 to the secondary
system of state highways, a distance of 1.79 miles, pursuant to
Section 33.1-229, of the Code of Virginia, and renumbers a
section of old location identified as Sections 2 and 26, a total
distance of 0.13 miles, and adds connections numbered Sections
24 and 25, a distance of 0.05 miles, to the secondary system of
state highways pursuant to Section 33.1-229, of the Code of
Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this
resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Item 7.5. Memorandum from Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering &
Public Works, dated June 11, 1998, Re: Proposed Traffic Signal Installation
at Mill Creek Drive and Route 20 South, was received for information.
It was noted in the staff's report that Mill Creek Drive is being
constructed by the County as a public road to provide access to Monticello
High School and to connect Avon Street and Route 20. Traffic studies
justified installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Mill Creek
Drive and Avon Street. This traffic signal is currently under construction
and will be completed in September of this Year. Traffic studies did not
justify installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Mill Creek
Drive and Route 20. (Attached to the staff's report was a memorandum from Mr.
Mawyer which outlined the results of a recent review of the safety of the
Route 20 intersection and recommended safety measures other than a traffic
signal for consideration.)
Members of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board, as well as the
Monticello Principal and the Director of Transportation, have expressed
concerns for the safety of school buses and other vehicles entering or exiting
the intersection of Mill Creek Drive and Route 20. In response to these
concerns and through discussions with Mr. Tucker, the Engineering and Public
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
000037
Works Department is proceeding with installation of a traffic signal at the
Route 20 location. The installation will include temporary construction
materials (wood poles and wire cable rather than steel poles and steel mast
arms) to accommodate the unknown alignment of the Route 20 widening project to
be completed by VDOT within five years. There should be an adequate
contingency balance from the Mill Creek Drive construction budget to fund the
work, estimated to cost $40,000. The work will be completed in September of
this year.
(Ms. Humphris said the County is paying the $40,000 for the temporary
light, but who will pay the large sum of money for the permanent light. Mr.
Tucker said he did not know. Ms. Tucker said upon the four-laning of Route
20, at that intersection, VDOT will include the upgrading of that system to a
mast-arm system.
(Mr. Marshall said he had been informed that there would be a traffic
light at both ends of that connector road by the time school opens. Mr.
Tucker said that is correct. The light on Route 20 will not be the permanent
light, but will be mounted on a wooden pole, not the permanent mast-arm
mentioned by Ms. Tucker.)
Item 7.6. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for June 9, 1998, was
received for information.
Item 7.7. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts) Monthly Bond and
Program Report for the month of May, 1998, was received for information.
Item 7.8. Copy of notice dated June 15, 1998, from ADELPHIA was
received. Notice, which gives adjustments to Adelphia's rates effective
August 1, 1998, was received for information.
Item 7.9. Memorandum from Ms. Deborrah Foreman, Director Senior Center
Operations, The Mary Williams Senior Center, dated June 22, 1998, was received
as information. The memorandum provides the Board with a summer update on
activities at the Center.
Item 7.10. Notice dated June 23, 1998, from Mr. Robert H. Connock, Jr.,
District Construction Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, noting
that a public workshop will be held on Thursday, July 9, 1998, between 7:00
p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to examine ways to improve walking conditions along
Seminole Trail and Emmett Street (Route 29 North from Barracks Road to Airport
Road [Route 649]) was received as information.
Item 7.11. Letter dated June 25, 1998, from Mr. David R. Gehr, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, providing notice of Tentative Construc-
tion Fund Allocations for Fiscal Year 1998-99 for the Interstate, Primary and
Urban Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit, Ports and Airports,
including an update on the Six-Year Improvement Program through 2003-04, was
received as information. The letter states that these allocations were
approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on June 18, 1998. However,
they will be revised to incorporate provisions of new federal highway
legislation, "TEA-21".
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: July 3, December II(A),
December il(N) and December 18, 1996; July 9 and August 6, 1997; January 7,
February 11 and February 18, 1998.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of December II(A), 1996, and found them
to be in order.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of January 7, 1998, pages 1 through 24
(at Item 14A), and found them to be in order with the following Minute Book
correction. Page 1, second paragraph under Agenda Item No. 2a, second
sentence should be corrected to read: "gincc Between FY 1995-96 ~ and FY
1998-99~ the composite index had increased from .5585 to .6233 from 19D5 Df to
19DO 99, resulting in state funds dropping from 36 percent to 33 percent."
000035
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of December 18, 1996, and July 9, 1.997,
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of January 7, 1998, pages 24 to the
End, and February 11, 1998, and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve
the minutes read, with the Minute Book correction noted. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters: Realignment of Airport
Road (Route 649), Update by Bryan Elliott.
Mr. Tucker said before the Board today is a resolution similar to that
one adopted by the Airport Authority Board last week regarding the realignment
of Airport Road. There are still some minor changes that will probably be
made at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) level, along with the
Airport and other interested parties. The issue of crossovers is still
unresolved. Basically, the Board's approval is being sought today for the
general alignment. He knows that Mr. Elliott has met with Mr. Martin and Mr.
Perkins concerning this project because it affects both of their districts
significantly. There have been hearings regarding this project, and Mr.
Elliott has worked diligently with property owners to work out problem areas.
Mr. Elliott said he wished to bring the Board up-to-date on the status
of improvements throughout Route 649 (Airport Road). In November, 1997 the
County, the Airport Authority, and VDOT entered into a three-party agreement
that essentially allowed the Airport Authority to design and implement this
project in accordance with VDOT and County standards for secondary roads. On
the last Thursday in January, 1998 a location public hearing was held in
accordance with VDOT guidelines and two proposed road alignments were
presented. One alignment stayed along the entire existing corridor of Route
649. The second proposal moved the alignment of Route 649 to the north.
Several of the goals and objectives of this project are to: 1) enhance the
intersection of the Airport and the interface of Routes 606 and 649, 2) to
widen the roads to a four-lane configuration to accommodate the current, as
well as the proposed traffic demands, and 3) to include bike lanes and
sidewalks in accordance with the County's plans for this urban road.
Mr. Eltiott said there'were approximately 75 individuals in attendance
at the public hearing and about 55 comments were received either prior to,
during, or after the required cutoff date. Most of the comments came from
individuals residing in the Deerwood Subdivision, and concerned alignment
issues related to Route 606, and their proximity to Route 649. Comments were
also made by individuals being impacted by either of the two proposed
alignments. As a result of this input, the design engineers and planners
were requested to put together what is being referred to as ~Modified
Alignment B" which is the plan being advanced at this time to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) and the County for consideration. The modified
plan will reduce the property impacts, and it takes into consideration the
comments received at the public hearing.
Mr. Elliott said that subsequent to the public hearing, they went into
the community and met with individuals and property owners and shared this
proposed plan with them. The response to proposed alignment ("B") has been
favorable. There are issues of property acquisition, access and crossovers,
that are a part of any road project which will be addressed as the actual
design work moves forward. On July 16, they are scheduled to propose this
alignment to the CTB. There will be another opportunity for public input at a
design public hearing to be scheduled at a later date. As to other aspects of
the project, the design team has gone ahead with property surveys along the
right-of-way, the environment assessment has begun, and they have looked at
the wetlands and the archaeological and sociological impacts of the project.
That data will be pulled together for a full environmental review. That is
the status of the project. There is a resolution being requested from the
Board today to be forwarded to the CTB on the alignment. He offered to answer
questions.
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
0000,39
Ms. Thomas asked if this is to be a four-lane highway.
~yes," it is to be a four-lane divided, raised-median highway throughout.
Thomas asked if this would be an urban type of median. Mr. Elliot replied
that it would be. Ms. Thomas asked if an entrance and exit into Deerwood
would be at-grade with no signalization. Mr. Elliot said that was correct.
The traffic flows through that intersection would be studied, and
signalization considered if the traffic demands so warrant. This will be
looked at in the actual design proCess. Ms. Thomas asked if there would be
signals at the main intersection. Mr. Elliott replied that there would be a
signal at the main intersection of the Airport. One point of ingress and
egress for Airport traffic is being maintained.
Mr. Elliott said
Ms.
Mr. Martin said there are some businesses at the corner where the road
turns off of Route 29 onto Route 649 (bank and garage) that will have serious
access problems later. Mr. Elliott said there would be a crossover close to
the point Mr. Martin mentioned. It is also possible that there will be three
or four crossovers in that one mile segment given the location of the post
office which is just below Laurel Hill Baptist Church.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that they were interested in having
their entrance be directly opposite that of the North Fork Research Park. Mr.
Elliott said the church and the post office are working together to satisfy
their access issues. Because of the site situation with the post office, and
the grades, it would have been difficult to obtain a tie with where the Real
Estate Foundation property is located.
Mr. Cilimberg said there had been a meeting with postal service
personnel. Their location has been coordinated with the church to begin a
road which would ultimately come back to Route 29 at the Forest Lakes
crossover. That was a requirement of zoning action about nine years ago on
what was then the Joe Wright property. The Board approved that rezoning with
the inclusion of a road that would connect Forest Lakes to Airport Road at the
light at Forest Lakes. Ultimately, as other development occurs on that Joe
Wright property (which he no longer owns), that road would be continued and
connected in at Route 29. There is currently a zoning proposal being reviewed
for a multi-cinema theater that creates the potential for that road being
connected through. That issue will be addressed during that zoning review.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board should also be aware that, with the Route
29 North widening and improvement plans, VDOT is looking at the possibility of
a parallel road to Route 29 that would come into Airport Road where the
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation entrance would locate. There
would be the potential for a road from a certain point south to the light at
Hollymead. If that were to occur, the post office facility could connect to
that road and come back to that crossover. Ultimately, the system of roads in
the area may be able to accommodate their needs without another crossover
being built into this project. It will be a question of timing as to what
happens first. That is the way the issue was left with the postal service.
