2000-10-11October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
11, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Ms. Deborah M. Murray, Senior Attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, directed
comments to VDoT’s proposal to widen Route 29 North from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport
Road, as well as VDoT’s proposal to construct parallel access roads on the eastern and western sides of
Route 29 slated for widening. She noted that these projects will have a tremendous impact on both growth
and traffic patterns in this part of the County. She said in light of the importance of these projects to the
County’s future, the Southern Environmental Law Center has hired Walter Kulash, a nationally recognized
transportation engineer, to review VDoT’s proposal. She described some of the key findings of the report
and left copies of it with the Clerk for all of the Board members. (See letter and report from the Southern
Environmental Law Center to Mr. Charles S. Martin, Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, dated October 11, 2000.)
No one else came forward to speak.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Ms. Humphris made a motion to approve Consent Agenda
Items 5.1 through 5.4 and to accept for information Consent Agenda Items 5.5 and 5.6. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Item No. 5.1. SP-2000-43. Rodgers Residence (Agricultural/Tutorial) (Signs #23&24). (Refer back
to the Planning Commission for proper public hearing.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board referred SP-2000-43 back to the Planning
Commission for proper public hearing.
__________
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Education, $8,542.40 (Form #20016).
The Executive Summary states that at its meeting on September 14, 2000, the School Board
approved the following appropriations:
Donation – Hollymead Elementary
Patricia Grant, second grade teacher at Hollymead Elementary received a donation in the amount
of $200.00 from the Sylvan Learning Center. This donation is to be used toward any extra classroom
needs.
Donation – Woodbrook Elementary School
Nancy Kendall Williams, teacher at Woodbrook Elementary School, was awarded a Virginia
Education Association (VEA) Mini Grant Award in the amount of $500.00. This grant will fund the
Professional Books for Parents Project. Books will be purchased to create a school based, research
library, which will facilitate research by parents and educators into issues that children face daily, thus
increasing parental involvement, as well as providing insight, understanding and solutions to issues that
face children in a constructive and positive way.
Grant – Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education
The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education made grant awards to several
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
teachers in Albemarle County Public Schools in the amount of $7,842.40. These funds will help support
projects in Social Studies, Science, Math, English, American History, Reading, and Special Education
classes.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the Appropriations, totaling $8,542.40, as
detailed on Appropriation #20016.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000/01
NUMBER: 20016
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND DONATIONS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************************************************
1 2205 61101 601300Ed/Rec Supplies $ 200.00
1 3104 61311 601200Books/Subscriptions 500.00
1 3502 60606 601300Ed/Rec Supplies 7,842.40
TOTAL $8,542.40
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************************************************
2 2000 18100 181109Donation $200.00
2 3104 18000 181142VEA Mini-Grant 500.00
2 3502 18000 181223Shannon Grant 7,842.40
TOTAL $8,542.40
__________
Item No. 5.3. Authorize County Executive to execute Service Agreement with Scottsville Volunteer
Fire Department, Inc.
Several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer
fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at two million dollars, provides the
volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed fire-fighting and rescue squad equipment and buildings,
interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for
disbursements from the fund have previously been monitored and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire
and Rescue Association (JCFRA). This process has recently changed and is now being monitored by the
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB).
The current amount available in the revolving fund is $247,400.67. Scottsville Volunteer Fire
Department, has requested, through JCFRA/ACFRAB, an advance of $200,000 to be used for the
purchase of a tanker and has executed the standard service agreement approved by the County Attorney’s
office. This advance can be disbursed upon approval of this agreement by the Board of Supervisors.
Repayment of the allocation will be over an eight-year period beginning in FY 00-01.
JCFRA/ACFRAB has approved this request.
Staff recommends authorizing the County Executive to execute the attached Service Agreement.
SERVICE AGREEMENT
th
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 13 day of October , 2000, by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the “County”), and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the “Fire Department”).
WHEREAS, the Fire Department agrees to continue to provide valuable fire protection services in
Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the
Emergency Operations Center (“Service Area”); and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires the County to contribute Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000) for the purchase of a new tanker truck necessary to provide fire protection services in the said
Service Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the County and Fire
Department agree, as follows:
1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Department Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000) to be used for the purchase of a tanker truck. The funds shall be allocated from the County’s Fire
Fund (“Fund”) and shall be made available upon execution of this agreement.
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
2. The Fire Department agrees that the County will withhold Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000.00) from the County’s annual appropriation to the Fire Department’s operating budget beginning July
1, 2001 and ending after a final withholding in July 2008. Thus at the end of eight (8) years, which is the term
of this Agreement, a total of $200,000 shall be withheld. This withholding may be used by the County to
replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding is in
addition to the withholding for all prior advances under prior service agreements with the Fire Department dated
October 6, 1993, July 21, 1993, May 27, 1992, October 8, 1987, and August 1, 1984. The Fire Department
agrees that any amount of this repayment that may exceed the County’s annual appropriation will be remitted
st
to the County no later than July 31 of each year.
3. The Fire Department agrees that the Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000)
contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the tanker truck to be used in the Service Area in Albemarle
County. The Fire Department further agrees that it shall not convey the tanker truck or any interest therein to
any party other than the County without the County’s prior written consent during the useful life of the tanker
truck or the term of this Service Agreement, whichever is longer. For purposes of this Agreement, the useful
life of the tanker truck shall be fifteen years from the date the tanker truck is placed into service. In addition,
the Fire Department agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to the
tanker truck shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the tanker truck unless the
County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such funds.
4. The Fire Department agrees that at such times as it no longer provides voluntary fire
department services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey
all of its interest in the vehicle described in paragraph 1 to the County at no additional cost to the County upon
the County’s request.
5. The County and Fire Department agree that the covenants set forth in their prior
agreements dated October 6, 1993, July 21, 1993, May 27, 1992, October 8, 1987, and August 1, 1984, to the
extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect.
6. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the
County to the Fire Department, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or
augment the services to be provided by the Fire Department.
Witness the following signatures and seals:
_________________________________________________________
DateROBERT W. TUCKER, JR.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
__________________________________________________________
DateBy ___________________________
SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT, INC.
Approved as to form:
___________________________
County Attorney
__________
Item No. 5.4. Proclamation recognizing October 2000, as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Proclamation:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS,
violence against women and children continues to become more prevalent as a social problem.
In 1999, in the Commonwealth of Virginia domestic violence programs served 57,662 people;
and
WHEREAS,
the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of people but cross
all economic, racial and societal barriers, and are supported by societal indifference; and
WHEREAS,
the crime of domestic violence violates an individual's privacy, dignity, security and humanity,
due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and economic control
and/or abuse. The impact of domestic violence is wide-ranging, directly affecting women and
children and society as a whole; and
WHEREAS
, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating violence, we must
also meet the needs of battered women and their children who often suffer grave financial,
physical and psychological losses; and
WHEREAS,
it is battered women themselves who have been in the forefront of efforts to bring peace and
equality to the home;
NOW, THEREFORE,
in recognition of the important work being done by domestic violence programs, I,
Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the month of
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
OCTOBER, 2000,
as
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and
programs sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency to work toward
the elimination of personal and institutional violence against women.
__________
Item No. 5.5. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for September 12 and September 19, 2000,
was received for information.
__________
Item No. 5.6. Copy of letter dated September 25, 2000, from Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning
Administrator, to Doug Kingma, re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - (Tax Map 55, Parcel
13) - Katherine Gray Shirley Trust, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of
the Albemarle County Code by adding Article XV, Short-Term Rental Tax, to impose a daily tax on rental
businesses in the amount of one percent of the gross receipts for the short-term rental of property,
including such items as movies, music videos, uniforms or costumes, lawn or construction equipment, and
household appliances, and to exempt such property from the business personal property tax currently
imposed. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2, 2000.)
Mr. Tucker said the Virginia Code provides that a locality may impose a daily rental tax at the rate of
one percent of the gross rental proceeds. This tax is similar to the sales tax in that it is collected from the
user by the merchant and remitted to the locality on a quarterly basis. This tax would be applicable to those
businesses that rent items such as movies or music videos, uniforms or costumes, lawn or construction
equipment, and household appliances, etc. on a daily basis. Imposition of this tax would exempt this
equipment from the business personal property tax currently imposed. Our review of the major businesses
indicate that annual revenue would be approximately $83,000 compared to $22,000 currently collected as
Business Personal Property. The City of Charlottesville and most of the more urban localities statewide
impose this tax. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be adopted.
Mr. Dorrier inquired if other counties throughout the State have this tax. Mr. Tucker answered
affirmatively. He explained that most of the surrounding localities comparable in size to Albemarle County
collect the tax.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin
closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris made a motion to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia by adding Article XV, Short-Term Rental Tax, with an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted Ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 00-15(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA BY ADDING ARTICLE XV, SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15,
Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained by adding Article XV, Short-Term Rental Tax, as follows:
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE XV. SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX
Sec. 15-1500 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, when used in this article, shall have, for the purposes of this article,
the following respective meanings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(1) The term “affiliated” means any common ownership interest in excess of five percent
Affiliated.
(5%) of any officers or partners in common with the lessor and lessee. For purposes of this test, (i) any rental
to a person affiliated with the lessor shall be treated as rental receipts but shall not qualify for purposes of the
eighty percent (80%) requirement, and (ii) any rental of personal property that also involves the provision of
personal services for the operation of the personal property rented shall not be treated as gross receipts from
rental. For purposes of this section, the delivery and installation of tangible personal property shall not mean
operation.
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
(2) The term “daily rental property” means all tangible personal property held
Daily rental property.
for rental and owned by a person engaged in the short-term rental business, except trailers, as defined in
Virginia Code § 46.2-100 and other tangible personal property required to be licensed or registered with the
Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, or the Department of Aviation.
(3) The term “gross proceeds” means the total amount charged to each person for
Gross proceeds.
the rental of daily rental property, excluding any state and local sales tax paid pursuant to the Virginia Retail
Sales and Use Tax Act.
(4) The term “short-term rental business” means a business in which a
Short-term rental business.
person is engaged if not less than eighty percent (80%) of the gross rental receipts of such business in any year
are from transactions involving rental periods of ninety-two (92) consecutive days or less, including all
extensions and renewals to the same person or a person affiliated with the lessor.
Sec. 15-1501 Levied; amount.
Pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3510.1, there is hereby assessed and imposed on every person
engaged in the short-term rental business a tax of one percent (1%) on the gross proceeds of such business.
Such tax shall be in addition to the tax levied pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-605.
Sec. 15-1502 Taxation of rental property that is not daily rental property.
Except for daily rental passenger cars, rental property that is not daily rental property shall be classified
for taxation pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3503.
Sec. 15-1503 Collection, return and remittance of tax.
Every person engaged in the short-term rental business shall collect the rental tax from the lessee of
the daily rental property at the time of the rental. The lessor of the daily rental property shall transmit a
quarterly return to the finance director, indicating the gross proceeds derived from the short-term rental
business and shall remit therewith the payment of such tax as is due for the quarter. The quarterly returns and
th
payment of tax shall be filed with the finance director on or before the 20 day of each of the months of April,
July, October and January, representing, respectively, the gross proceeds and taxes collected during the
preceding quarters ending March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31. The return shall be upon
such forms and setting forth such information as the finance director may require, showing the amount of gross
receipts and the tax required to be collected. The taxes required to be collected under this article shall be
deemed to be held in trust by the person required to collect such taxes until remitted as required in this article.