Mr. Tucker said most of these things would be discussed during the design
phase of the project.
Mr. Elliott said the Department of Transportation is getting ready to
send a packet of materials to the CTB, and staff has been advised that it
would be helpful if the Board of Supervisors were to pass a resolution in
support of this project.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to Adopt a
Resolution Endorsing the Alignment for Improvements to State Route 649
(Airport Road) in Albemarle County. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
~kBSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE ALIGNMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
STATE ROUTE 649 (AIRPORT ROAD) IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
W~EREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority,
the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County of
Albemarle entered into a memorandum of agreement in November,
1997; and
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
000040
WHEREAS, this agreement requires the Charlottesville- A-
lbemarle Airport Authority to design and administer all facets
of this project in accordance with Virginia Department of
Transportation regulations, policies and procedures for the
construction of secondary roads; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
held a Location Public Hearing on this project on January 29,
1998, in accordance with said regulations, policies and
procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
has reviewed all public comments and determined it to be
feasible and desirable to address these comments to the greatest
extent possible in the design of these road improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
has created an alternative alignment which incorporates features
from the two alignments presented during the Location Hearing
which attempts to address comments received during the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
has coordinated this modified alignment with property owners
along the area of road slated for improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors recommends to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board that it adopt ~Alternative B Modified" as
depicted on the attached diagram as the approved alignment for
State Route 649 (Airport Road) in Albemarle County.
Agenda Item No. 9b. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins said he had received a number of calls from residents along
Route 707 regarding the Pave-in-Place program. He suggested that they call
Ms. Tucker, as she is better able to explain the program. He viewed the road
and it has a good width and meets the criteria by being a dead-end road. Ms.
Tucker said she would review the road.
Ms. Thomas said the residents of Ednam Forest appreciate the appearance
of the traffic lights, but some are complaining bitterly that they now need to
stop twice. She asked the purpose of the antennae on several of the light
standards along Route 250 West. Ms. Tucker said those antennae on'newly-
placed signals actually provide a computer link to VDOT's Culpeper traffic
office for monitoring and trouble-shooting the signal.
Mr. Martin thanked Ms. Tucker for attending last week's meeting in
Forest Lakes, although he did not think that a lot was accomplished. He noted
that the Board had approved an exception so that part of Forest Lakes Road
could be built to a less wide standard. As a result, and because of
complaints, UNo Parking" signs have been installed. There has been good
enforcement in that area. The problem is that people are having parties and
such, and getting ticketed. He thinks the Board needs to look at that issue
when granting exceptions or looking at design standards. On the one hand,
there is a movement for less wide roads, on the other, it makes living there
more difficult. Ms. Humphris noted that this is a safety issue. There are
some rather narrow roads with parking on both sides where a fire truck would
have difficulty getting through. Mr. Martin said it is necessary to make sure
the homebuyers know what they can and cannOt do. Right now, it is complaint-
driven; such things are not enforced until people start complaining. This is
something that needs to be looked at as the Board grants these exceptions.
Ms. Humphris asked who was responsible for the huge tree that is
overarching the road going around the curve in Montvue. The overarching part
of the tree is now dead, which means that it will come down at some point.
Ms. Tucker said if the tree is growing out of the right-of-way, it is VDOT's
responsibility, otherwise, they will deal with the property owner and take
care of it. She will look into the situation.
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
00004i
Ms. Humphris said in comparing last year's primary system improvement
project for the widening of Route 29 North from four to six lanes from the
River to Airport Road, to this year's approved widening, there are many things
which are different. The length of the project has decreased from 3.9 miles
to 2.5 miles. The amounts of money projected to be allocated each year have
decreased tremendously, and the balance to complete the project, which used to
be approximately $5.5 million, has increased to $16.2 million. The amounts
that have been allocated have gone down, the cost has gone up and the length
is shortened by 1.5 miles, and in looking at the numbers it does not make any
sense. Ms. Tucker said she did not have an answer, but will discuss this with
the people who made the changes.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks it would be helpful if, when the Board
received a new Six-Year Plan, they also received a complete analysis of all
the projects so they would have the answers regarding changes from the
previous year's plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had done that the last two
years and is presently working on it for this year. Staff just received a
copy of the final primary plan. He said the increase in the cost of the
project probably has an easy explanation. It has become more of a project
than it was originally, now involving some parallel roads.
Ms. Tucker said she would provide information in writing at next month's
Board meeting regarding the allocation for the University of Virginia North
Grounds connector road and the suggestion for a change in the description of
the project at Fontaine Avenue. She has submitted both of those requests for
consideration in the final report. She has not yet received her copy of the
final report, but will follow through on that.
Agenda Item No. 10. Proposal by VDOT to allow Construction of
Telecommunication Facilities in Right-of-way of 1-64, Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. He said %/DOT will permit the construction of Telecommunication
Facilities in their right-of-way if the need for a tower or similar type of
structure has been determined by current or future needs of the Commonwealth
in its implementation of the Intelligent Transportation System Program. If
the need for a structure has not previously been identified in a particular
location, VDOT will consider the request on a case-by-case basis.
Telecommunication Facilities "may" be placed in the public right-of-way
without requiring a special use permit, unless VDOT requires a service
provider to obtain a special use permit prior to the construction of a
facility or VDOT may use its exemption from the public review process. VDOT
has commented that "The lease agreements between VDOT and the service provider
require the provider to acquire all applicable permits for its attachments to
the %;DOT mast."
Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT has developed a policy for the placement of
Telecommunication Facilities within the State's Right-of-Way. This policy
states in part "VDOT will advise the locality that it is processing an
application for a shared resource project to construct a new tower. The
locality shall be provided with the updated preliminary site plan and data
submitted regarding other sites in the area. The locality shall be requested
to return comments by a specific date (21-day period). The locality should be
advised that a site meeting can be arranged, if needed. The locality should
also be informed when an actual agreement for a site has been signed and the
wireless company has been authorized to proceed. If the locality objects to
the proposed construction, VDOT, in making the final decision, will consider
the specific objections of the locality and what alternatives are available".
The 21-day review period will limit the ability of staff to review an
individual application.
Mr. Citimberg said VDOT has made staff aware of five potential tower
sites in Albemarle County. The five sites are: (1) 1-64 at Route 29, a 185-
foot tower is proposed in the northwest quadrant of the interchange. This
site is proposed by Triton Communications which intends to provide PCS service
(Currently, Triton does not provide service in Albemarle County); (2) 1-64 at
the Ivy Rest Area, a 180-foot tower is proposed at the Ivy Rest Area.
Initially this tower is proposed to be used by CFW Communications. However,
the tower would be designed for additional users; (3) 1-64 at Route 682 (Broad
Axe Road), an 80-foot tower is proposed in the median of 1-64. Access would
be from Broad Axe Road only. The tower is proposed by CFW Communications; (4)
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
000042
1-64 at Route 250 (Yancey Mills), a 180-foot tower is proposed in the
interchange. The tower is proposed by CFW Communications; and, (5) 1-64 at
Yancey Mills Rest Area, an 80-foot tower is proposed at the Yancey Mills Rest
Area. The tower is proposed by CFW Communications
Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT has requested preliminary comments (preceding
the initiation of the 21-day review period for any particular tower) from the
County on these proposals. Staff has informed VDOT that the construction of
facilities in the right-of-way of 1-64 is a very sensitive issue for the
County as 1-64 is designated as an Entrance Corridor. The Ivy Valley area has
had several requests for applications which have been unsuccessful and staff
has requested that VDOT take this into consideration before taking any action.
Albemarle County has unique characteristics that mean that general statewide
guidelines are not always applicable. Staff has also requested that all
towers within the right-of-way comply with the Zoning Ordinance and that a
special use permit be obtained prior to construction, which would lead to a
normal review procedure. He noted that there are six recommendations in the
staff's report which the Board'is requested to endorse.
Ms. Humphris said it seems to her that the first recommendation (Ail
facilities intended to be used by Personal Wireless Service Providers should
comply with the Zoning Ordinance and should obtain a special use permit prior
to construction of any facility.) is logical and something the Board needs to
support and promote. She asked for a better understanding of what VDOT's
position is based on. She has been asked if the ~Intelligent Transportation
System" is something which is on paper which shows their needs for the future.
Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. Tucker would need to address the specifics. What staff
has seen speaks to a general program for development of an Intelligent
Transportation System statewide, but he does not know that they have been
located in terms of facilities, or particular points on the State's road
system.
Ms. Humphris said if there is no finite plan with specific facilities
located in specific places, then it would leave her to believe that facilities
such as the five noted in the staff's report are specifically for the use of
commercial providers and not necessarily for VDOT. She said if there is a
plan and they know where they need specific facilities, do they know the
height of the towers that VDOT needs, not the commercial providers. She
thinks there should be some kind of justification from VDOT that they need the
towers at the heights mentioned before they can allow a commercial provider to
be on the towers. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT representatives have indicated that
any tower location request would be evaluated for its usefulness and how it
fit into VDOT's needs, and that some of the heights being requested for towers
may not be what VDOT considers to be appropriate for that particular location.