Sec. 15-1504 Procedure upon failure to collect, report or remit taxes.
If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fail or refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article
and to make, within the time provided in this article, the returns and remittances required in this article, the
finance director shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which
to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the finance director shall procure such facts and information
as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax payable by any person who has failed or
refused to collect such tax and to make such return and remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess
against such person the tax, penalty and interest provided for by this article and shall notify such person, by
registered mail, sent to his last known place of address, of the total amount of such tax, penalty and interest
and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten (10) days from the date of such notice. In the event
such tax is not paid within ten (10) days from the date of the notice, the Finance Director shall proceed to collect
same in accordance with Chapter 39 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 15-1505 Penalty and interest.
If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fail or refuse to remit to the finance director the tax
required to be collected and paid under this article within the time specified in the article, there shall be added
to such tax a penalty in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the tax past due or the sum of ten (10) dollars,
whichever is the greater. The assessment of such penalty shall not be deemed a defense to any criminal
prosecution for failing to make any return or remittance as required in this article. Additionally, interest on late
payments of all taxes due shall be added at the rate of ten percent (10%) per year. Penalty and interest for
failure to pay the tax assessed pursuant to this article shall be assessed on the first day following the day such
quarterly installment payment is due.
Sec. 15-1506 Exclusions and exemptions.
No tax shall be collected or assessed on (i) rentals by the Commonwealth, any political subdivision of
the Commonwealth or the United States or (ii) any rental of durable medical equipment as defined in
subdivision 2 of Virginia Code § 58.1-609.7. Additionally, all exemptions applicable in Chapter 6 of Title 58.1
of the Code of Virginia (§ 58.1-600 et. seq.) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the daily rental property tax.
Sec. 15-1507 Renter’s certificate of registration.
Every person engaging in the business of short-term rental of tangible personal property shall file an
application for a certificate of registration with the finance director. The application shall be on a form
prescribed by the finance director and shall set forth the name under which the applicant intends to operate the
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
rental business, the location and such other information as the finance director may require.
Each applicant shall sign the application as owner of the rental business. If the rental business is
owned by an association, partnership or corporation, the application shall be signed by a member, partner,
executive officer or other person specifically authorized by the association, partnership or corporation to sign.
Upon approval of the application by the finance director, a certificate of registration shall be issued.
The certificate shall be conspicuously displayed at all times at the place of business for which it is assessed.
The certificate is not assignable and shall be valid only for the person in whose name it is issued and
the place of business designated.
Sec. 15-1508 Criminal penalties for violation of article.
Any person violating or failing to comply with any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class 3
misdemeanor. Provided however, if the amount of tax due and unpaid for any quarterly installment exceeds
$1,000, any person failing to remit payment when due shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(Ord. 00-15(4), 10-11-00)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2001.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 8, Licenses, of the
Albemarle County Code by amending Article VI, Schedule of Taxes, to reclassify amusement activities to
be service businesses and to change the license rate for amusement activities from $0.20 cents to $0.36
cents per hundred dollars of gross receipts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and
October 2, 2000.)
Mr. Tucker said the Albemarle County Business, Professional and Occupation License ordinance
has always placed amusement activities in a separate classification with a tax rate of $0.20 cents per
hundred, equal to the retail tax rate. Changes in state legislation relating to the license tax over the last
several years have redefined amusement activities as a service business which has a maximum tax rate of
$0.36 cents per hundred. This rate was not increased when the County ordinance was amended to bring it
in compliance with the comprehensive revision of the BPOL enabling authority.
The major intent of state legislation has been to establish uniformity in tax rates and classifications
statewide. The proposed amendment to the County Ordinance is consistent with that intent and would
impose a $0.36 cent tax rate on amusement activities similar to surrounding localities and other service
businesses within the County. This increase would have an impact on approximately 25 businesses in the
County and represents an 80 percent increase in their license tax. The County would recognize increased
revenue of approximately $27,000. In order to establish uniformity in tax rates and classifications with both
surrounding localities and the State as a whole, staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. Mr.
Tucker said staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be adopted.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the classifications are determined by the state. She noted that when she
read them, some of them seemed dated and strange. She is mostly focusing on the term, “Riding
Academy,” which is not used much around here, and she is uncertain if it relates to trail rides. Mr. Tucker
replied that all of this came directly from the State Code.
Mr. Davis said the specific categories that are listed are not necessarily from the State Code. They
are more historical and have been developed over time with some guidance from the State Taxation
Department as to what would fit within these categories. He said Ms. Thomas’ point about some of them
being a bit archaic is correct, but the ordinance was not intended to get at that issue. Perhaps when the
ordinance is revisited sometime in the future, some of the descriptions can be adjusted to meet the new
millennium. He emphasized that they have been defined by their use and with practice over time by the
different tax opinions, and they are still functional. These activities were already set out in the BPOL
Ordinance. They were under a separate category entitled “Amusements," shown under Section 608 of that
chapter, but the state redefined amusement to be a service industry. He said previously they were just
amusements with a maximum tax rate of $0.20 cents per hundred. However, when they were
recategorized as a service industry the maximum tax rate became $0.36 cents per hundred, which puts
them into the category where they now belong. He pointed out that the practice has been in most localities
throughout the state to set these taxes at the maximum. It has also been the policy of the Board of
Supervisors, but this one was inadvertently missed when amusement activities were redefined.
Ms. Humphris said this does not mean there will automatically be an increase in a movie ticket.
She stated that it is an amount per hundred to be paid by amusement businesses. Mr. Davis concurred. It
is not a “pass through” tax, but it will raise the tax burden of a movie theatre slightly.
Since there were no further questions from Board members, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris then made a motion to adopt an ordinance amendment to the Business,
Professional and Occupation License Tax which would raise the tax rate from $0.20 cents to $0.36 cents
per hundred with an effective date of January 1, 2001. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted Ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 00-8(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, LICENSES, ARTICLE VI, SCHEDULE OF TAXES, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8,
Licenses, Article VI, Schedule of Taxes, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Repealing:
Sec. 8-608Amusement occupations, business or trades.
By Amending:
Sec. 8-616 Repair, personal, business and other services.
CHAPTER 8. LICENSES
ARTICLE VI. SCHEDULE OF TAXES
DIVISION 2. AMUSEMENTS
Sec. 8-608 (Reserved)
DIVISION 4. PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS, AMUSEMENT OR
REPAIR SERVICE BUSINESS, OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS
Sec. 8-616 Repair, personal, business, amusement and other services.
Each person engaged in a repair, personal, amusement or business service shall be subject to the
license tax, and other provisions, set forth herein:
A.Each person engaged in a repair, personal, amusement or business service shall be subject
to a license tax of thirty-six cents ($0.36) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts.
B.For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
1.. The term “repair service” means repairing, renovating, cleaning or
Repair service
servicing of some article or item of personal property for compensation, unless the service is specifically
provided for under another section of this chapter.
2.. The term “personal service” means rendering for compensation
Personal service
any repair, personal, business, amusement or other services not specifically classified as "financial, real estate
or professional service" in section 8-615, or rendered in any other business or occupation not specifically
classified in this chapter unless exempted from local license tax by Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia.
3.. The term “business service” means rendering for compensation
Business service
any service to any business, trade, occupation or governmental agency, unless the service is specifically
provided for under another section of this chapter.
C.Repair, personal, business, and amusement services include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Addressing letters or envelopes.
Advertising agencies.
Airline passenger carrier.
Airplane repair.
Airports, private.
Ambulance services.
Amusement park.
Animal hospitals, grooming services, kennels or stables.
Arcade or building devoted to general amusement or entertaining.
Auctioneers and common criers.
Auditorium, arena or coliseum with a maximum seating capacity less than 10,000 persons and
open to the public.
Auto repair, engine repair of any type.
Automobile driving schools.
Barbershops, beauty parlors and hairdressing establishments, schools and services.
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Bicycle repair.
Bid or building reporting service.
Billiards or pool.
Bill poster or distributor.
Blacksmith or wheelwright.
Booking agents or concert managers.
Bookkeeper, public.
Bottle exchanges.
Bowling alley.
Brokers and commission merchants other than real estate or financial brokers.
Business and office machine repair.
Business research and consulting services.
Buyers, gold and silver.
Cable television.
Chartered clubs. Licensee hereunder may without additional license operate service of retail
merchant and restaurant. The term "chartered club" means any nonprofit corporation or
association which is the owner, lessee or occupant of an establishment operated solely for
objects of a national, social, patriotic, political or athletic nature or the like, but not for
pecuniary gain, the advantages of which belong to all the members; the term shall also mean
the establishment so operated.
Child care attendants or schools.
Cleaning chimneys, furnaces.
Clinical laboratories.
Clothes, hats, carpets or rugs, repair of.
Collection agents or agencies.
Commercial photography, art or graphics.
Commercial sports.
Computer service operated for compensation.
Correspondence establishments or bureaus.
Dance halls, except restaurants licensed to serve food and beverages having a dance floor
with an area not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total floor area of the establishment and
for which no admission is charged.
Dance studios and schools.
Data processing, computer and systems development services.
Day nursery (other than foster homes).
Detectives and watchmen. Each person shall be registered by name and service with the
county chief of police.
Developing or enlarging photographs.
Dog or water raceway.
Drafting services.
Drive-in theaters.
Engraving.
Eradication or extermination of rats, mice, termites, vermin or bugs.
Erecting, installing, removing or storing awnings.
Freight traffic bureau or agency.
Fumigating or disinfecting.
Funeral services and crematories.
Furnishing clean diapers.
Furnishing closed circuit musical entertainment.
Furnishing closed circuit television entertainment.
Furnishing house cleaning service.
Furnishing janitor service.
Furnishing labor service.
Furnishing statistical service.
Furniture, upholstering, repair of.
Gardens.
Golf driving range.
Gunsmith, gun repairing.
Hauling of sand, gravel or dirt.
Hauling or transfer, not in connection with taxicab business.
Holding companies, including holding company for mass media communications.
Hotels, motels, tourist courts, boarding and rooming houses, trailer parks and campsites.
Information bureaus.
Instructors, tutors, schools and studios of music, ceramics, art, sewing, sports and the like.
Interior decorating.
Job printer, printing shop, bookbinding, duplicating processes.
Laundry, cleaning and garment services including laundries, dry cleaners, linen supply, diaper
service, coin-operated laundries and carpet and upholstery cleaning.
Locksmith.
Machine shop, boiler shop.
Mailing, messenger and correspondent services.
Marinas and boat landings.
Mattresses, repair of.
Miniature golf.
Motor vehicle transportation of passengers.
Movie theaters.
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Music teacher.
Newspaper delivery service.
Nickel plating, chromizing and electroplating.
Nurses and physicians registries.
Nursing and personal care facilities including nursing homes, convalescent homes, homes for
the retarded, old age homes and rest homes.
Operating a scalp treating establishment.
Packing, crating, shipping, hauling or moving goods or chattels for others.
Paint shop, other than contractor.
Parcel delivery services.
Parking lots, public garages and valet parking.
Parks, athletic fields.
Personnel services, labor agents and employment bureaus.
Photographers and photographic services; the license tax on photographers with no regularly
established place of business in the state shall not exceed thirty dollars ($30.00).
Piano tuning.
Picture framing and gilding.
Porter services.
Press clipping services.
Private hospitals.
Private schools (other than religious and nonprofit).
Promotional agents or agencies.
Protective agent or agency.
Public relations counselor.
Publicity service, furnisher of; booking agent, concert manager.
Radio engineer.
Radios, televisions, refrigerators, electrical appliances, home appliances, repair of.
Realty multiple listing services.
Recorder of proceedings in any court, commission or other organization.
Refrigeration engineer.
Renting airplanes.
Renting or leasing any items of tangible personal property.
Renting bicycles.
Renting or furnishing automatic washing machines.
Renting wall signs or billboards.
Reproduction services.
Reweaving.
Riding academy.
Rifle ranges or shooting galleries, except those operated by private or nonprofit gun clubs.
Road machines, farm machinery, repair of.
Rug cleaning.
Sales agent or agency.
Saws, tools, repair of.
Scales, repair of.
Scientific research and development service.
Sculptor.
Secretarial service.
Septic tank cleaning.
Shades, repair of.
Shoe repair, shoe shine and hat repair shops.
Sightseeing carriers.
Sign painting.
Skating rink.
Stenographer, public.
Storage, all types.
Supplying clean linen, coats, aprons, towels.
Swimming pools open to the public.
Tabulating service.
Tax consultant.
Taxicabs.
Taxidermist.
Telephone answering service.
Theaters.
Theatrical performances.
Theatrical performers, bands and orchestras.
Tire repair.
Title abstract company.
Title insurance company.
Towing services.
Translator of foreign languages.
Transportation consultant.
Transportation services including buses and taxis.
Travel bureaus or tour agents.
Tree surgeons, trimmers and removal services.
Turkish, Roman or other like baths or parlors.
U-drive-it firm or business.
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Umbrellas, harnesses, leather goods, repair of.
Undertaker, embalmer.
Vehicle title service.
Vehicular advertising, electric advertising, bus advertising, commercial advertising.
Wake-up services.
Washing, waxing, auto; cleaning of automobiles.
Watches, clocks, repair of.
Welding shop.
Persons accepting or offering to accept or place orders, which such person will deliver at a later date,
for the sale of medicines, perfumes, salves, liniments, cosmetics, cookware, plastic wares, brushes, books,
magazines, vacuum cleaners or any other merchandise and not having a regular place of business in the
county but who sell or offer to sell from house to house, or at parties or meetings arranged for that purpose.
All other similar personal service, business service, amusement service or repair service occupations,
trades or businesses not included herein and not otherwise taxed by this chapter.
(3-15-73, §§ 39.1, 53; 4-21-76; 3-10-82; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Ord. 96-11(1), 11-13-96, § 11-66; Code 1988, §
11-66; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, Ord. 00-8(1), 10-11-00)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 58.1-3706, 58.1-3727.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2001.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2000-40. Blue Ridge Equine Partners (Sign #96). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to amend a SUP to allow construct of new hospital barn for animal hospital. Znd PUD. TM30,
P110. Contains 3.9 acs. Loc on Mockernut Ln at intersec w/Buck Mountain Rd. White Hall Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 2, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Blue Ridge Equine Partners is proposing to build a new barn to allow
separation or isolation of some of its patients as part of their equine veterinary service. He explained that
Blue Ridge Equine Partners was permitted to operate the veterinary service in this location by unanimous
vote by the Board of Supervisors in September, 1997. The construction of the new barn will not change the
character or level of use of the veterinary facility and will not create any significant new impacts on adjacent
properties. The project will not detract from the rural character of the district, and it will further a use that
supports agricultural needs. The staff has recommended approval of the special use permit with one
condition which was adapted from Condition Number One in the original approval of SP-97-32. The
Planning Commission has also recommended approval of this special use permit.
There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members, so Mr. Martin opened the public
hearing and asked if the applicant would like to speak to SP-2000-40.
Mr. Reynolds Coles, a veterinarian with Blue Ridge Equine Partners, stated that the addition of five
stalls has been approved by the Homeowners Association Architectural Review Committee. The project
has been discussed with the neighbors, and no one has objected to the plans. The project will not increase
the volume of case load. It simply allows segregation from general hospital population such as young foals
as well as certain infections that can be passed from one animal to another. He would be happy to answer
questions.
Mr. Martin inquired if anyone else would like to speak. No one came forward to speak, so Mr.
Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that this is a good use of the County’s rural area.
Next, Mr. Perkins made a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-2000-40, Blue
Ridge Equine Partners subject to the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The approved condition is set out in full below:)
1.The clinic shall be for equine care only and shall be operated in accordance with the plan
described in the applicant's description (attached to the staff report for SP-00-040 as
Attachment D), and the information contained in the letter dated July 23, 1997 (sent to
homeowners and attached to the staff report as Attachment E), with the addition of the
operation of the isolation barn described in the application for this permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2000-46. Winston (Triton PCS CVR 363C) (Sign #80). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow communication facility incl a 92' wood pole tower w/flush mounted
antennas & ground equipment on 125' x 125' lease area on 18.18 ac parcel. Znd RA. TM106, P7. Loc on N
side of Thomas Jefferson Pkway (Rt 53) approx 2,000’ from Fluvanna County line. Scottsville Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 2, 2000.)
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the applicant is proposing to install a telecommunications facility
consisting of a self-supporting wooden monopole at a height of seven feet above the tallest tree within 25
feet. The proposed location is off of Route 53 in the eastern part of the County. He noted that the proposal
is for three flush mount panel antennas, approximately five feet in height, with a lightning rod attached to the
pole. He said ground equipment will be housed in a six foot, nine inch tall metal cabinet on a ten by twelve
foot concrete pad. He went on to say the proposed site for the facility is a 200 square foot lease area
located within a larger lease area which has been obtained by Crown Communications. The 79 foot tall
poplar tree which is being used as the basis for this height request is located approximately five feet from
the proposed pole and is situated at nearly the same base elevation designated for the pole itself which is
approximately 427 feet above sea level. The tower will be about 26 feet from the nearest property line and
200 feet from the right-of-way for Route 53. He pointed out that many large and mature trees are located
between the site and Route 53 including a long line of tall evergreens situated on the embankment along
the side of the road. There are no dwelling units within 200 feet of the proposed facility, and access to the
site will be provided from an existing gravel road which would be extended north and then west to the facility
site. The tower is intended, primarily, to provide service along Route 53 which is an entrance corridor.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has reviewed the proposal and has
approved it with conditions that are attached to the staff report. The proposed facility will be located within a
heavily wooded area in a grove of trees. He explained that based on a field visit when a balloon was flown
at the 86 foot height, staff has determined that the top portion of the tower, which is seven feet above the
tallest tree within 25 feet, would be minimally visible from Route 53 as well as one of the properties
adjoining the subject parcel. He noted that a power line crosses the subject parcel passing within 60 feet to
the east of the lease site of the proposed facility, and although such power poles are all similar in color, the
monopole will be larger in height and diameter than the power poles. The staff found that there is limited
sight visibility in this location. He remarked that while being in a rural area, the existing trees would reduce
the impact such that approval would not be inconsistent with goals set forth in the draft Wireless Policy
which was included by reference in the report. The staff and Planning Commission recommended
approval of the special use permit subject to the eleven conditions shown in the staff report. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that somehow the action letter to the applicant listed some modified conditions, but they are not
correct. The Planning Commission Meeting minutes indicate that the correct conditions are those shown in
the staff report.
Ms. Thomas asked for verification of the number of panels proposed. Mr. Cilimberg answered that
three flush mount panel antennas were requested, although two were discussed in the Planning
Commission meeting. He would like for the applicant to speak to this matter.
Since there were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would like
to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, said Mr. Cilimberg had covered most of the issues.
The facility would be entirely consistent with the County’s proposed Manual. The antenna panels will be
flush mounted to the poles as close as possible to allow their brackets to be attached, and all the
equipment will be brown in color. The site is heavily wooded, and a height of seven feet above the tallest
tree within 25 feet of the facility is being requested. She noted that the balloon was very minimally visible
from one direction if vehicles are heading toward Charlottesville. There is a sharp curve in the road, and as
vehicles are heading toward Fluvanna, the balloon could not be seen at all. She then distributed
photographs of the balloon test. She pointed out that the balloon could not be flown at exactly where the
pole would be located because the tree canopy directly above the site is very dense. The balloon test was
moved slightly to another area where there was a small clearing. She noted that the staff was present the
entire time and is familiar with the actual location of the proposed facility. There have been no concerns or
opposition expressed from any of the landowners. They have been included in the process and informed of
the plans, and they all seem comfortable with the proposal.
Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Long would answer her question relating to the number of panels
requested. Ms. Long responded that according to the drawing submitted with the request, this is a three
panel site. She said some of Triton’s facilities only have two panels, but from now on, they will probably all
have three.
Ms. Thomas noted a condition that the proposed facility shall be located not more than 25 feet from
the existing access road. She wondered if the condition is relevant to this application. Ms. Long answered
that she does not believe the condition is relevant.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that it is not included in the conditions Mr. Cilimberg has recommended
with the staff report. Ms. Humphris recalled that Mr. Cilimberg mentioned eleven conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. She said only ten conditions are shown, and Condition Number 11 is not
included. Mr. Cilimberg called attention to Pages 10, 11 and 12 of the staff report which lists all of the
eleven conditions. Mr. Davis confirmed Mr. Cilimberg’s statement that the action letter was in error. Mr.
Cilimberg reiterated that the conditions are correct as stated in the staff report.
Ms. Thomas referred to Condition Number Two (g) and suggested that the word “installation” be
added. The condition should then read, “Within one month after the completion of the pole installation . . .
.” Next, she mentioned Condition Number Nine where she requested that the word “luminary” be used
instead of “luminaries” which is plural and is not needed in that sentence. Mr. Cilimberg noted that under
Condition Number Two, the last letter condition should be shown as (h) and not (c).
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Dorrier offered a motion for approval of SP-2000-46, Winston (Triton PCS CVR 363C) with the
11 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as well as the two typographical changes noted
by Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The approved conditions are set out in full below:)
1. The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall not ever exceed seven (7) feet
above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base
elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the
exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the plan
entitled “Snow Hill-Winston Property”;
e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not
to exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
g. Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall
provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured
both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level (ASL); and
h. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit;
3.The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled “Snow Hill-Winston Property”;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “Snow Hill-Winston
Property”; and
b. Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan developed by a certified arborist, specifying
tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the
site, both inside and outside the access easement and lease area, shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation
associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or
installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall
not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A
special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the
pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole 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;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. 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 luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted; and
11.Prior to issuance of a building permit for this facility, the applicant shall submit a revised set of
construction plans to the Planning Department, for approval. The revised plans shall reflect all of
the conditions of the special use permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-2000-6. Greenbrier Office Park (Sign #38). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to amend preexisting proffer to allow inclusion of 3040 sq ft of storage space in bldg #4 for use of
tenants of Greenbrier Office Park. Znd CO w/proffers. TM61W, Sec1, P4. Loc on Greenbrier Dr at
intersection of Whitewood Rd. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Community Service in
Neighborhood 1.) Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 2, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg informed the Supervisors that he did not see the applicant present, so he was unsure
if they wanted to proceed with ZMA-2000-06. Mr. Davis explained that the Board should hold the public
hearing tonight, anyway.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board of Supervisors has already reviewed an appeal from the Greenbrier
Office Park regarding the Zoning Administrator’s determination about the allowance of a storage area . He
recalled that the Supervisors upheld the Zoning Administrator’s opinion which required that the applicant go
through a Zoning Map Amendment process. The Supervisors were provided a report which included a
proffer that staff did not feel addressed the concern of adequate parking at the facility with the additional
storage area allowed under the proffer. At the Planning Commission meeting, a new proffer was offered
which better specified the storage area and its limitations. The Zoning Administrator felt the proffer would
not create an area of office space that was greater than parking available, so the staff recommended
approval at the Planning Commission’s public hearing. The Planning Commission accepted the proffer and
recommended approval to this Board. He said a copy of the signed proffer has been included with the
Board members’ packets.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for ZMA-2000-6.