Staff was given no indication by VDOT that they had pre-established particular
sites or had established any height that they felt was necessary for their
particular needs. He said it is fortunate that this information was provided
to staff before any official 21-day review period began.
Ms. Humphris said if VDOT already needs five towers in just this stretch
of 1-64, ~Heaven help us!" That is unbelievable. Ms. Thomas said it is
enough to rethink the Intelligent Transportation System that the Board
previously supported. Mr. Marshall said he is not happy that VDOT can come
into the County and stick towers up without any concern for the County's
zoning regulations. He feels the Board should have control over the towers.
Ms. Tucker said there currently is no policy for the installation of
these towers in VDOT's rights-of-way. It is still under review. Her office
would forward any comments the County makes. She said their local input to
the Richmond Office handling this review, has been similar to what County
staff just commented on. She knows the sensitivity of the County, and
supports a lot of what the Board has said today.
Mr. Marshall said since the State is a higher authority, he wonders if
this means that VDOT can circumvent the Board's authority any time they like
in the future. Mr. Davis said that VDOT has been less sensitive in Northern
Virginia than Ms. Tucker has indicated. In Fairfax County, there is currently
litigation on this very issue. Last Fall, VDOT, without any consideration for
Fairfax County's zoning ordinance, erected towers in conjunction with AT&T.
Fairfax County filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop them from
building a series of towers, which was denied. But, a lawsuit is currently
pending which will go to trial in September, on whether or not a county can
require AT&T to go through a comprehensive review process by the Fairfax
000043
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
County Planning Commission. The Board is aware that unless a public facility
were deemed to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, it could not be
built. The issue as to whether or not a county can require VDOT to go through
that process is more problematic. The argument has been that these facilities
are not being built for VDOT's use, but rather for the wireless
telecommunications industry. The real issue has been the discovery proceeding
as to whether or not it is really VDOT's towers or whether it is AT&T's
towers. There has been a very aggressive defense by AT&T and VDOT to not
provide the information that Fairfax sought, and that is what has caused the
continuance. Chesterfield County has also been litigating a similar issue,
but he understands they have reached an agreement that the wireless provider
will go through the special use permit process. There is a caveat to that
case in that there is an expectation that it will be approved, that they will
meet reasonable conditions imposed by Chesterfield County. Other localities
have attempted to litigate this question. James City County filed an
injunction when a tower was springing up on 1-64 and they ended up reaching a
compromise with the Attorney General's Office that allowed the tower to be
built, with various conditions added to keep it from having a significant
impact on the county.
Ms. Thomas asked on what basis they filed the injunction. Mr. Davis
replied that it was on the basis that they had failed to get a building permit
for the tower. Chesapeake has gone through similar situations with VDOT
towers. Albemarle County is not the first on the list of this issue. In
fact, Fairfax was approached with the same 21-day review process last Fall, so
Albemarle County is now going through the same situation that Fairfax had last
year. It is an issue this Board will have to look at carefully. Hopefully,
VDOT will be very cooperative and follow some of the recommendations being
made by staff. It is not a cut-and-dry issue that these towers can be built
without County approval if they are being built for the providers. If they
are being built by VDOT, it is very problematic that the County can place
conditions on them.
Ms. Tucker said it would be helpful if information about the County's
approval process for towers off of VDOT right-of-way could be shared with
VDOT. Mr. Marshall said he could see in the future that there would be no
need for anyone coming into the County with a new phone system, etc., to
consult the County at all. They would just go to VDOT and get towers all
along the highways.
Ms. Thomas said she noticed the big tower on the Virginia Power property
on Hydraulic Road has more and more things on it. It now has at least two
cellular telephone provider panels and other items. One of the lower things
looks like what Virginia Power has on their property at the intersection of 1-
64 and Fifth Street. According to Mr. Huja, the City did not think they had
any ability to even look at that. It is an example of what she thinks will
happen if there is a tower. It is looking increasingly intrusive to her.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Tucker if there are setback or height limitations
on anything being put in a median strip. Ms. Tucker replied that VDOT does
have clear zone requirements on most roadways, particularly on the
interstates. She is not certain about height requirements.
Ms. Thomas said some of the loudest screams will come from adjacent
landowners when they realize that the income from these towers will be going
to VDOT rather than to the nearby landowners. She has one very angry family
of constituents who are upset because they were denied the opportunity to have
the income from a tower on their property. It is good income for citizens,
and it will be going to VDOT. If the State takes away this income, she thinks
the State will get into the unfair competition field.
Ms. Tucker said she was not aware of the details of the litigation going
on throughout the State, but perhaps there are other localities that do not
allow for any towers on public or private property or are extremely
restrictive. Mr. Davis said the Federal Telecommunications Act requires that
localities allow towers. He said Fairfax County has a fairly liberal policy
in that they provide a good number of public sites for location of towers.
Businesses are evading those sites in order to use the VDOT sites. Ms. Tucker
said she was not aware of the history behind the pursuit of VDOT rights-of-
way. She said that many times utilities, in particular, would like to use
roadway corridors for many reasons: cost, efficiency and ease of maintenance
once the utility is installed. Often, VDOT allows utilities in its rights-of-
way.
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 13)
000044
Ms. Humphris asked what it meant when Ms. Tucker said VDOT has not
firmed up its policy yet. Does this mean that VDOT, or the CTB, make a policy
that is voted on and accepted as policy, or law, for the Commonwealth? Ms.
Tucker said the policy comes about through VDOT offices in Richmond and then
it should be adopted by the CTB. It will then be departmental law at her
level (the Residency Office).
Ms. Humphris found it interesting that a group of unelected bureaucrats
has the power to determine land use for the elected representatives in a
locality, and also to do it for financial gain. Mr. Marshall said some
bureaucrat somewhere is looking at this as a source of revenue for VDOT, and
the bottom line is that it is monetary. In doing so, they are taking away a
lot of the local governing body's authority.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff was given an indication of what the lease rates
will be and they are very, very low. From a monetary standpoint, VDOT will
not be making a lot of money from this policy. Mr. Tucker said that is not
what he has heard. Mr. Davis said that in the litigation in Fairfax, he was
told that the amounts of money have been revealed in discovery, and the per
year, per pole lease is up to $70,000 per pole. Mr. Cilimberg said that is
entirely different from what the staff has been told.
Ms. Humphris said she noticed a new tower in a rest stop on the way to
Richmond. It did not seem to have enough safe distance between its location
and the roadway in the event of a fall. Mr. Martin said as one travels the
interstate highways these days, one can see a tower in almost any direction,
particularly in Northern Virginia, or the Tidewater area.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks it is important to get answers to her
questions. Through the MPO, the Highway Research Council at the University,
did an intelligent transportation study for the area. There is the "smart"
road in Blacksburg, and she does not know of any other plans for the ITS, but
she thinks it is crucial that the Board have an understanding of what is
happening in this matter. If there is a plan, the Board needs to know what it
is. If there is just a thought with the name "intelligent transportation
system" and not a plan, then this is a total farce.
Mr. Martin said this goes to Mr. Davis' comments in terms of whether
these are telecommunications towers or VDOT's towers. Mr. Marshall agreed,
saying he would not object to legitimate VDOT towers.
Ms. Thomas said the Board tends to be polite in its dealings with Ms.
Tucker because it realizes that she is very responsive to this community, but
she would like the Board to investigate the strongest possible response to
these proposals. She asked if a motion was necessary to direct the staff to
do the research that will allow the Board to respond in the strongest possible
way when the 21-day period starts, legal, technical, land use, etc. She
thinks an action like that would show the Board's real feeling about this
matter rather than just a polite conversation. She would like the staff's
action to reflect the Board's unanimous concern on this issue.
Ms. Humphris agreed and said that of necessity the Board has to protect
the County with the strongest possible language. Depending on how this
unfolds, if the County has to take the legal route, she would say the Board
should do it.
Mr. Marshall said, rather than doing that now and hurrying through it
and not getting the proper language, he suggested not taking any action today,
but deferring until the staff can draft the proper language. Mr. Tucker said
staff could draft a resolution for the Board to adopt next week.
Mr. Martin asked for the County Attorney's recommendation. Mr. Davis
said the Board should request that no towers be built until there has been an
agreed-upon policy that is supported by the local governments as well as
accommodates VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board was in agreement with the staff's six
recommendations (see staff's report which is on file), particularly the first
recommendation that any request for a tower should be subject to the special
use permit process. Ms. Humphris, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Marshall agreed. Mr.
Cilimberg said that will be a point to be raised in the resolution. He asked
if some request should be made that VDOT identify what the intelligent
transportation system plan is, and how it speaks to location of facilities,
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
00004
and construction. Ms. Humphris said the resolution should ask what VDOT's
need is and whether they have a map. Ms. Thomas said if they are public
facilities (VDOT's ITS), they should be in the County's Comprehensive Plan; if
they are private, commercial facilities, they should go through the special
use permit process. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Ms. Thomas said she
thinks it would be helpful for staff to lay out the process that would need to
be followed for the commercial part of that pole, and also for the public
facilities part of that pole.
Mr. Marshall asked that staff draft such a resolution and put it on the
next agenda.
Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation:
Project, State of the Basin 1998.