Ms. Mary Morris stated that she lives in a town house in Minor Hill, and she is raising the same issue
of drainage that she mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting. She has not seen the revised proffer,
but she understands the storage will only be used by the occupants of Building Four, so no additional
parking will be required. This should not affect the storm detention basin which is located behind Building
Four. She pointed out that there was an episode of flooding in July from the Greenbrier Office Park, and
several of the homes were flooded. She has spoken to some County engineers, who apparently
discovered that the grading was incorrect so all the water was rushing straight to Minor Hill. It was fixed to a
point, but she understands that when the next severe rain came a week later there was a lot of water again.
She emphasized that the residents’ main concern is that the storage be only used by the people in the new
building and there will be no truck traffic which could in any way damage or affect the storm detention
basin. The neighborhood is still suffering a lot of water damage, and although the County engineers are
trying to fix the problem, the residents want to make sure that approval of the Zoning Map Amendment will
not in any way affect the drainage situation. She reiterated that she understands the basement will be used
for storage, and no additional space will be added, since the plan has already exceeded the original
footage.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the storage area on the site has to be stabilized so it does not
deteriorate again. The ongoing construction project should deal with the situation.
Next, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing, since there were no more people to speak to the issue.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he has been concerned about this matter. He recalled that the staff
members’ recommendation to the Planning Commission was for denial based upon the proffers and the
potential uses as they understood them. He said with the new proffer, he is satisfied that the intensity of the
use of the site will remain the same. He mentioned that the storage actually there is inaccessible. He
emphasized that the building will in no way change, and based upon the staff’s interpretation of the proffer,
neither will the vehicular traffic nor the intensity of use.
Mr. Bowerman then offered a motion to accept the amended proffer for ZMA-2000-6, Greenbrier
Office Park, dated September 26, 2000 and signed on October 2, 2000, with the knowledge that the
Planning Commission has also recommended approval of this Zoning Map Amendment. Ms. Humphris
seconded the motion.
Mr. Martin inquired if the Board should approve the request without the applicant being present. Mr.
Bowerman said the item could be put on the next Consent Agenda. Mr. Davis mentioned that the applicant
would not object to the item being approved. Mr. Martin commented that he is thinking about the future if a
situation should arise when the applicant really needs to be present. Mr. Tucker pointed out that in the past
the Board has approved such requests if there is no objection from the public. However, when questions
need to be answered by the applicant, then the Board defers the item.
Ms. Humphris asked if this proffer was made by the applicant. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively.
He also pointed out that having the matter on the Consent Agenda will not help, because the applicant
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
would not be present for that either.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to set a precedent that the applicants do not have to be
present if there are no objections from the public. He added that he could certainly move for approval as
long as everyone understands that the applicants should be present. Mr. Dorrier noted that there could be
a valid reason for the applicant not being present.
Ms. Thomas said she would favor putting the item on the Consent Agenda, since time is often
money, and it makes a difference if approval is delayed a week. She emphasized that the applicant should
be present. Ms. Humphris pointed out that the applicant will not have to be present for Consent Agenda
approval, so it doesn’t do any good to delay the matter. Ms. Thomas said in terms of the logic it will not
make a difference to defer the item to the Consent Agenda, but in terms of the precedent, it might.
Mr. Perkins suggested that perhaps there should be a policy requiring the applicants to be present
before the Board takes action. Mr. Martin stated that this has more or less been the Board’s policy. Mr.
Perkins said it has been the Board’s unwritten policy. Mr. Bowerman concurred with Ms. Thomas’
comments. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the letter sent to applicants indicates that they must be present, so
they are notified of this in advance.
Ms. Humphris commented that she would prefer for the applicant to be present, because this was a
very important matter. She would like to be able to look the applicant in the eye and tell the applicant that
the Board expects this proffer to be honored. It is important that the Board members have this opportunity,
but even if it is placed on the Consent Agenda, the applicant will still not be present. Mr. Dorrier said he
would prefer having a call made to the applicant because there could be a good reason for him not being
here.
Mr. Martin stated that he thinks the Board needs to draw attention to this situation. He then asked
for a motion to place this matter on the Consent Agenda for next week’s meeting. Ms. Humphris indicated
that she did not see where this would help anything. Mr. Martin said at least this action will make a
statement. Ms. Humphris stated that if this is the only statement the Board can make concerning the
matter, then she will support it. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Board could defer the item, but the
Consent Agenda is the halfway point. She thinks this is the best way to go as far as precedent setting is
concerned.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that putting the item on the Consent Agenda makes a point of saying the
applicant or a representative is expected to be present, and it will not be approved until the Consent Agenda
is before this Board.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered a motion to place ZMA-2000-6, Greenbrier Office Park, on the
Consent Agenda for next week’s meeting. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. CPA-2000-01. Wireless Design Manual. PUBLIC HEARING to consider
adopting the Design Manual for Personal Wireless Service Facilities as a component of the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan & to amend the utilities section of the Land Use Plan chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan to note/reference adoption of the above-noted design manual.(Advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 27 and October 2, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg called attention to his memorandum, dated October 11, 2000, outlining some
modifications of the Albemarle County Wireless Policy:
"After the most recent draft of the Wireless Manual was distributed to the Board for the October 11
public hearing, additional comments were received from the County Attorney's Office (listed below). To
enable the Board to direct that these comments, as well as any other comments received at the public
hearing, be incorporated into the Manual, we request that the Board defer adoption of the Manual until its
November 1 meeting (consent agenda).
1. The table of contents page should be revised so all of the page numbers match up with the
actual page numbers in the manual. Also, "The Situation in 1999" needs to be updated to 2000.
2. Page 3 states that facilities in avoidance areas should be denied or mitigated. Page 42
observes that treetop designs have been successfully located in avoidance areas. The treetop design is not
understood to be one of the three elements of mitigation (camouflage, disguise, concealment) discussed
on page 57. If this is correct, the statement on page 3 should be revised (e.g., "denied, mitigated, or sited,
located and designed so as to minimize visibility") so that it is consistent with the discussions on pages 42
and 57.
3. Page 7 states that the County supports co-location. Page 21 states that co-location
resulting in adverse visual impact is not consistent with the goals of Albemarle County, and that, from a
visibility perspective, co-location should be discouraged. Can the statement on page 7 be revised to state
something such as "the County supports co-location provided that it has no or negligible adverse visual
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
impact"?
4.The simulated tower on page 9 appears to be floating in the air.
5. The two sentences at the top of page 18 are a summary of the "prohibition" test adopted by
the 2nd and 3rd Circuit Courts of Appeal, rejected by the 4th Circuit in our case. Perhaps we could
eliminate the first sentence. Besides, the County doesn't create significant gaps.
6.There has to be a better photo than the one on page 22.
7.The text in the bottom left-hand comer on page 25 should end "established or amended."
8. Can we change the lattice tower photosimulation on page 31? It appears to be 150 feet
wide. Also, the simulated monopole in the foreground should be the color of the surrounding trees (a
standard condition currently imposed).
9. The word "service" should be inserted into the second bullet on page 36 ("personal
wireless service facility").
10. There is a reference at the end of the last paragraph on page 46 to design "standards".
This reference, and every other reference to "standards" when referring to the manual should be changed
to "guidelines." "Standards" also appears on page 48.
11. Is the whip antenna array shown in the photograph on the left side of page 47, projecting
several feet outward from the pole, consistent with the guidelines?
12. This comment is very picky at this late date, but should the photosimulation at the bottom
of page 55 be that of a slender monopole, rather than a flag pole, and off of the ridgeline? It seems that a
flag pole would not be appropriate for this natural setting, and we certainly would not want anyone to get the
idea that a flag pole on a natural ridgeline satisfies the guidelines.
13.Should the reference to "visual impact" in the second sentence at the top of page 56 be
changed to "adverse visual impact"?
14. The first sentence in the paragraph following the "disguise" bullet on page 57 should be
revised to state something such as: "The most important role in mitigating visual impact is to avoid creating
even more visual impact through an attempted mitigation."
Mr. Cilimberg said these modifications do not change the substance but are intended to make sure
the document is clean and has all the proper information in it. Again, the staff's recommendation is that the
Board defer this item until November 1, 2000, if they find everything in order tonight.
Mr. William D. Fritz, Development Process Manager, noted that some changes were made from
the last meeting and they are noted on the Executive Summary. The most significant one was the addition
of a requirement for a balloon test to be conducted as well as language requiring notification of the staff
members so they can visit the site while the balloon test is being conducted. The key component of this
Manual is visibility which is stated in the very beginning. There still seems to be some confusion about
treetop towers. These are towers ten feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet. He said designation of a
site for a treetop tower simply establishes the review procedure under which that site will be reviewed, and it
does not indicate whether it will be approved or denied.
Ms. Humphris recalled that when this issue was discussed in August, she thought it was determined
that the middle paragraph on the left on Page 20, beginning with the sentence, “The reason is not
aesthetics,” was going to be omitted. Mr. Martin concurred that Ms. Humphris is correct.
Ms. Humphris also noted that on the same page, "Bellair" was misspelled in August, and it is still
misspelled. She mentioned that the staff is rectifying the numbers on the Table of Contents, but on the
definitions, she feels it might be a good idea to include the word, “backhaul,” since it is used several times.
Ms. Thomas agreed that she does not know what “backhaul” means, and she asked for an explanation.
Mr. Fritz indicated that “backhaul” relates to getting the signal from the air into the land based lines.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that on Page 65 the word, “parities,” is meant to be “parties” and Number
Seven on Page 67 shows Minimal Submittal Standards as being "maximum height above ground of the
proposed facility". She wondered if this is what the County officials should actually require. Mr. Fritz
referred to Number Ten on Page 67 relating to topographical information which will indicate how the facility
sets on a site in relation to other properties. Ms. Humphris asked if these two standards are listed together
will it give County officials what they desire on the application as to the ultimate height of the proposed pole.
Mr. Fritz answered affirmatively. It will also indicate the height of the support structures that may be there,
and will show how the facility sets in relationship to the topography around it.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the height of the trees is required. She noted that this has been provided to
the Board in recent applications, and it has been very helpful. Mr. Fritz replied that he thought it was
included. However, if it is not, it can be added.
Ms. Humphris recalled that the number of feet above sea level had been expressed in recent
applications to make everything uniform. She said helpful information should be included in the submittal
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
standards. She then mentioned that no one seemed to be clear about when RF isolators are needed, etc.
She pointed out that they are not mentioned in the Manual, and there is no photo or photo simulation of
them. She emphasized that if they have to be dealt with, both picture and information need to be included.
Ms. Thomas referred to Number Three on Page 66 which stated that, “Ownership information shall
be provided.” It has been brought to her attention that when land is under easement, the easement holder
also needs to be involved in any of the decisions. She asked if this automatically happens or should it be
included. Mr. Fritz responded that this is something the Zoning Office routinely considers in all applications
whether it pertains to wireless, rezoning or special use permits, etc. He added that the staff can add this
specifically if the Board so wishes. Ms. Thomas stated that she would hate to have it come as a surprise
halfway through the process. The large companies will most likely know about such things, but the
landowner who comes to look at the Manual might not.