Report on the Rivanna River Basin
Mr. Russell Perry, co-chair of the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable,
presented the Report to the Board. The Roundtable spent the first 15 months
educating itself on the river and collecting additional data themselves.
During each season of the year, sampling was done at the 14 sites to record
the water quality and health of the invertebrate population. Significant
differences were found between high-flow and low-flow. They also assessed and
documented the morphology of the stream bank at each location. In May of
1997, the general public was invited to participate in recording the watershed
through the Rivanna River Explore Day, organized by the Environmental
Education Center, in which over a 100 volunteers surveyed portions of the
rivers and streams and created a living archive in the form of 25 volumes of
sketches, photographs, maps, videotapes, audiotapes and poetry.
At the end of 1997, the Roundtable published the first draft of the
"State of the Basin" report, which is on file with the County. He then
summarized the Roundtable's findings: first, there is a very strong
relationship between land use and water quality; that is hardly a surprise,
but was worth proving. Second, during normal and low-flow situations, the
surface waters of the creeks and rivers are relatively clean; during high-
flows, however, many of the waters show significantly higher levels of
nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal coliform bacteria and total suspended solids. All
of these pollutants are associated with untreated stormwater run-off, which
suggests a need for creative ways to develop vegetative buffer strips to
filter and cleanse this water. Experts have suggested that soil erosion is
the most significant source of water pollution in the region, and that
vegetative stream side buffers would reduce this erosion and sedimentation in
the streams and reservoirs. The costs of adding these buffer strips should be
weighed against the cost of future water treatment facilities, reservoirs and
the benefits of increased recreation and tax revenue if the waters are clean
and clear. Further, numerous cases were documented of fecal coliform bacteria
counts exceeding the DEQ maximum standard for human contact. These fecal
coliform levels are considerably higher than those found by DEQ in their own
annual testing of these same waters, which suggests that DEQ testing schedule
may not be telling the whole story, and that these high counts may constitute
a human health risk, especially if they are the result of human waste.
Further tests can, and should, be used to characterize the fecal coliform as
derived from human versus livestock.
Mr. Perry said the Roundtable was delighted to find that in all but one
of the monitoring sites, there was a broad diversity of bottom-dwelling
invertebrate creatures. Meadow Creek, the primarily urban watershed, was the
only monitoring site not to have at least one sample result at the excellent
level. The Roundtable considers Meadow Creek to be the canary in the mine
warning of the impacts of urban concentration of impervious surfaces on stream
health. Studies in other urban areas show significant deterioration of water
quality and increased costs of water treatment at high levels of impervious
surface. They found that many of the creeks or rivers are characterized by
deeply gouged unstable channels prone to bank undercutting and collapse, North
Fork being especially illustrative of that point. These channels are
indicative of watersheds with large areas of impervious surfaces that
accelerate the passage of water to the creeks and rivers while reducing the
amount of stormwater that actually seeps into the ground. This causes sudden
rushes of water during storms which results in soil erosion. The observation
of the poor condition of stream banks show that most such watersheds lack the
diverse species normally found in healthy streamside forests. They found that
there was inadequate or insufficient data on the diversity of fish populations
in the Piedmont. For reasons that are unclear, this region is one of the most
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
sparsely surveyed regions in the State.
000046
Although many historical records
exist, few sites have been visited on multiple occasions. There is
insufficient historical data to allow correlations to be drawn between land
use practices or water chemistry and the health of the numerous fish species,
although incomplete evidence suggests a steady decline in the number of fish
in the waters. As a result of the Roundtable's inquiries, the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has decided to institute regular fish
surveys at standard sites throughout the Rivanna region to identify trends in
stream health.
Mr. Perry said they found that for meeting present and foreseeable water
needs, the Rivanna River Basin is ~water adequate," not "water rich" as it is
sometimes characterized. By water adequate, they mean that Part of the
precipitation which becomes stream flow and groundwater is sufficient to meet
the needs of the existing users in the basin if managed prudently. However,
there can be great variability between high- and low-flows, which combined
with the lack of ideal surface water sites, leads to a conclusion that water
resources and sediment inputs need to be managed more carefully and
creatively.
Mr. Perry said they found that the community is not well-connected to
its streams and rivers physically and culturally. The navigable parts of the
waters are sparsely served by boat access facilities. Few of the many miles
of shoreline are publicly accessible for walking and recreation. Further, the
rich historical association with the River is not well known or interpreted.
These topics represent opportunities for expanded use of and education related
to the river. Finally, they found that dozens of State, Federal and local
agencies which have the responsibility for the waters of the regions are
usually not working in a coordinated manner. Data collection, particularly,
is not organized in a manner allowing for correlations or conclusions.
Further, data acquisition for most of these agencies is time consuming and
painfully difficult. The Roundtable's final report includes over 70
recommendations to be explored or taken. The five groups of recommendations
are: a corridor plan to guide decision making; a coordinated knowledge data
base about the basin; resource organization, a task force should be
established bringing together those who are interested in or responsible for
the basin; community design; and stewardship, educating the public about the
river.
Mr. Marshall said he was delighted to know that they had found some
woodcock population, as hunting them is one of the finest experiences a bird-
hunter can have.
Ms. Thomas asked what the Board should be doing in response to this
report. She asked how much of the Roundtable's recommendations and findings
the Board would be able to incorporate into the Rural Areas section of the
Comprehensive Plan, and would that be appropriate. Mr. David Benish replied
that what staff should do is look at the Natural Environment section to see
what changes could be made in the Water Resources section.
Ms. Thomas said she had been interested in a few of the student projects
at the University of Virginia. Whenever people talk about waterways, there is
an interest in allowing more access to them and involving the waterways in
plans.
Mr. Marshall said he likes to take a canoe and float down the Rivanna
River, but the amount of trash you see in the river is unbelievable. It
appears that people just back a vehicle up next to the river, and dump any and
everything. Mr. Perry said there is a lot that can be done to develop pride
in these waters for the whole communitY. He said if there was easier public
access to the river, that would be a good starting point. Within the County,
he guesses that the only public access points are at the Reservoir. He asked
if that is correct. Mr. Benish said there are a few at local parks and a
couple of Game and Inland Fisheries access points. He said that in the
Natural Environment section of the Comprehensive Plan, staff has been working
with the Commission on an extensive Greenway plan that goes beyond Rivanna
River focus, and focuses on other streams. It is oriented toward the areas
that serve the growth area because that is where the pressures are, but it is
the groundwork for a much more extensive concept of recreation and stream
protection. It does include the James River and the Rivanna River all the way
to the County line at Fluvanna.
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
000047
Ms. Humphris said in addition to all the scientific knowledge the Round-
table has brought to bear, the one simple thing of raising the public's level
of awareness to the importance of the Rivanna system is an important step.
The statement that the Rivanna is water adequate, but not water rich, is
something that people need to understand.
Mr. Perry mentioned that the Roundtable would be having a meeting soon
with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to discuss some ideas about water
conservation strategies and stormwater management.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing to consider Granting Certain Rights-
of-way to Virginia Power across County-owned Property known as Tax Map 91,
Parcel 2, located at the Monticello High School Site. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 18, 1998.)
Mr. Tucker said §15.2-1800(B) of the Code of Virginia requires the Board
to hold a public hearing prior to conveying any interest in County-owned
property, including easements. Virginia Power has requested two separate
rights-of-way/easements over the Monticello High School property for
installation of underground power lines in two separate locations in order to
provide electrical service to the new high school. The County's Engineering
and Public Works Department has reviewed the two Right-of-Way Agreements
provided by Virginia Power and has approved the location of the power lines,
as shown on the two Agreements and accompanying plats dated July 24, 1997, and
August 20, 1997, respectively. He said staff recommends that the Board grant
the rights-of-way/easements to Virginia Power, and also authorize the COunty
Executive to execute the two agreements on behalf of the County.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. With no one from
the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins,
to grant the rights-of-way/easements to Virginia Power and to authorize the
County Executive to execute the two Right-of-Way Agreements (identified as
Plat No. 81970086 and Plat No. 81970098) on behalf of the County. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: At 10:34 a.m., Mr. Marshall called for a recess.
reconvened at 10:44 a.m.)
The Board
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-98-08. Crossroads CV143. Request by CFW
Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance for a waiver of the 25-foot side setback to'construct a
telecommunications facility on Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A. This property is zoned
VR, Village Residential, and is located 260' from the west side of Rt 29
South, approximately one mile south of St Rt 710. This site is located within
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated
growth area (Deferred from June 10, 1998) .
Mr. Cilimberg again summarized the staff's report which is on file in
the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 21,
1998, by a vote of 4:3 recommended approval of the petition, subject to
conditions. He said that in addition to the Board of Supervisor's hearing
this request, the applicant has also requested review of an appeal of the
Commission's denial of the setback waiver.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a proposal for an alternative tower site
which has been reviewed in the field by the applicant and one of the
Commission members, Mr. Rieley, as well as the landowner and the adjacent
landowner. When the Board heard this request before it deferred action and
requested that the Planning Commission reconsider the side setback waiver for
the tower, because it would have been closer to the property line than the
height of the tower. The Commission, originally, did not grant that waiver
and suggested another location for the tower which met setback requirements.
The petition went back to the Commission and they did not grant the waiver
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
000048
feeling a location could be found meeting setback requirements that would be
as good or better than the original site.
Mr. Cilimberg said that following the last Commission meeting on June
23, 1998, the applicant requested that the Board of Supervisors review that
decision by the Commission, as well as take action on the special use permit.