Mr. Dorrier asked if some of the most recently approved towers which have complied with these
regulations should be included in the Manual. He noted that some examples are shown, but they are not
the most recent ones. Mr. Fritz answered that the staff members took photographs of some examples that
were typical of the type of things they were trying to demonstrate. He said some of these were among the
first to be approved, and they are probably a year old or older. Mr. Dorrier inquired if there is anything
unusual about the ones that were recently approved. Mr. Fritz responded that he does not think they
demonstrate any better or worse what is shown in some of the photographs.
Mr. Martin mentioned that the undergrounding of the base equipment in one of the newer
applications is different. Mr. Fritz noted that this tower has not been constructed yet, but pictures depicting
the undergrounding of the base equipment are available.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she contacted some members of the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
to see if they had any comments about the Manual. They pointed out that it would be good to deal with a
tower location site or connections at the same time a new building comes to the ARB. She added that
sometimes the ARB is satisfied with an application and approves a building, but then later an application for
a cell site appears. The process would have gone faster for the applicants, and would have resulted in
something everybody would have been happier with, if all of this was done at the same time. She believes it
would be good to indicate that a Tier I facility is one being developed while the building is originally going
through its process.
Mr. Fritz replied that if it was a Tier I facility it would be entirely internal, so the ARB would not be
considering it, unless there is something visible such as a roof replacement. He went on to say a Tier II
facility would involve an attachment to an existing structure, which is the type of facility to which Ms. Thomas
is referring. Ms. Thomas agreed, but she was trying to tie this into a Tier I facility if it was approved at the
same time as the original building, even if it was external to the building. She emphasized that it would
make things easier for the applicant.
Mr. Fritz suggested that, for example, the Manual could state that a Tier I facility would be attached
to an existing building that did not exceed the existing roof line. The reason the antenna request comes
later is that the service provider does not know the building is an option until it is built. There have been a
couple of cases where the staff has told people about buildings that are being constructed so they can try to
work out something. However, this has not happened for one reason or another.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she thinks it has been very apparent that the backdrop makes the
most difference. She commented that whether the site is on a mountainside or a relatively level area, it is
better if there is a rising stand of trees on a hillside behind it. This is what makes the tower the least visible
of all in the winter or the summer. She emphasized that this fact does not appear anywhere in the Manual,
but it is one of the things the applicant should realize has worked best of all in terms of cutting down on the
visibility. Mr. Fritz noted that skylighting along the ridge was referred to in the Manual. Ms. Thomas said the
backdrop is a separate point, and it needs to be included somewhere in the Manual. Mr. Fritz indicated that
Ms. Thomas’ suggestion would be included in the Manual. He added that as time goes by and new
technologies are developed the Manual will require periodic updates.
Mr. Martin said new technologies will probably come in a lot of different shapes and forms. Ms.
Thomas stated that County officials may go back to preferring collocation, for example, because it may
mean something quite different in the near future. She understands that at least two of the providers are
splitting the use of the panels, and if it means split signals can be used with the same number of panels,
then collocation may be encouraged. Mr. Fritz noted that one of the revisions made to the policy before the
last work session was to include a statement on collocation. The statement indicates that collocation is
preferred as long as it does not result in an adverse visual impact.
Mr. Perkins called attention to Page 38 which discusses the fact that personal wireless service
facilities can be placed on utility poles in rights-of-way. It is his understanding that power companies do not
allow this except on certain types of poles. Mr. Fritz responded that different types of power line poles have
the ability to have different types of attachments. He has seen this in a lot of places, although sometimes
the pole has to be replaced with a stronger one. There are usually options, but sometimes there are no
options because the location of an attachment cannot be accommodated.
Mr. Perkins stated that the Agricultural/Forestal Committee discussed putting attachments on a
utility pole particularly pertaining to the Ivy Creek Methodist Church site. However, it was the Committee’s
understanding that this would not be allowed on that particular type of pole. He said, though, perhaps the
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
pole could be replaced.
Mr. Dorrier remarked that the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is an example of a
document that is easy to read. There is plenty of white space and big print, as well as pictures which make
it easy to understand, and he wanted to commend the staff for putting together a document such as this
one. He stated that more of these types of documents are needed.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for CPA-2000-01.
Mr. Jeff Werner, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, supported the proposed
Manual but requested the Board of Supervisors to consider several clarifications. (See statement delivered
to the Board of Supervisors from the Piedmont Environmental Council on October 11, 2000.)
Ms. Heidi Parker, representing ALLTEL, mentioned a letter from Mr. M. E. (Dick) Gibson, Jr., of
Tremblay and Smith Law Offices. She noted that this could be the last chance to state ALLTEL’s position
and to ensure ALLTEL’s various applications that were approved by this Board last month. She stated that
generally ALLTEL opposes the intent of the Manual to require several smaller towers rather than one larger
tower that could accommodate the providers with the technological and the economical reasons stated in
the letter from Mr. Gibson. If this Board chooses to adopt the Manual, ALLTEL has specific comments to
make in light of the application that was filed within the last couple of months. She called attention to the
first recommendation in Mr. Gibson’s letter which suggests that either the Board of Supervisors or the policy
should state even more emphatically that visibility is the primary criteria. She reviewed the Manual again
today, and it is very clear. However, she was astonished as she sat in the Planning Commission hearings
for the sites in the Ivy Valley and listened to the Commissioners talk about the need for an RF engineer, as
well as the need for more data when balloon tests had been performed. The staff had been notified and
the numbers being presented to the Planning Commission were based on the visibility of the site. She
stated that for the Planning Commission to impose arbitrary height limits completely disregarding the
balloon test was unnerving. She is frustrated wondering how it can be ensured that visibility really is the
criteria. She remarked that visibility at each separate site is the issue, and that is why balloon tests are done
and why the staff is invited. She does not know how the Board can further instruct the Planning
Commission or give greater comfort to the providers knowing that if the balloon cannot be seen floating 11
feet above the tree line, they will have a good chance of having their applications approved for a pole of that
height.
Next, Ms. Parker discussed the second recommendation in Mr. Gibson’s letter requesting that the
Manual better define “treetop tower.” The tower height kept changing during the application process. First
the height related to the average tree height and then it was the tallest tree within 25 feet. She remarked
that then it was the tallest tree at the same elevation within 25 feet, and then there was a site where
ALLTEL representatives were told that it included an outlying tree within 25 feet. She said ALLTEL was
sending its survey crews out again and again with different instructions. The Manual needs to clearly define
a “treetop tower” and to take in the elevation of the ground on which the tower will be built and the ground
elevation of the trees that are being used to determine the tower height.
Number Three in the letter indicates that ALLTEL representatives are pleased to note the
elimination of the County’s claim on Page 18 of the February draft that towers placed within trees work. Ms.
Parker said this was deleted by staff in the June, 2000 draft. However, on Page Six of this draft there is a
statement made that the tower being pictured works. She is unsure if the provider has given such
certification to the County, but she thinks it is a bold claim to make if the operator of the tower has not
certified that the tower actually works.
Ms. Parker next called attention to Number Four of the letter indicating that there are some photo
simulations depicted on pages 9 and 23 of the current draft which are bad examples and grossly
exaggerated. She suggested that a statement be included indicating that this is a photo simulation of a 600
foot tower; or the photo simulation should be changed so it is much more representative of the carrier’s
proposal. This should be a 100 or 150 foot tower rather than the huge structures which do not depict the
facility that will actually be located there.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris said she had not had time to study all of the information the Board had received
during the last few hours. However, she noticed on Page 65 under the Tier II approval process where it
indicates that, “Parties aggrieved by an action of the Planning Commission may appeal the Planning
Commission’s decision to the Board of Supervisors.” She understands from the County Attorney that if
under the Tier II process, the Planning Commission has the right to make these ministerial decisions then
the aggrieved people would not be the applicants. Instead, the neighbors in an agricultural/forestal district
or one of the avoidance areas would be the aggrieved persons who would appeal the decision to the Board
of Supervisors. However, she stated that the Board of Supervisors would legally have no right to overturn
the decision of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Davis explained that in order for the Planning Commission to have the authority to approve or
deny a decision, it has to be a ministerial decision. This means that the applicant will have to meet the
standards which are set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, and if the applicant meets those standards, then the
application should be approved. He stated that if the Planning Commission has made the finding that all
the standards of the Zoning Ordinance have been met, the only way the Board of Supervisors could deny
the request on appeal would be to say the Planning Commission was wrong in its decision and the
standards have not been met. The standards should be set forth in an apparent manner, so this type of
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
situation would be rare.
Mr. Martin referred to Ms. Humphris’ comment that it is not the applicant who would appeal but,
instead, it would be the adjoining landowners. Mr. Davis mentioned that in the current Zoning Ordinance for
site plan approvals, the only person who can appeal a site plan to the Board of Supervisors is the applicant.
At that point, the Planning Commission has made a determination that all the criteria in the Zoning
Ordinance have been met, and it is usually fruitless for the Board of Supervisors to hear that on appeal
because the findings are clear.
Ms. Humphris then called attention to the Piedmont Environmental Council’s statement to the
Board of Supervisors about the Wireless Design Manual. She said Number One states that, “While
administrative approvals are appropriate in certain situations such as conformance with existing structures,
the County should not waive its right to use the special permit process for new facilities on new structures
that are in or near identified Avoidance Areas.” She added that it appears the PEC believes there could be
a problem in these situations without going through a special permit process. She feels
uneasy with the Tier II process because she thinks it is removing the ability of this Board to establish
conditions which might be necessary and are not included in the Manual.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board members need to consider how they have gotten to this point.
They have reached this point based on discussion, compromise and working out disagreements among
people. He stated that to make the change to which Ms. Humphris is proposing would be a significant
change, and he does not think this Board could possibly make that decision here and now without sending
the project back to the consultants.
Ms. Humphris agreed that the decision cannot be made now without having clarification and advice
from the County Attorney. She realizes that the desire is to make the Manual as clear and as simple a
process as it can possibly be, with all the details ironed out, but now there is the issue of who approves the
application. She stated that consequences of the approval are involved, and she thinks perhaps more
analysis is needed of the Tier II process.
Mr. Davis advised that when the Zoning Ordinance amendment is adopted, it will set out a number
of standards which would closely parallel the standard conditions seen with special use permits relating to
treetop towers. If the application meets all of the standard conditions criteria then it would be approved as a
ministerial approval by the Planning Commission. If it could not meet those criteria then it would either have
to go through a waiver process with the Planning Commission or be denied. There could also be a position
where it could be approved by a special use permit in the Tier III process. He added that Ms. Humphris’
point is correct that whatever is defined in the Zoning Ordinance amendment as a Tier II process would no
longer be a legislative decision. It would be a ministerial decision much like the site plan process. There is
no way around this because the State Code does not allow the Planning Commission to make legislative
decisions in the special use permit process. He stated that only the Board of Supervisors can make such
decisions.
Mr. Martin commented that it seems to him the Board is discussing the possibility of eliminating one
out of three tiers. In all practicality to require a special use permit makes it appear exactly as a Tier III
process. This is so drastic, it would need to go back to the consultants. Ms. Humphris remarked that it
appears if the Zoning Ordinance is changed so that the standard conditions are included in it, then a lot of
the problems would be avoided. Mr. Davis concurred. The staff envisioned that these standards would be
supplementary regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, and if they could be met by the applicant, then the
Planning Commission could approve it in a similar fashion as a site plan. If it could not meet the criteria,
then it would still require a special use permit.