Since that time, and after the meeting in the field, the applicant has found a
site which is represented in the survey. On that survey is shown the original
site which was 25 feet from the property line, and the new location which at
its closest, is 91 feet from a property line. It is at a slightly high
elevation (830 feet) rather than the original location (816 feet), but in an
area of trees which are approximately 80 feet in height. The applicant is
agreeable to this new location. The surveyed site (represented on a handout
today) would be the new reference for Condition No. 3. Mr.~Rieley suggested
that there be a requirement to survey the trees in the area and verify their
height. Staff feels that, between Condition #1 and Condition #7, they will be
able to ensure that the height of the tower is consistent with tree height.
Ms. Thomas stated that this had been an interesting process, with
questions coming up about the accuracy of photo-simulations. She has not been
out to make sure that this new site is in fact the site that the landoWner,
Planning Commission and applicant all agree is the correct site. She asked
how the Board could word their approval, if they approve this today, to say it
assumes that what is shown on paper is actually the site to which the
landowner and Planning Commission agreed. She would not be requesting this if
the Board had not had such difficulty with photo simulations that turned out
to be completely misleading. She would like to know that the Board's approval
is tied to field verification by its own staff. She asked if that wording
could be included in any approval.
Mr. Davis suggested the Board add a Condition No. 18 saying: "Prior to
any construction, the site shall be field verified by the Planning Director to
assure it is in the location identified by the agreement of the property
owner, applicant and County staff."
Mr. Cilimberg said the other change needed is to reword Condition #3a to
say: "The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall
be located as shown on the attached survey entitled "Tower site for CFW
Wireless CV-143, dated Revised June 30, 1998."
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to
approve SP-98-08, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission, with Condition No. 3a amended to read: ~The tower shall be
located as shown on the attached survey entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless
CV-143, dated Revised June 30, 1998," and the addition of Condition No. 18 to
read: ~Prior to any construction, the site shall be field verified by the
Planning Director to assure it is in the location identified by the agreement
of the property owner, applicant and County staff."
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The elevation at the top of the tower shall not exceed the
height of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet
down slope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a
certified statement on the height of the tallest tree.
Antenna may extend seven (7) feet above the height of the
tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not
exceed three (3) inches in diameter;
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as
follows:
The tower shall be of treated wood;
Guy wires shall not be permitted;
The tower shall have no lighting; and
The tower shall not be painted;
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
000049
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
The tower shall be located as shown on the attached
survey entitled "Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-143,
dated Revised June 30, 1998."
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
Antenna shall be limited to a maximum of two (2)
fiberglass antenna not to exceed seven (7) feet in
height or three (3) inches in diameter. These
antenna shall be painted brown or a color to match
the pole; and
bo
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:
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 to 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;
Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that
all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding.
part of the luminary. For purposes of this condition, a
"luminary" 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 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;
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
10.
000050
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
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;
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;
Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the
access road shall be forty (40) feet;
No slopes associated with construction of the tower and
accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1
unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization
measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed;
The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and
fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter;
The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five
(75) feet in cross section;
All other equipment shall be painted brown;
All lighting shall be shielded from Route 29;
Electric power lines shall be buried; and
Prior to any construction, the site shall be field
verified by the Planning Director to assure it is in the
location identified by the agreement of the property
owner, applicant and County staff.
Agenda Item No. 14. Request to set a public hearing to amend the
service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer
service to Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 & 22C for proposed soccer field complex
(Hurt Investment and South Fork Land Trust).
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.
He said the applicant is requesting that public sewer service be permitted for
Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C. This site is located on the south side of
Route 643, Polo Grounds Road, approximately 1;1 miles east of Route 29. The
property is bordered on the north by Route 643 and on the south by the Rivanna
River. The purpose of the request is to allow construction of a soccer field
complex.
Mr. Benish said the Board approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22
on February 12, 1992. That approval was limited to only the church building
approved under SP-90-35 for Covenant Church of God. This site is located in
the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations for Public Water
and Sewer outside of Development Areas states "Only allow changes in service
areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the property is:
(1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in
danger". The sewer line does cross the property. The request for public
sewer for this site is made in order to alleviate the need to construct
drainfields, which due to the topography of the site, would need to be located
at an elevation above the proposed building. This location for the
drainfields will require pumping. Pumping of effluent is not a desirable
design as it involves the use of a pump which can fail. Gravity is the
preferred method for disposal of effluent.
Mr. Benish said this request is for sewer service only to the proposed
soccer fields. The Board has already determined that an 800-seat church
connected to public water and sewer is appropriate for this site. In staff
opinion, the proposed soccer fields have less of an impact than the previously
approved church. The soccer field will cause no greater impact to the sewer
line than would have been caused by the church. In fact, usage of the sewer
line by the soccer fields is anticipated to be less than would occur with the
church. Under the assumption that the prior decision to grant public water
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
00005:I.
and sewer service to this site was correct, this request for sewer only
service is supportable. Approval of this request does not, in staff opinion,
create any unwanted precedent.
Mr. Benish said should the Board proceed to public hearing for the
service area boundary amendment and approve the proposed special use permit
for the soccer facility, staff is able to support this request for sewer
service with two conditions: (1) Approval of SP-90-35 is revoked and the
prior approval of water and sewer service for Parcel 22 is revoked; and, (2)
Sewer service only is authorized and only for the soccer fields proposed by
SP-98-18 and SP-98-22.
Ms. Humphris asked if staff was recommending that the Board deal with
this request when it hear the two special use permit requests. Mr. Benish
said that is correct. Ms. Humphris said the Board knows nothing about this
request and feels it should have information before it even sets the public
hearing. Mr. Benish said staff was requesting that the Board set the public
hearing for its August 12 meeting when it could take action if it so wished,
although the Board would not be obligated to do so. Ms. Humphris said there
should be no misunderstanding as to why the Board was setting the public
hearing. It is not being done necessarily based on any thought that this
should happen, but only on getting the information and dealing with it in one
process.
Mr. Martin asked how the other Board members felt about setting both of
these issues for the same day. He said the two issues could get confused.
Mr. Tucker said the one thing is not necessarily dependent on the other. Mr.
Cilimberg said it was the staff's idea to give all of the information to the
Board at one time. A decision could then be made while the information was
fresh in the Board's mind. Mr. Benish said staff was in the process of
reviewing the site development plan to see if it could be accommodated with
private systems, so the proposal for the soccer fields is not dependent on the
service area change.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to set
the public hearing for August 12, 1998. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation: Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) .
Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Services, made a presentation on
the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), which was passed by the General Assembly
in 1992 and implemented in 1993. The intent of the CSA is to collaborate at
the local community level and make programs child-centered, family-focused,
and community-based with slow cost increases by merging funding streams. CSA
identifies groups to be served, breaking them down into mandated population,
targeted population and other eligible individuals.
Ms. Ralston said there is a specific structure to the CSA, with the
State Management Team and State Executive Council being composed of the top
five agencies. At the local level, the Community Policy and Management Team
(CPMT) oversees the policy and expenditures. The real crux of what happens
locally with the CSA is the Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT), which
includes area professionals who evaluate problems and decide what actions to
take. FAPT makes decisions on cases requiring funding below a certain level;
CPMT evaluates the cases above that funding level. There has been tremendous
growth in Albemarle in foster care, special education and court youth. There
has also been a change in the funding formula in the State; some of their
funding did not require local matching funds in the past.
Ms. Thomas asked whether "local matching" means the County needs to give
more money or receives more money. Ms. Ralston said it was both. The State
was giving more money and the County was required to put up mo're money to
match the State funds. Foster care used to be a 50 percent match; now the CSA
funds have a 45 percent match for the County. Charlottesville has a 30
percent match. The number of children coming into foster care is increasing
greatly. Since March, 22 children have been taken in, though only eight were
anticipated; five came through the court system and are in rather expensive
OOO052
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
residential programs. There are increases in the number of children in
specialized placement who cannot go into regular foster homes because they
require this specialized care. There is also a decrease in the goal of
returning children to their homes.
Mr. Tom Nash, County Schools, said there was an overlap between~foster
care and children needing specialized care, adding to the cost. The School
System has tried to provide some programs, but as things deteriorate at home,
it becomes necessary to place children somewhere outside of the home. There
are children who, because of emotional disturbance or the significance of
their disability, cannot be serviced in the schools.
Mr. Martin asked how special education was matched prior to the CSA.
Mr. Nash said it was done in two ways. When the child was first placed by
Social Services or the courts, the State provided 100 percent; when the child
was placed solely because of special education, the funding would be based on
the composite index, which is higher than average in Albemarle County.
Mr. Martin asked what mental health brings to the table, financially.
Ms. Ralston said that it did not bring much. Mr. Carroll said mental health
funding did not have a local match. It is a very small sum of money in
comparison to foster care.
Ms. Ralston said the CPMT has tried to respond to this growth. They
have applied to trust fund programs (those which are State-funded) and have
received funding for three programs locally. They have utilized the Crime
Control funding to replace some of the expenditures they would have seen with
the Court Services Unit. They have expanded TAFF, which recruits and trains
people for foster homes. They have used IV-E and Medicaid funds. They
created a scale for parent contributions. Utilization management has kicked
in from the State, but it is too early to tell what impact that will have.
Prevention is key to reducing the need for services, identifying children in
need and working with them early. She said that Albemarle County rated fairly
high in risk factors, according to Kids County. These are indicators that
need to be looked at to curb further growth.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that, from his work with the State Board of
Health, he sees a lot of these children. Ms. Thomas said it sounds as though
all are doing what they should be doing.
At this time, the Board skipped the next agenda items and went instead
to Agenda Item Nos. 18 and 19, which they discussed concurrently.
Agenda Item No. 18. Work Session: STA-98-01. Subdivision Ordinance.
It was noted in the staff's report that a public hearing on this ordinance was
held on June 17, 1998, at which time it was determined that a work session
should be held prior to the requested adoption date of July 15, 1998. The
purpose of the changes proposed to the Subdivision Ordinance, are intended to:
Codify the administrative review process which has been in place for
several years;
Update the ordinance to be consistent with mandatory provisions of the
Code of Virginia (i.e., review and appeal procedures);
Include Code of Virginia provisions in the Albemarle Code which the
County utilizes but has never included in the subdivision regulations
(i.e., vacation of plats); and
Generally update the ordinance by change or deletion of antiquated
provisions such as "definitions" and "public road standards."
Agenda Item No. 19. Work Session: ZTA-98-06. Section 32.0
Ordinance.
Site Plan
It was noted in the staff's report that a public hearing on this item
was held on June 17, 1998, at which time it was determined that a work session
should be held prior to the requested adoption date of July 15, 1998. The
purpose of the changes proposed for the Site Plan portion of the Zoning
Ordinance are intended to:
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 00005~
(Page 22)
Codify the administrative review process which has been in place for
several years;
Update Section 32.0 to be consistent with mandatory provisions of the
Code of Virginia (i.e., review and appeal procedures);
Include in Section 32.0 provisions of the Code of Virginia which the
County utilizes but which have not been in this section; and
Generally update Section 32.0 by changing or deleting antiquated
provisions.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said both of these requests were on
the Board's agenda on June 17. Since that time, staff has identified changes
as editorial, mandated and substantive changes. The numbering system in the
Subdivision Ordinance has been changed to fit with recodification of the Code
of Albemarle. He said there have been mandatory changes in the Code of
Virginia regarding appeal of site plans. He then discussed the current
process. A new provision allowing 90 days before taking a site plan to the
Planning Commission, as compared to the 60 days allowed under the current
process. He then showed the Board a time line listing the various steps in
the process. Mr. Martin asked if reactivation of a plan after a denial
restarted the process at day zero. Mr. Keeler replied that it would.
Mr. Keeler mentioned that a significant change in the Code of Virginia
deals with an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the Board of
Supervisors. The Code has no provision for anyone to appeal from the body
that makes the determination to the Board of Supervisors; the appeal is
directly to the Circuit Court and can only be made by the applicant. Staff
has inserted an option for the applicant to appeal to the Board of Supervisors
at his option, but there is no provision for abutting property owners to
appeal the decision of the Commission to the Board of Supervisors. They can
request that the Commission review the plan, but once the Commission has acted
on it, the only appeal is by the applicant. Also, the existing ordinance does
not require that abutting property owners be notified of the site review
committee meeting. Mr. Davis said the major change in the ordinance was
putting in the administrative process.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Planning Commission has its meeting and people
begin complaining to the Board, does the Board have the power to call up the
issue. Mr. Davis replied that only the applicant could appeal the decision of
the Commission to the Board. Experience has shown that unless there has been
a mistake in fact, there is little the Board can do. An adjacent landowner
may be able to sue the owner of the land, but cannot appeal the Planning
Commission's decision.
Ms. Thomas asked what the basis of an appeal by a developer would be.
Mr. Davis replied that a denial requires the County to point to a specific
section of the ordinance that the developer has not complied with. An appeal
will challenge that finding. These ordinances are ministerial, containing
standards that can largely be objectively determined.
Mr. Martin said the time line Mr. Keeler showed the Board should be
included with all materials mailed from the Planning Office, even to the
adjacent landowners. Mr. Davis said a change has been inserted, that the
notice letter will contain a specific notice date and appeal date.
Additionally, the notice must be mailed to adjacent property owners at least
five days in advance of the Site Review Committee meeting. He mentioned one
minor change to Section 14.506 which deals with side lot lines, changing the
phrase "shall be at right angles" to "should be at right angles" to give
flexibility to the reviewers. A few other provisions were amended to add back
the Water Resources Manager as a member of the Site Review Committee. He said
the process has been developed over a number of years; it has been shared with
the development community and seems to have been found acceptable.
Mr. Tucker noted that the public hearing on these ordinances was set for
July 15; this is just a work session today. Mr. Davis said when the Board
holds its public hearing on recodification of the Code of Albemarle, he will
recommend that it adopt the amended Chapter 14 at that time. The Site Plan
Ordinance, which is part of the Zoning Ordinance, will require separate action
that night since the Zoning Ordinance is not part of this recodification.
000054
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Ms. Thomas said she had two substantive items she would like the Board
to discuss regarding family subdivisions. The terms "family division" and
"intermediate family" both include "spouse" in the definition. In another
part of the ordinance, it says that a person only needs to hold onto the
property for one year after doing the family division, so after that time they
can sell it off. The Board is allowed to increase that period of time, and
thinks if it were increased to two years, people might take the provision
more seriously when there is a family subdivision. She asked if staff should
look at this, or is the Board happy with the way it is now.
Mr. Martin said he thinks of a "family division" in terms of five years
or more; he thinks of it as something that is fairly permanent. Mr. Davis
said in the current ordinance, once a family member received a lot in a family
subdivision, there was no prohibition on transferring it back to another
family member, even immediately. Under provisions in the new ordinance, a
one-year period has been included before the land can be transferred, even
back to a family member. He thinks that will keep some of the abuses from
taking place. What Ms. Thomas is suggesting could be done as part of this
recodification. The Board has the ability under the advertising for this
recodification to amend a definition. He does not believe staff would have
any problem with including a two-year limitation without any detailed waiver
provision. Outside of that two-year range, he thinks there would be some need
to allow an exemption process so someone is not prohibited from alienating
their property. People need to be able to transfer property within some
reasonable amount of time based on changes in circumstances.
Mr. Marshall said he was talking about the need to transfer property
because of the death of the owner, and how that property is to be transferred
to children. Mr. Davis replied that the ordinance does not affect the devise
of property because of death. It affects a situation where a parent wants to
subdivide property for two children, and one child, because he cannot
physically be in Albemarle County wants to liquidate his holdings in order to
support a need in some other locality. Is it fair to require that person to
maintain ownership of that property for an extended period of time before it
could be sold even though that is their only financial holding? That is the
sort of contingency the Board would want to protect against. At this time,
there could be circumstances where someone received a piece of property simply
to allow it to be subdivided without having to put in infrastructure for a
road that might be required under the Subdivision Ordinance, and then in a
year sell the property, and there was never any intention to hold it other
than as a "for sale" lot. A two-year limitation might be long enough to stop
people from making "sham subdivisions" in order to just sell the lots. Family
subdivisions are intended to allow a family member to locate and live on the
property. At some point in time, there needs to be an examination to see if
Albemarle's ordinance is accomplishing that. What is sacrificed when family
subdivisions are allowed, is that there are inadequate road standards in
comparison to all other subdivisions. Mr. Martin said he would have no
problem with just taking the time to set a five-year limitation and putting
together whatever waivers would be needed. Mr. Tucker said he always thought
of the "family subdivision" as a way to help offspring by giving them a Piece
of land on which to put up a house.
Ms. Thomas asked how giving one's spouse land on which to build a
separate house leads to the goal of family cohesion. Mr. Davis said, if there
is a consensus of the Board, the word "spouse" can be struck from the
definition. Then when staff examines the family subdivision issue in more
depth, a recommendation on changing the holding period can be made at that
time. Mr. Tucker asked if the ordinance could limit the division to just one
lot per offspring. Mr. Davis replied that the new ordinance would do that
since it limits the devise to one lot per family member in their lifetime,
which is also a change from the current ordinance. The change in the
definitions removing the term ~spouse," in conjunction with that, would
accomplish what the Board wants to do.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to delete the word "spouse" from the
definition of members of the immediate family and, in Section 14-212, as a
condition of approval for a family division, the person must hold the property
for a period of two years instead of the current one year.
Mr. Martin asked what would happen if he promised land to his child and
the child died, whether he Could give the land to his child's spouse. Ms.
Thomas replied that he could give the land to grandchildren, or sell it for a
dollar.
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
000055
Mr. Perkins said he brought this up several weeks ago. He thought the
State Code defined family and family subdivision. He certainly feels the one-
year limit should be increased because he thinks it is being taken advantage
of now.
Mr. Tucker said there are currently applications and proposals for
family divisions pending. He asked if they were still valid. Ms. Thomas
replied that the advice the Board has always received is that it is standard
practice that any application not completed by the effective date of the new
ordinance would come under the new provisions. Mr. Davis said any
applications currently pending should be approved by the time this new
ordinance is adopted. Mr. Cilimberg asked how divisions from separate spouses
are handled under the new ordinance. Mr. Davis replied that it was one lot in
the County per family member per grantor, so if land were owned by separate
spouses, each could give a lot to a child. Mr. Cilimberg asked what staff
should do about any spouse to spouse transfers not completed by the 16th,
since they would then become prohibited. Mr. Davis said they could either be
grandfathered by the Board or denied.