Ms. Humphris inquired how all of this can get accomplished so the approved Manual and the items
that need to be included in the Zoning Ordinance will come together at the same time. Mr. Davis
responded that once the Manual is approved, then the Zoning Ordinance would be amended to implement
the Tier I, II and III standards and that would be when the Supervisors would see the text of the Zoning
Ordinance. It would be up to the Board of Supervisors and staff to make sure the intent of the Design
Manual is being carried through at that time.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that even with approval of the Design Manual, the County will not
automatically go to the three tiers. This will not go into effect until the Ordinance has already been changed
through the public hearing process.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board of Supervisors needs to approve the Manual changes and then
the staff will work with the County Attorney’s office to develop the part of the Zoning Ordinance to include all
of the appropriate standards. She inquired if this would make it possible to keep tier approvals as they are
with the protections she believes are necessary to make sure the proper standards are implemented. Mr.
Tucker remarked that the Commission and this Board will have an opportunity to see the standards again in
ordinance form before the process moves forward.
Ms. Thomas said she shares a lot of Ms. Humphris’ uneasiness. She recalled a time when the
Board was in executive session for an hour trying to decide on a situation and were then told it was a
ministerial action. She commented that even though there was a room full of people from the public asking
that something be done, the Supervisors could not do anything about it. Since that time, she has not cared
for ministerial acts that look as though they are legislative acts. She added that if a situation coming before
the Planning Commission looks as though it is a legislative act, the public will think it is legislative, but
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
instead they will be told it is ministerial. There is so much judgment involved. She referred to Ms. Parker’s
request for a clear definition of “treetop” as well as her request to have visibility as the key component of
the Manual. Ms. Thomas said she thinks this is the crux of the issue, because “treetop” can’t be defined so
it will go through the process without any problems even though a tower is no more than ten feet above the
tallest tree within a 25 foot radius. The balloon tests are proving that it makes a lot of difference where a
tower is located within the 25 foot circle and which trees are about to die. She said judgment is necessary
because visibility is the key component. She noted that the more of these applications that come before
this Board, the more she sympathizes with the applicants who want the decisions to be ministerial.
However, she gets more uneasy about allowing these decisions to be ministerial, and she asked if the
Board should wait for the Zoning Ordinance amendment before approving the Manual.
Mr. Martin said the way this issue has been progressing is that the Board of Supervisors would
approve the Design Manual which would become part of the Zoning Ordinance regulations, and he
assumes the Board will continue to move forward in this manner. He added that when the Zoning
Ordinance amendment comes back to the Supervisors, they will need to make sure that Tier II resembles a
special use permit.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the Planning Commission can approve special use permits without them
coming to this Board. Mr. Davis answered that the Planning Commission cannot approve special use
permits, because under enabling authority, it is a legislative decision. Mr. Bowerman explained that the
Planning Commission can only make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as far as legislative
decisions are concerned. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and the Board of
Supervisors are the only two bodies who can approve special use permits.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many recent applications have fallen under the Tier II approval process. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that basically all of them have related to Tier II. Mr. Martin said the applications went
through easily because they were similar to the Tier II regulations. Mr. Bowerman commented that these
applications were given special attention as far as their individual characteristics were concerned.
Ms. Thomas stated that maybe it seemed as though they went through the process easily but there
was a lot of tweaking being done to some of them. She then asked if it is true that if the application is not
using the special use permit process, the adjoining landowners are not notified. Mr. Davis responded that
this is not necessarily true. He said, for example, under the site plan process the adjacent property owners
are notified. He would envision such notification for this process also. Ms. Thomas said this is something
that can be written into the regulations. Mr. Davis concurred.
Mr. Cilimberg referred to the Zoning Ordinance where there is a differentiation between a certain
level of development requiring ministerial approval and a certain level requiring legislative approval. He
said up to 20 lots in Rural Preservation Developments fall under ministerial approvals, but above that,
special use permits are required. This approval is based on the potential scale impact of a particular
proposal. He then mentioned Ms. Thomas’ comment about the public expecting certain things to happen.
This is the situation almost every time the Commissioners see a site plan and, fortunately, they do not see a
lot of them. He noted that usually the ones they see are the ones about which the adjacent landowners are
really concerned, and many times there is not much the Commissioners can do. He emphasized that this
is a typical case of the Commission reviewing ministerial matters.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if there could be a procedure whereby an individual Supervisor could call up
an issue before the Board. He explained that normally the situation would stay with the Planning
Commission, but if there was a lot of public outcry, perhaps the Supervisor from that particular district could
bring the matter before the Supervisors. Mr. Davis answered that this would be very difficult to do. Mr.
Martin said such action would make it appear that the situation is being considered because it is political.
Mr. Dorrier commented that an appeal to the Planning Commission could be considered political also.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the applicants are the only ones who can make such an appeal if they
are being denied by the Commission or are being required to do something they don’t want to do. This is
not political. He stated that it is developmental.
Mr. Davis explained that the reason this appeal process was left in the Site Plan Ordinance and why
staff is recommending it for this type of procedure is because it is an escape valve prior to litigation. The
Board could examine the issue again and make sure it did not meet the Ordinance requirements when it
was denied before the County proceeds to litigate it.
Ms. Humphris suggested that following acceptance of the Manual the staff should be left to work on
the points brought forward. She referred to the final point in the PEC statement which states, “ . . . if the
policy intends to deter the siting of facilities within Avoidance Areas then any facility proposed in an
Avoidance Area should be subject to the stricter Tier III review and the Special use permit process.
Otherwise, what exactly is the purpose of designating Avoidance Areas?”
Mr. Martin pointed out that any large change different from what was discussed at the public
hearing should go back to public hearing as well as the Planning Commission. Ms. Humphris noted that
such changes would require a public hearing anyway, since the changes would relate to the Ordinance.
Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Humphris is suggesting that approval be given to the Wireless Design Manual, and
then the Supervisors will deal with the zoning regulations. Ms. Humphris concurred.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the staff should be able to bring the Board a list of all the changes
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
including the comments made tonight. Mr. Tucker answered that this is the staff’s plan. The staff’s goal is
to try to have the revisions ready by the November 1, 2000 Board of Supervisors meeting. This would
include a list of all the suggestions made at this meeting as well as those the staff handed out to the Board
tonight and also those heard in public hearing. The Manual will next be brought back to the Supervisors for
one final review and approval as far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned. The staff will then start
working on the various tier suggestions as amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. These will go to the
Planning Commission and a public hearing process and then back to this Board for a public hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the staff will need direction from the Supervisors tonight as far as
the changes they would like incorporated. The staff members feel the list of changes given to the Board
tonight should be incorporated as well as those the Board members have raised tonight. He inquired if
there is anything in the public comments the Supervisors would like to include as well.
Mr. Martin stated that he has made his position clear. He went on to say if there are changes which
would basically eliminate Tier II, then a public hearing is needed before anything is approved.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thinks the plan before the Board tonight is basically the direction in
which County officials have been working. The changes discussed tonight are clarification to this direction,
and they can move forward with the plan in good faith, since it is really what County officials have been
trying to do all along. The other issue relates to the supplementary regulations in the Zoning Ordinance.
He is unsure how to address Mr. Martin’s concern at this time other than to say a process that works seems
to have been developed. The Manual codifies it, but there is another step to go through which involves a
public hearing. He added that he does not know how all of this will work out in the end.
Mr. Martin emphasized that he does not mind making changes if there is enough time involved, and
he can be very flexible given time. He is not very flexible if changes are suggested at the last moment. If a
special use permit is considered for Tier II, it basically turns Tier II into a Tier III clone. This is a drastic
measure which should not be done at the last minute regardless of whether it is a good or bad decision. He
then suggested that the Board take a vote on this particular matter, since the other things are just simple
changes. He added that if he loses the vote, he will support the decision of the Board. If all of this is left in
the staff’s hands, it puts the staff in a bad situation. He added that to say the Manual will be approved with
some tweaking and then the Supervisors will deal with turning Tier II into possible special use permit issues
when it comes time to deal with zoning, indicates that the Board will approve the Manual knowing that an
attempt will be made to change the major premise of it when the Zoning regulations are developed.
Mr. Bowerman referred to the PEC’s final point that any facility in an Avoidance Area should be
subject to the stricter Tier III review and the special use permit process or there seems to be no purpose for
designating Avoidance Areas. He asked if Mr. Martin is suggesting that the Board members should know
now whether or not they agree with this point.
Mr. Martin answered that he is not saying the Board members should know the answer to this
question now. However, they need to decide now whether or not they should go forward with this point in
mind. They should not leave it up to staff to figure out whether or not the Board is moving in this direction.
The policy could be sent back to the Planning Commission and brought back to this Board. The
Supervisors can approve the policy knowing that the policy and regulations are going to be very similar. He
added that if the Board approves the policy now, with the idea in mind that the staff is going to change it to
the point of turning Tier II into a Tier III look alike, it does not feel right to him.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis to explain what is meant by the last sentence in the Tier II section on
Page 65 indicating that parties aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission may appeal this
decision to the Board of Supervisors. She wondered if there is a way to have an appeal process with some
real meaning without turning it into a special use permit. Mr. Davis replied that as long as it is a ministerial
process, the only thing an appeal to the Board of Supervisors allows is to take a new look at the request
and see if it has met the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. These standards will need to be
specific enough for a ministerial decision to be reached and for someone to look at them and be able to
make this determination.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the appeal is made by the applicant. Ms. Thomas recalled that the Board
was informed earlier by Mr. Davis that the appeal could only be made by the applicant. Mr. Davis said the
Board could structure the process in any way it wishes, but the staff’s recommendation is to use the same
process as is used for site plans. Mr. Bowerman agreed. If site plans meet certain conditions, they do not
require legislative action.
Ms. Thomas stated that in most locations, a pole can be installed. She said most of the
discussions related to the height of the pole, and she can well imagine the Planning Commission approving
a tower when the balloon test shows it to be highly visible. She stated that someone wanting to appeal the
decision would probably think that the Planning Commission surely did not want to approve the tower,
because it will be so visible. She mentioned that if there was a mistake with the balloon test, or if people
run their own balloon tests to show that the tower will be highly visible, then they would have no ability to
appeal the Commission’s decision.
Mr. Davis commented that there probably needs to be an objective standard as opposed to a
subjective standard relating to ministerial decisions. He said some subjectivity gets into the site plan
process which is fine, but if it gets to be so subjective that there is no objective standard to measure it by,
then it will be difficult for it to be a ministerial process. He went on to say the visibility issue is tough because
if standards are set indicating that the pole can only be a certain number of feet above the treetops, and the
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
pole has to be a certain color with a backdrop of trees so it doesn’t skylight, then those things are objective
standards. He added that someone could make a determination as to whether or not it meets these
standards. There are probably 12 or 13 standards evaluated by staff every time for treetop towers, and if
they meet all of them, the Planning Commission votes for approval. He stated that if an application is
subject to appeal by an aggrieved neighbor, the Board of Supervisors would determine whether or not each
of these criteria have been met. He emphasized that if the Supervisors determine the tower meets all of
the criteria, they would have to approve it whether or not the neighbor objected to it being visible. There
would have to be objective standards that this Board could say it did not meet, if the request was denied.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the staff consider the issues and comments the Board members
have raised tonight. He said perhaps at the November 1, 2000 meeting the Board and staff can come away
from this work session with a definitive plan.
Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Board members think about why the three different tiers have been
considered before the work session on this matter. If Tier II is going to be changed, then the Manual has
been torn apart. He stated that Tiers I, II and III were a deliberate attempt to try to make this process work
more smoothly and not overburden the Supervisors with a lot of reviews that have become standard. He
reminded Board members that they have entrusted the Planning Commission to make a lot of ministerial
decisions, and the Supervisors see very few of them. He hopes the Board members can have the same
faith in the Planning Commission with this situation, and he assured them that the Commissioners highly
scrutinize everything they see.
Ms. Thomas agreed that the Commissioners have denied more tower requests than the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks there is some validity to using tiers where Tier II is essentially
ministerial. However, even with this distinction, a request gets a lot of review and scrutiny from a group that
is used to this type of process. He stated that anything beyond that becomes purely political as far as the
Supervisors being asked to examine what the Commission has already reviewed. Mr. Bowerman stated
that he thinks Mr. Cilimberg has clarified the situation very well.
Ms. Humphris asked if the key to the whole issue involves the standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. He reiterated that this will follow the same process as the Site Plan
Ordinance. If the information is clear, people will be informed that they have to do certain things. Mr.
Bowerman commented that the intent is to keep the three tiers in the process. Mr. Cilimberg said this is
true, unless the Board tells the staff to do something differently. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff members
thought this was the Board members’ intent until they heard their comments tonight. Mr. Bowerman said
Mr. Martin has indicated that if the Board deviates from the three tiers, then it becomes a different issue. He
agrees with Mr. Martin. Mr. Dorrier remarked that he also concurs with Mr. Martin’s comments.
Mr. Perkins inquired if there can still be a requirement of notification of the adjoining landowner.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that this can be included. He went on to say that all adjoining landowners have to
be notified with subdivisions and site plans.
At this time, Ms. Humphris made a motion to accept the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy
Manual. (Note: Motion clarified later in the meeting.)
Ms. Thomas noted that there are a lot of changes to be made, although they do not have to be
done at this time. Mr. Martin clarified that it seems a majority of the Board does not want to limit the concept
of the tiers. He does not have any problems with accepting the Manual with the inclusion of various
changes that were discussed at this meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg wondered whether or not the Supervisors want to incorporate anything in the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment dealing with facilities that are not telecommunications towers. He said
some wording has been provided in the Executive Summary indicating that, “The Personal Wireless Service
Facilities Policy is primarily intended to address facilities providing Personal Wireless Service. Other types
of wireless facilities are encouraged to adhere to this policy to the extent possible. It is recognized that
other types of wireless service may not comply with this policy due to the nature of the service provided,
available technology or license requirements.” He stated that it is not absolutely necessary to incorporate
this wording, but language has been provided in case the Board wants to use it.
Mr. Martin indicated that the language was fine with him. Ms. Thomas said she had rather not
incorporate this wording because it suggests that the County officials are not interested in the visual impact
of other types of services. Mr. Martin said he thought the language indicated that if it is possible for the
applicant to comply with the policy, and if they can present a Tier I type of proposal, the chances of it being
approved will be better.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the first two sentences of the language could be used leaving off the third
sentence. Mr. Cilimberg said this can be done. He stated that at least the issue would be addressed
because now there is only the Personal Wireless Policy involved. It is the only way other issues will be
referenced in the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman noted that internet service can be provided with an antenna four feet in height. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that the whole world of internet and the broad band relies on towers. Mr. Bowerman
reiterated that the internet and the broad band relies on a four foot high whip antenna on top of a building
and not on towers. Mr. Martin noted that such things would probably affect the County’s 800 mhz system
more than anything else.
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Humphris clarified her motion to accept the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy and to
direct staff to incorporate into the Manual the changes recommended by staff and the changes discussed at
the Board meeting, and to bring the Manual back to the Board at its day meeting in November for approval
along with recommendations for Zoning Ordinance standards.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the changes and suggestions referred to in the motion are the same that
the Board members’ received in their packets on Friday and at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff will have a revised Manual reflecting comments and suggestions. This
will set out the policy and from that the Zoning Ordinance development will take place. This will probably
take some time to do, but specifications will be made as to how the policy will be implemented.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Next, Mr. Bowerman made a motion to reconsider Agenda Item No. 10 relative to ZMA-2000-6,
Greenbrier Office Park, since the applicant was currently present. He noted that the applicant was not
present earlier because the Board moved rapidly through the agenda items. Mr. Dorrier seconded the
motion. The roll was not called since the applicant had again left the room.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Financial Advisors Report (continued discussion from October 4, 2000).
Mr. Tucker noted that the Supervisors heard a report from the financial advisors last week, but they
deferred action. At that time, the consultant requested that the Board adopt several policy changes to the
Financial Management Policy. In addition, there was a list of various alternatives regarding debt capacity
that the consultant presented in the form of four cases, and direction from the Supervisors was requested
supporting one of these cases. He will discuss the four case alternatives, if Board members wish, but they
are provided in the Board members’ packets.
Following are the Proposed Policy Guideline Modifications:
Debt as a Percentage of Market Value
Current Policy: Net Debt as a Percentage of the Estimated Market Value of Taxable Property
should not exceed 2%
Recommendation: No Change.
Fund Balance as a Percentage of Revenue
Current Policy: The Undesignated Fund Balance, plus the Designation for Fiscal Cash Liquidity
Purpose, at the close of each Fiscal Year should be Equal to no Less than 10% of
the County's Total Operating Budget.
Recommendation: Change 10% to 8% and clarify that "Total Operating Budget" includes General
Fund plus the School Fund.
Debt Service as a Percentage of Revenue
Current Policy: The Ratio of Debt Service Expenditures to General Fund Revenues should not
exceed 10%
Recommendation: Change "General Fund Revenues" to "General Fund and the School Fund
Revenues."
Debt Per Capita
Current Policy: Net Debt per Capita should remain under $1,000.
Recommendation: Delete Guideline as it is unnecessary since debt will be regulated by the Debt
Service as percentage of Revenues guideline.
Capital Reserve Policy
Recommendation: Contribute to Capital Reserve periodically to provide flexibility in meeting debt
service and capital requirements and to mitigate tax rate increases related to future
capital projects.
Debt Capacity Alternative
Total
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
CIPCase ICase IICase IIICase 4
DebtMillions
Years 1-5$111$ 71$ 58$ 71$ 63
Years 6-10 153 147 54 147 145
Debt Subtotal 264 218 112 218 208
Pay as You Go N/A 50 44 50 51
Total$264$268$156$268$259
Revenue Growth7.0%7.0%7.0%7.0%
Operating Budget6.5%7.0%7.0%6.5%
Tax Decrease 2002N/AN/AN/A$0.01
Tax Increase 2004N/AN/A$0.05N/A
Tax Increase 2007N/AN/A$0.05N/A
Ms. Thomas inquired if the third scenario opens the way for a bond referendum. Mr. Tucker
answered affirmatively. This is the approximate time frame desired. Ms. Humphris said the third case
implements the results of a bond referendum. Mr. Tucker stated that this is what is envisioned for this
alternative.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that Case I assume that the County cuts back on its operating budget to an
extent that has not been done for the last few years. Mr. Tucker said that if Case I or Case 4 is adopted,
one-half of one percent of the County’s growth in revenue will automatically go to Debt Reserve and Debt
Capacity. Ms. Thomas asked if the one-half of one percent is additional above the two cents of the tax rate
that was added this year and above the policy to which the County has adhered the last few years of putting
aside three percent. Mr. Tucker explained that seven percent was the number used based on anticipated
revenues. It could be more or less, but it would still be one-half of one percent of the growth in revenues.
Mr. Dorrier said the idea is to shift some of the operating funds into the capital projects. Mr. Tucker
stated that he would like to think of it more as shifting part of the revenue. He said Cases 2 and 3 are
assuming that whatever revenue growth the County has will automatically go to the operating budget. Mr.
Dorrier said that one-half of one percent seems as though it is a low percentage. Mr. Tucker answered that
it depends upon the amount of available revenue.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that Case I seems to accomplish the County’s goal. It dedicates two
cents of the tax rate to capital plus one-half percent growth in revenue. It is a very disciplined approach.
Ms. Thomas again inquired if Case I involves the policy for putting aside three percent each year.
Mr. Tucker emphasized that Case I do not automatically assume the County will be putting aside three
percent each year. The staff would like to continue to do this and whenever possible, more will be done.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, stated that the policy calls for three percent to be held
aside, and that is the goal. He added that the three percent will have to be flexible, and the total three
percent has not been set aside for the last few years.
Mr. Martin commented that even if the County embarks on any of the four cases, it does not mean
that County officials cannot change to another case sometime in the future. Mr. Tucker agreed. He also
noted that there could be shifts in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). This is being based on the
plan the staff considered for last year, as well as what is being envisioned for the next five to ten years. The
Board members may not agree with some of the projects the staff has included in the budget, so the need
may reduce.
Ms. Thomas asked about the importance of making a decision quickly. Mr. Tucker responded that
the staff is in the middle of the CIP Technical Committee’s work. This is similar to the request the staff
makes for revenue projections so budget building can begin. He stated that some decision is necessary
tonight, or as soon as possible, so the building of the CIP can begin. He said a decision one way or the
other will give the staff guidance.
Mr. Martin commented that the Board members may approve Case I tonight, but in March or April
when the tax rate is considered, they may decide to go to Case 4 or to stay with Case I. Two or three years
from now, they may get away from Case I or 4 and perhaps use Case 3. This is the logical progression to
maintain total flexibility.
Mr. Dorrier remarked that he had hoped to have a recommendation from the Technical Committee
before a decision was made about switching funds from the operating budget to capital improvements. The
Committee is studying these issues on an intense basis.
Mr. Tucker reiterated that it would help the Technical Committee members if they know that the
Board is going to be supporting one of these scenarios. This will help in deciding and defining the CIP
before it comes to the Supervisors. This is similar to building a budget. He added that if the staff knows the
revenues the Board is willing to allocate as the revenue projections are brought to them, then the staff
knows how to build the budget. He said otherwise, a project is being brought forward, and there is no real
basis for it, because it is not known what revenues will be available. Mr. Martin agreed. The same thing is
done with compensation when the staff is told to build a budget based on a certain amount for
compensation. He added that it does not mean this amount of compensation will remain the same, but it is
a point from which the budget can be built.
Ms. Thomas stated that compensation is the one thing that makes her leery about approving Case
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
I. She would hate to mislead people and cause them to think the County can cut its increase in the
operating budget when low unemployment is affecting everybody’s search for people. This situation
probably won’t last forever, and these plans are for a long time in the future.
Mr. Breeden said Case I indicates that one-half percent of the growth will be put in capital.
However, there is nothing in Case I to indicate that six and one-half percent is enough for the operating
budget. There is no guarantee with any of this that a tax increase might not be needed next year or the year
after. He explained that it only indicates that over and above meeting the operating needs, one-half of one
percent goes to the capital program.
Mr. Dorrier inquired about the tax decrease shown for 2002. He wondered if it means that no
matter what is done with the tax rate in 2001 there will still be a decrease of one percent in 2002. Ms.