Mr. Martin stated that staff should just stay with the normal process
for dealing with new ordinances. Ms. Thomas noted that the Board would be
having a public hearing, and if the public disagreed with the change, they
could tell the Board. Mr. Keeler mentioned that it was often difficult to
determine why people made their divisions. On more than one occasion, they
have had family divisions with transactions between spouses because of
divorce.
Ms. Humphris asked why a limitation of two years should be made, instead
of longer. Mr. Davis replied that if the limitation was longer than two
years, the Board would need to look at an exception process. Ms. Thomas said
she was hesitant to wait and make a change to five years after a staff study
because the Board just keeps asking staff to do more and more studies.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Thomas said that on pages 53 and 79 of the Subdivision Ordinance, it
lists the soil evaluations that need to be done in order to get site plans.
In the Health Department tests for whether the land is suitable for a septic
system, nowhere does it deal with areas which have known problems in terms of
water quantity. The Attorney General's opinion is that some kind of water
quantity testing can go into the provisions for allowing subdivisions. She
feels strongly that this is something that will become more and more necessary
in Albemarle County. So far, any major problems have been handled by simply
extending water lines way out into the County. She feels that if this kind of
hydrologic testing is not done, it is just setting up future problems. She
recommended that on Page 79, a section (f) be added stating that "in areas
with known problems, the agent can ask for water quantity and water quality
testing."
Mr. Davis said in the original draft of the Subdivision Ordinance, there
was a provision that basically said if the agent determined there was enough
evidence that there might be a water problem, he could request that a water
quantity analysis be provided. There was a staff meeting which generated
quite a bit of discussion of the subject. Subsequently, there was a work
session with the Planning Commission on the issue. What staff found is that
it is a very complicated issue. There are no definite standards as to how
much water is enough. The impact on adjacent property owners is problematic
because it is difficult to measure the impact to adjacent property owners.
There is a piece of legislation in the General Assembly, which was carried
over, that deals with central well systems. It would require proof when
central wells are dug, that they would not adversely affect off-site property.
The logic of carrying over the bill was that it is very difficult for someone
to be able to enter on adjacent property and do the tests that would be
necessary to prove that your well was not going to affect off-site property.
The same issue could exist for individual wells. How would one know your well
will affect an off-site property without doing some tests on an adjacent
property in conjunction with a draw-down test on the property where the well
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
000056
was to be drilled. There are staffing issues as to how that would affect the
subdivision process. He said it is an important issue, and other localities
have already addressed the issue in some superficial fashion. The Planning
staff and the Commission determined that it needed more analysis before
putting any provision in the ordinance. Mr. Martin said such a requirement
would increase the cost of housing.
Mr. Keeler noted that only one area in the County has been studied.
Additionally, this would not be purely voluntary or at the discretion of the
agent; any time the adjacent property owners were concerned, there would be a
demand for the agent to make this requirement. The Groundwater Study
recommended that a data base be developed. Based on a bill being introduced,
he thought staff could require quantity and quality testing arid prescribe well
construction methods, but could not require the type of testing needed to
determine the impacts on adjoining properties. Mr. Davis replied that it
could be required on-site, but what is at issue is whether the developer could
be required to go off-site and produce evidence that it would not hurt others'
wells.
Ms. Thomas asked why an adjacent property owner would not voluntary
comply and allow testing to find out if their own wells would be affected by a
subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff feels adjoining landowners who
opposed the subdivision would not allow them to test for fear that it would
not show the subdivision would affect their property. This is something the
groundwater study said the County should be working toward, and it laid out a
path to get there, but the County has never invested money or resources to get
the database of information needed. There needs to be some basis to tie it to
factual information. It also becomes a question of what they are being asked
to test for and what standards to meet. The Planning Commission had some
extensive discussions about this question. Some Commission members felt this
is a "buyer beware" situation. Staff did not think that was good, because
when people put themselves in harm's way, intentionally or unintentionally,
they come to the County and ask for help with their problem. There was also
discussion about putting a note on a plat that water quality and quantity is
not guaranteed by the County's approval of the plat as a buyer's beware note.
Mr. Martin said it seemed there is a strong consensus that this is not
something the Board should be doing at this time. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
this might be something that needs to be done, but he is uncomfortable just
jumping into it. If staff is to move forward with this idea, the Board will
have to make a commitment because consultants may be needed for the work.
Ms. Humphris asked how long ago the North Garden Groundwater Study was
done. Mr. Keeler replied it was about four years ago. He thinks the
Groundwater Study was adopted in 1992. Mr. Cilimberg said that study was done
by a survey of landowners; not by hydrogeologic testing.
Ms. Humphris said the issue of wells in rural areas has been discussed
for a long while. She found the discussion at the May 13th meeting of the
Planning Commission to be very interesting. She thinks the County should
continue in this direction for the sake of all of the water users in the
County who might have to "foot the bill" if the Board makes stupid decisions
about allowing people to build in certain areas when it is known that there is
not an adequate water supply in that area. The Board should not deliberately
take on those problems. She understands staff's feeling that the County is
not ready to do that before it has the knowledge on which to base an
ordinance. It is obvious that the County does not have that knowledge now,
and will not have, without investing a significant number of dollars.
Mr. Marshall said he has always felt there should be no subdivision
without it being served by public water and sewer.
Ms. Thomas said she had one other question that actually came up in a
lot of letters about the Mountain Ordinance. People asked why the County did
not just require a certain amount of tree canopy. She asked that question of
the County Attorney, and was told that the County requires as much tree canopy
as State law allows. Then there was a question about saving trees. She was
told that staff has done some work in a learning curve, and there is not
wording to be changed in this ordinance now.
Mr. Marshall said if there were no further discussion of this item at
this time, the Board would proceed to the next item on the agenda.
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
000057
Agenda Item No. 15a. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 12:35 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, to enter into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1.344(A) of the
Code of Virginia under subsection (3) to discuss a request to dispose of
publicly-owned property; and, under subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding probable litigation regarding a claim asserted
against the County and to discuss a specific legal matter regarding a
cooperative agreement. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None. ~'
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman
Agenda Item No. 15b. Certify Executive Session.
At 1:45 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each
Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from
the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and
identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard,
discussed or considered in the executive session.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Process for review of Mountain
Protection Ordinance (ZTA-98-05) and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-98-01)
review.
(Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 1:46 p.m.)
Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, said the Board, at its meeting on
June 17, 1998, deferred action on the Proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD)
Ordinance and related amendments (ZTA-98-05, ZMA-98-10, CPA-98-01) until
August 5. The Board directed that staff and the Mountain Protection Committee
to present the Board with a proposal for how to proceed with review of the MOD
ordinances by today's meeting.
Ms. Scala said her recommendation is to meet with the Mountain Committee
sometime in July to see if they have any new comments based on the public
hearings. On August 5, hold a work session on all three components.
Following the work session, the Board's options are to: adopt the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) alone, adopt the CPA and Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA), or adopt all three. If more discussion is desired on the
Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) or ZMA, staff recommends that the Board decide
which specific provisions it may wish to pursue, notify the public of its
intent and schedule an additional meeting in September for further discussion
and/or input from specific individuals. As far as keeping the public
informed, the most recent MOD ordinance draft is displayed on the Internet and
will be kept updated. After the August 5 meeting, additional public
information may consist of: an informational advertisement in the newspaper
outlining the latest draft of the ordinance, or a second open house with
notification by the mailing of letters to individual property owners. Before
the next meeting, she would ask that the Board give her names of specific
properties they would like to have used as examples, and if they have any
specific comments, that would be helpful.
Ms. Thomas noted that she was the Board liaison to this committee and
that they were going to have a meeting while she was out of town, so someone
else may want to play that role. Mr. Marshall said he would be glad to meet
with them.
Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion/Presentation: Proposal for
Recodification of the Code of Albemarle.
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
0000,58
Mr. Davis noted that for the last few years the idea of changing from a
code produCed by a publishing company to a code produced in-house has been
discussed. This had been delayed until Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia was
recodified. The County Code was last recodified in 1975, and much has changed
since then. The Code needs to be in compliance with State and Federal law.
Definitions, terminology and the numbering system need to be consistent
throughout the Code. Staff will set up the Code in an electronic database so
it can be made accessible from the Internet. The Board will hold a public
hearing on the recodification on July 15, and, at that time, can adopt the
recodified Code.
Mr. Davis said Chapter 1 is similar to existing Chapter 1, but has
updated language. Chapter 2 (Administration) has been reorganized and
consolidates several other chapters. Chapter 3 (Agricultural/Forestal
Districts) combines two chapters in the old Code, both State and local
agricultural/forestal districts. Chapter 4 (Animals/Fowl) is updated with few
substantive differences. Ms. Thomas asked whether the County is still
required to have a fund to reimburse farmers who have lost sheep to dogs. Mr.
Davis replied that he did not think so, although Augusta County still does.
Mr. Tucker said a request can still be made, but there is no separate fund
currently set up for such an expense.
Mr. Davis said the Building regulations section had been reorganized and
updated, but is substantially the same. The fee classification system has
been reworked to make it up-to-date, but the fees have not been changed. The
Fire Protection section is just reorganized, inserting amendments made by the
Board. Health and Safety is a new chapter which combines several old
chapters; the Noise Ordinance in this Code has had substantive changes made to
it. It has been under review for about f0ur years. The part of the ordinance
dealing with "nuisance" noise has been updated. Basically, it takes out the
noise decibel level standard which has always been unenforceable. It does not
address the issue of barking dogs. The other part of the ordinance is the
part that should remain in the Zoning Ordinance. Uses which are more suitable
to having decibel readings, noises which are expected to be generated by land
uses, should continue to be regulated in the zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Humphris asked why the section on Smoking did not prohibit smoking
on the grounds of a school. The School Resources Officer has difficulty in
doing something about smoking if it is not taking place in the actual school
building. Mr. Davis said, under State law, it is unlawful for someone under
the age of 18 to smoke. He believes the School Board has a policy prohibiting
students from smoking anywhere on their property. Ms. Humphris said she had
been told it would be easier to follow the correct procedure if it were an
ordinance, and not just a School Board policy.
Mr. Davis stated that Chapter 8 (Licenses) contains no substantative
changes. It has been reorganized in a more user-friendly way. The penalty on
the late payment of a license fee has been implemented pursuant to an Attorney
General's opinion. Now, if someone does not pay the fee, they are charged the
same penalty as if they did not pay the tax. Also, the July 1 requirement
adopted two years ago by the General Assembly has an impact on revenues for
the County. A license fee can no longer be charged on those businesses that
also pay a license tax. Any business with more than $100,000 in gross
receipts (where yesterday they would have paid both a license fee and a
license tax), today will only pay a license tax, no longer paying the $50 fee.
Mr. Davis said that Chapter 9 (Motor Vehicles and Licenses) has no
substantive changes, just updates. Chapter 10 (Miscellaneous Offenses) has
been reorganized; some State law offenses have been added, at the request of
the Police Department, related to possession and drinking of alcohol on school
grounds and in parks.
Ms. Thomas asked if graffiti is mentioned in the ordinance~somewhere.
Mr. Davis replied that it is listed under defacing of public property, or in
the State Code.
Mr. Davis said the section on Parks and Recreation has been reorganized,
with changes recommended regarding the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Another
new chapter is "Regulated Enterprises," which includes alarms, amusements,
precious metals and solicitors. One substantive change is to insert a
reciprocity clause in the Taxicab Chapter. Solid Waste and Disposal has been
updated. The section called "Subdivision of Land" was discussed this morning.
Chapter 14 (Taxation) has been reorganized. Chapter 15 (Wastewater and Water
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Systems) has been updated and codifies Virginia procedures for approval for
central water and updates health requirements.
Mr. Davis stated that Chapter 17 (Water Protection) had just been
adopted in the Spring; the only change was to modify the section dealing with
surety agreements. The final chapter is Zoning; the only change is to update
the references to other sections. Recodification of the Zoning Ordinance is
planned for next year.
Ms. Humphris noted that Section 15.104 deals with the use of credit
cards for payment of taxes. She thought the use of credit cards was no longer
allowed because of difficulties with the credit card companies. Ms. Thomas
replied that only Discover will allow the Board to charge an extra fee to
cover its charge. Ms. Humphris said this confused her because even though the
ordinance says people can pay by credit card, they can really pay only by one
specific credit card. She suggested that the wording be changed.
Mr. Davis noted that after this recodification is adopted,
responsibility for maintaining the County Code will be shifted from the Board
Clerk's Office to the County Attorney's Office. When the system is finished,
he thinks it will work well.
With no further discussion of this item, the Board moved to the next
agenda item.
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker again mentioned the letter from the West Leigh Property
Owners Association (see Agenda Item No. 7.4a) . ~.(~ote: Ms. Thomas said she
was not sure if she has a conflict of interest in this matter. She has
written to the Commonwealth's Attorney for an opinion, which she has not yet
received. In the meantime, she will abstain from discussion of this item.)
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded my Mr. Martin, to set a
public hearing on August 5, 1998, to amend the County Code to include West
Leigh Drive in the county road system for law enforcement purposes. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
ABSTAIN: Ms. Thomas.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the official visit of representatives from the
County's Italian sister-city, which she, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Tucker attended
at the Rotunda. They were gifted with many books and with a video tape of
their favorite opera singer, a native son. There is a villa in their city
which was built by the most important member of the Medici family in the
1200's. They have a festival where everyone dresses in medieval dress once a
year based around this villa. They have invited the Board members to come, at
the Board's expense, in September. That would be the next step in this
exchange. One of the Italians was a policeman and Ronnie Tuthill of the
Police Department let him ride along and she believes it was the high point of
his visit. Ms. Thomas said she gave him brochures from the Police Department
concerning things they do with children on drugs and older people on scams.
He was amazed, saying policemen in Italy do not do these things. Also, he
said policemen do not take children away from families, and a social worker
was called in on the night he did the ride along. Ms. Thomas said two of the
Italians stayed at her house, both were owners and managers of gasoline
stations. It was a nice group of people. There was no official with the
group, but there was one person who had been on their Tourist Board, and he
was interested in continuing this kind of exchange. Ms. Jeannie Cox, Clerk of
Council, worked very hard on this visit because it was an official exchange
between Charlottesville and Poggio a' Caiano. They gave a complete set of
gifts to Albemarle also. They gave a painting by a man who is 75 years old
who has been a painter all his life, Renato Cantinelli.
OO0060
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Ms. Thomas noted that she had been appointed by the Governor to a Task
Force on Economic Development. She believes this is because she is chair of
the Venture group. She said all present used lap top computers to make
comments, so technologically it was an interesting meeting. She felt the
content was very old fashioned, and she does not believe there will be any new
ideas coming from this group. There will be public hearings around the State
in early August, one in Harrisonburg and one in Roanoke. She suggested a
contingent go to one of these hearings so the County can have input. She said
that Governor George Allen developed a statewide plan for economic
development. Governor Gilmore is now trying to update and change that plan.
It is a good project.
Ms. Thomas stated that yesterday the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) went to Richmond to talk about the sequence of proposed ways to deal
with Route 29 traffic and its impact on the Reservoir. They met with the
Secretary of Transportation, the State Highway Commissioner, and their
attorney. The attorney was there because of the pending lawsuit with the
Sierra Club, Piedmont Environmental Council and Southern Environmental Law
Council, so they could not talk about anything that is in the lawsuit which
covered almost everything except the Meadow Creek Parkway, about which they
had a good discussion. They discussed having the Meadow Creek Parkway
designated as a primary road and not allowing truck traffic on it, which the
Commissioner thinks will be a good deal more difficult than the Board had
originally thought. Interstate Route 66 does not have trucks by Congressional
action. Route 50 in Northern Virginia does not have trucks, but that is only
temporary.
Ms. Humphris stated that the MPO was trying to pUrsue this coordinated
and continuing dialogue with the State because of its position of not wanting
to approve construction funds for the Route 29 Western Bypass. The MPO wants
answers to these major questions, particularly, what will protect the
Reservoir from a toxic spill. Who is accountable in the event of such a
happening? New things have surfaced. If this road is built, the water
treatment plant will need to be upgraded, and it is possible to lose the water
supply completely if one gallon of any particular highly toxic substance went
into the water supply as the result of an accident. The MPO wanted to state
clearly that if VDOT is determined to build this road, they should do it only
as a last resort as all parties had agreed to back in 1990, 1991 and 1992~ If
VDOT insists on going forward with this road, they will also have to assume
some significant responsibility for the end results. There will be a huge
amount of sedimentation going into the Reservoir during construction. Also,
statistically, based on the number of truck drivers who are driving impaired
by drugs or alcohol, and the number of trucks which travel through this area
with mechanical problems, that accident will occur.
Ms. Humphris said the MPO invited the Secretary and the Commissioner to
come to Albemarle and see the difficult topography where this road is to be
built. She thinks the MPO members did a good job, but VDOT's lack of
knowledge about some of the things such as restricting trucks on roads,
surprised her. She said the MPO has tried several times, and each time the
MPO has not voted for the Federal funds in the TIP for construction of the
Bypass. A letter was sent asking that they meet With the MPO to try and find
some resolution of the problem. The MPO never received a response. The MPO
then asked for a meeting with the local members of the Highway Commission, and
that meeting was held several years ago with Mr. Roudabush, Mr. Myers and Mr.
Browder. Nothing came of that meeting. Now, the MPO requested the meeting
with the Secretary of Transportation, but when it comes to cooperating and
coordinating they are doing the best they can. Up to this point, the MPO has
received no response, so it hopes it made some kind of an impression
yesterday.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she would be attending the NACO Annual
Conference in Portland, Oregon, in late July, at her own expense. There will
be a 100-person delegation from Virginia attending.
MS. Thomas said pedestrian crossovers for Seminole Trail is something
the MPO has been working on and there will be a public hearing On Thursday,
July 9, about where these crossovers should be placed in order to make it
safer for pedestrians on Route 29. The question is whether there should be
O000G I
July 1, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
overpasses to make it safer for people at Sperry and Comdial to get to the
shopping centers.
Ms. Thomas remarked that today was the first day of the changeover at
the Ivy Landfill. After today, it will no longer bury garbage. She said the
Board should be proud of that progress.
Ms. Thomas stated that she had just received notice of a Venture meeting
for Monday, July 6, at 4:00 p.m., in the Planning District offices at
NationsBank.
Ms. Humphris mentioned she found the copy of "Board Actions" from the
Clerk pertaining to the Board's last meeting very useful in keeping track of
dates.
Mr. Marshall noted that the Governor had reappointed him as a member of
the State Board of Health.
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. At 2:56 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairma~
t~roved by the
~e ~/~ ~ A
Initials L~