Thomas explained that 2002 is the next budget to be considered. The budget for 2001 has already been
completed. Mr. Breeden commented that if the decision is made to cut the tax rate for the year 2000, the
2001 revenues will be less than what is currently in the budget.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he did not think there had been enough time to discuss this issue. It is a very
important matter and to discuss it at 9:00 p.m. is not giving it the credit it deserves.
Ms. Humphris remarked that this is all the Board has to work with at this time, and the County
Executive needs some guidance. She needs a little more input as to the direction to go. She feels Case I
would be a very admirable thing for the County to attempt, and although she is not sure it can be
accomplished, she thinks it is a good goal.
At this time, Ms. Humphris made a motion to approve Case I as the directive for basing the Capital
Improvements Program for the next ten years.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. He added that his reservation in making a decision was an
attempt to digest the information pertaining to this issue. This is a very important look at the future of the
County in terms of ways to meet future needs as they are seen today. He stated that although Case I does
not include the three percent to which Ms. Thomas referred, it is probably the most disciplined way to
approach the matter. He noted that it doesn’t mention anything about the tax rate in any given year, and this
should be understood in the beginning.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that Case I implies that the County will not have a tax increase. She does
not know how the County officials can do otherwise. It is certainly not their intention, but County officials
have not been very good about being disciplined over the last few years.
Mr. Bowerman agreed. This is one of the things Board members should consider. He stated that
Mr. Breeden is exactly right, and the six and one-half percent is just a number. The County might have
more operational needs than anticipated associated with the capital increases.
Ms. Humphris said if this is the case, Mr. Tucker will have to inform the Board. Mr. Tucker
commented that the revenues may not be adequate because of the market or salaries, etc. If this happens,
it will be very clear to everyone, and a conscious decision will have to be made as far as shifting aside the
one-half percent. He stated that it is the staff’s intent to handle this issue as the Revenue Sharing
Agreement is handled with the City or as with Debt Service, which is to set one-half of one percent aside in
the beginning.
Ms. Thomas remarked that by voting for this motion, she thinks the Supervisors are saying they are
going to commit themselves to try to meet the maximum debt capacity for the County’s capital needs. It
could be met with Case 3 or Case I, but the goal is to do it with self-discipline. She stated that a bond
referendum may be considered which she does not think is a bad idea, and it would give the voters a
chance to indicate whether or not they want some of the capital projects to be done. She added that she
thinks the staff should use the $268,000,000 figure as the total capital improvements costs for Case I.
Mr. Dorrier asked the difference between Case 4 and Case I that relates to the tax decrease of one
percent. Mr. Tucker replied that $9,000,000 is the difference between the two cases. Mr. Dorrier next
inquired if the County had a $9,000,000 surplus this year. Mr. Tucker answered that the surplus amounted
to approximately $6,000,000 including expenditure savings and revenues.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the $1,200,000 is part of the $6,000,000 figure. Mr. Tucker replied, “no.”
He then inquired if the other modifications to the policies which were initially recommended, should be
included in the motion. He said staff recommends that these be included also.
Ms. Humphris stated that her motion will include all of the recommendations to which Mr. Tucker
referred.
Mr. Perkins commented that the whole analysis by the consultant was to determine what the
County’s bond rating would be and whether or not to go to a bond issue. He asked if this is being avoided
by moving in this direction. Mr. Bowerman responded that he thought the County would have to have a
bond referendum in order to meet the goal at some point. Mr. Martin indicated that Case 3 involves the
bond referendum.
Mr. Perkins stated that the commitments for the capital projects the County is facing, makes it
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
appear that a bond issue is necessary, and it can’t be done through the school funds. He pointed out that
there are also other things involved such as courthouse facilities costs. He asked again if the County is still
working on getting a rating for a bond issue. Mr. Tucker answered that the County would not necessarily be
working toward a rating unless the decision is made to go to a bond issue. Mr. Perkins inquired about the
timing for the bond issue. Mr. Tucker replied that there is no time limit for the bond issue. He said
projections are not always perfect, and he is not saying a bond issue may not be necessary in the future.
However, if the revenues grow at the percentage the consultants have projected, the County may not have
to go to a bond issue. He emphasized, though, that the figure the consultants used is just a number, and
the percentage may be higher or lower. He said a lot of this will dictate whether or not a bond issue will be
necessary. Mr. Perkins commented that he looks at a bond issue as a way of asking the public if these
things should be done. Mr. Tucker stated that this is a decision the Board can make at any time.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the project started out as a way to determine what the County’s bond
rating would be and these different scenarios are a part of the work that was done for that. Mr. Tucker
pointed out that a bond issue is a way of financing projects, although there are other ways such as lease
purchases, VPSA, etc. He reiterated that this Board can decide whether or not it wants to go to a bond
referendum.
Mr. Davis indicated that the significance of Case I is that no matter how the money is borrowed, the
tax rate does not have to be raised.
Mr. Breeden emphasized that nothing in the report indicates that the County can move ahead with
the $268,000,000 worth of capital improvements without borrowing money. There will be borrowing of
some type, but Case I is just indicating that based on these revenues the County can use enough revenue
to pay the debt service.
Mr. Martin commented that if Case I is approved, the Board will be doing exactly what Mr. Perkins
has been telling the County officials to do for the last few years. This case will set money aside for capital
projects. He added that in March, the Board can decide to switch to Case 4 because the prevailing thought
is that the tax rate will be reduced in March or April. He said at whatever point the Board decides that a
bond referendum is desirable, the Board will move forward with something similar to Case 3. The Board is
starting off by saying that no matter what is done about the bond referendum as far as the court complex,
etc., the one-half of one percent will be put aside so it can start accumulating.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if Case I has any bearing on the County’s unintentional surplus. Mr. Martin
replied that Case 4 involves this surplus, and that is why the Board may decide to switch to Case 4 when the
tax rate is set. Mr. Dorrier wondered if this is a given fact. Mr. Martin replied that it is not, but that is the only
time the Board can discuss it.
Mr. Dorrier said he can support the motion.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that if the Board members indicate they are going to approve Case I, they
are saying they are committed as best they can to supplying the $268,000,000 for capital improvements. If
Case 4 is done without in some way figuring out how to arrive at this figure then it will not help the staff,
since they were developing a CIP based on the $268,000,000 figure.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the $1,200,000 surplus from the tax increase will have to be taken from
the budget anyway and separated in a way to legitimately show that this is money that was collected and
needs to be returned. It will be based upon the revenues and reappraisals, etc., that are not known today.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned that the surplus will increase. Mr. Tucker explained that there is the windfall
surplus of $1,200,000 from the two cents tax increase, and there is the end of the year surplus the Board
will be dealing with next week. He emphasized that these are two different things, and if the tax rate is
reduced, this money will come from the $1,200,000 surplus.
Mr. Dorrier asked for an explanation of the end of the year surplus. Mr. Tucker said it is the surplus
available at the end of June 30, 2000, and it involves carryover revenues and savings from expenditures.
He noted that all of this is contingent on the assumption that there is a seven percent growth in revenues,
although it could be more or less. He is always optimistic about this figure, and he believes the County will
be in a better position in future years.
There being no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Cancel Board of Supervisors meeting of November 15, 2000.
Ms. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman to cancel the November 15, 2000
meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Mr. Bowerman informed the Chairman that Mr. Frank Stoner, representing the applicant for ZMA-
2000-6, Greenbrier Office Park, was now present.
Next, Mr. Bowerman made a motion to reconsider ZMA-2000-6. Ms. Humphris seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Martin again opened the public hearing for ZMA-2000-6, and asked if the applicant wished to
speak to the issue.
Mr. Stoner apologized for not being at the meeting on time. He came at 7:00 p.m., looked at the
agenda and thought it would be a long time before his item was considered. He appreciates the Board’s
willingness to reopen the item. This matter has come before the Board members as an appeal before, so
they are familiar with the issue.
Mr. Martin stated that the Board’s action had nothing to do with punishing Mr. Stoner for not being
present. It had to do with the Board’s desire to make sure everyone understands that the applicant, or a
representative, needs to be present when such a matter is being considered.
Ms. Humphris commented that it was important to the Board for the applicant to be present
because there was a significant change in the proffer. The Board wanted it publicly acknowledged that this
is what the applicant is agreeing to so no further problems will be anticipated. She stated that it appears the
proffer is as clearly written as possible. She also mentioned that the neighborhood wanted it clearly
understood that there would be no other use of the storage area other than by the occupants of the
building. Therefore, no more traffic or parking will be necessary.
Mr. Stoner said this is clearly written in the proffer.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered a motion to accept the applicant’s proffer dated October 2,
2000 for ZMA-2000-6, Greenbrier Office Park, which was recommended to this Board by the Planning
Commission. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The proffers are set out in full below:)
PROFFER FORM
Date: September 26, 2000
ZMA# 2000-06
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) TM 61 W0-01-00-001 through 004
1.691R4CO
2.774 Acres to be rezoned from C1 to CO
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized
agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation
to the rezoning request.
(1)The Owner will install and maintain an opaque privacy fence along the property line between the
property and residential district, at the points indicated on attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The fence
will be six (6) feet tall and will be constructed of treated lumber.
(2)No more than 43,200 gross square feet of office space, consistent with CO (Commercial Office)
zoning will be constructed on the property. An additional 4,080 gross square feet of storage space
(the "storage space") may be included within the building identified as '"One Story Building No. 4,
w/Partial Basement, 1460 Greenbrier Place," as shown on the plan entitled "Minor Amendment
Final Site Development Plan Showing Greenbrier Drive Office Park," approved June 11, 1998
("Building No. 4"). The storage space shall be designed and constructed for storage purposes only,
rather than as habitable or occupiable space for office or any other use. The storage space shall
be an accessory use, and shall be used exclusively by the occupants of Building No. 4 for the
storage of equipment, supplies and records associated with the tenants' activities within Greenbrier
Office Park. The term "designed and constructed for storage purposes only" shall mean that the
October 11, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
storage area shall be approved by the building official for storage use only and not for habitation or
occupancy, shall contain a minimum number of overhead lights and electrical outlets for such use
as determined by the Zoning Administrator, and shall have no computer hookups or wiring.
(3)A minimum separation of fifty (50) feet will be maintained between any dumpster on the property
and the adjoining residential district.
(4) All exterior light fixtures will be fully shielded. A fully shielded fixture means an outdoor light fixture
shielded in such a manner that light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly
from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal.
(5) No single building shall have a floor area (footprint) greater than 12,000 square feet.
(6)The Owner recognizes that certain residential property owners and the County of Albemarle
desire to see certain improvements made to existing drainage facilities downstream from the
subject property. To provide assistance in this undertaking, the Owner will contribute the sum of
$9,334.00 to the County for application toward such improvements. Payment by the Owner shall
be made when the Owner is advised in writing by the County that it is ready to commence with the
construction of such improvements.
(7)The Owner will construct on the property a storm water detention facility satisfying design criteria
to maintain the current rate of storm water run-of from the property into the adjoining Wynridge
subdivision during a "two-year storm" and to reduce the rate of run-off during a "ten-year storm"
that the Owner shall have received approval from Albemarle County to
provided, however,
construct such detention pond by grading to the joint property line between the property and the
Wynridge subdivision.
Signature of Owners:
(Signed) Robert M. Hauser, Pres. 10-2-00 _
Greenbrier Office Park, LLC Date
By Robert Hauser Homes, Manager
Robert M. Hauser, President
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: August 9 and August 16, 2000.
No minutes were read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 9:14 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date 01/03/2001
Initials EWC