2000-11-08November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 8, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin,
Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Martin commented that the Pledge of Allegiance always gives him an emotional feeling. He
said it is great to live in a country where two people can vie for the top position, both come so close, and yet
nobody even remotely considers the possibility that anything is going to get out of control. Sometimes
people take for granted how great a country this is in which they live.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Item No. 5.1. Dedication of Woodbrook Property and Drainage Easements.
The executive summary states that two property rights in the Woodbrook neighborhood have been
offered for dedication to the County, as described below:
1.Woodbrook Lagoon Property (Tax Map 45C, Section 2, Parcel 6): This property encompasses the
old Woodbrook Sewage Lagoon, previously operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority,
and now in private ownership. The property is 7.64 acres and is largely occupied by two pond beds
and a large complex of wetlands. Due to wetlands, floodplain, and soils, the development potential
of the property is low. The current owners have offered this property for dedication to the County.
The property could be used for regional stormwater quality control, and possibly passive
recreational use.
2. Drainage Easement on Ramm Property (Tax map 45C, Section 1, Block B, Parcel 11): Lot 11 in
the Woodbrook neighborhood includes the outfall pipe from the Rio Hill Detention Basin. The
County took over ownership of this basin in 1998. Over time, the outfall has eroded severely,
creating a large scour hole on the residential property. The outfall pipe is an integral component of
the regional public stormwater basin, and should be included in the scope of the County’s
maintenance obligation. The property owners are willing to grant this permanent drainage
easement.
As stated above, the Woodbrook Lagoon property is a large wetland area that could serve public
functions for regional stormwater quality control. The drainage area of the lagoon includes a large section
of commercial development along Route 29 (e.g., Gardens, Rio Hill and Woodbrook shopping centers) as
well as residential properties within Woodbrook. The old lagoon site could be modified to provide water
quality benefits to the stream, downstream Carrsbrook streams and ponds, and the Rivanna River. This
strategy would be consistent with Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan and the County’s Water
Protection Ordinance. The County’s goal for the drainage area is to create an integrated network of public
and private facilities to control flooding, water quality, and the integrity of stream channels. The
Woodbrook Lagoon property may be the first step in an overall strategy to restore and protect the entire
Woodbrook stream channel. The lagoon property also has potential for the development of passive
recreational facilities, such as a boardwalk trail through the wetlands.
The immediate maintenance obligations and costs would be minimal. A plan will be developed for
the ultimate use of the area for stormwater management and/or recreation. The Engineering & Public
Works Department is currently coordinating an environmental assessment of the property and soil testing to
determine if any environmental liabilities exist from the property’s former use.
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
A drainage easement for Lot 11 in Woodbrook is needed to repair the existing erosion at the pipe
outfall and keep the area maintained. The repair work will be done in conjunction with planned
improvements to the Rio Hill Basin. This plan involves reducing storm flows down through the
neighborhood to protect residential properties and the stream channel. At present, the erosion at the pipe
outlet is a nuisance and safety issue for the property owners.
Staff recommends the Board authorize the County Executive to sign documents to:
1.Accept Tax Map 45C, Section 2, Parcel 6 (Woodbrook Lagoon property) for dedication from the
current owners, Mr. Alton F. Martin and Ms. Nancy Mann McClung with the condition that staff will
evaluate all legal issues and the results of the environmental assessment and determine that
environmental liabilities are non-existent or can be dealt through simple and cost-effective
measures.
2.Accept dedication of a drainage easement on Tax Map 45C, Section 1, Block B, Parcel 11 from the
current owners, Ms. Diane and Mr. Scott Ramm, subject to all environmental and legal issues being
adequately addressed.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
documents as recommended by staff.
__________
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Analysis of Criminal History Records Information Systems Grant 00-
A3556, $16,000 (Form #20031).
The executive summary states that this grant project requests professional assistance to
examine the Police Department record-keeping systems and to develop measures to significantly
streamline and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the network. The grant was approved by the
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services for the January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 period.
The study will be funded by a $12,000.00 federal grant and local match of $4,000.00. The local
match was transferred from Police operations in the 1999/00 fiscal year. No additional local funds are
required.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 20031 in the amount of $16,000.00.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
NUMBER: 20031
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS
INFORMATION SYSTEM
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1527 31012 312701DATA PROCESSING CONSULTANTS $16,000.00
TOTAL $16,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1527 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT $ 9,150.00
2 1527 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 4,000.00
TOTAL $16,000.00
__________
Item No. 5.3. Update on Status of the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program.
The executive summary states that the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program
has moved ahead with program start-up as approved by the Board of Supervisors following adoption of
the ACE ordinance on July 5. The implementation program is designed to insure fair and equitable
participation in the program through a comprehensive marketing plan and standard and accessible
application, review and selection procedures. As implementation moves into the actual general
marketing and application stages, there are several critical dates and issues that need to be brought to
the Board’s attention.
Several ACE implementation steps have already been accomplished. A part-time staff person,
McChesney Goodall, has been hired and has been working on the program for the last two months. The
ACE Committee which was appointed by the Board during their August meeting has met several times
and has been working closely with Mr. Goodall to develop critical elements of the program. They have
developed an application form which will be ready for distribution pending final review by the County
Attorney’s Office. They are currently working out details of the easement document, also in cooperation
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
with the County Attorney’s Office. The committee has approved a marketing plan and a fact sheet,
copies of which are attached for your information. They have also approved a promotional brochure,
draft copies of which will be available at the November 8 meeting for your information.
Recognizing the Board’s desire to make sure that all interested landowners have ample
opportunity to become informed about and apply for the ACE program if they wish, staff proposes that
the application deadline be extended from December 1, 2000, to January 1, 2001. Because it has
already been determined that there will be no tax implications for this year’s program, tax issues have no
bearing on when the deadline is established. If the deadline is extended to January 1, staff anticipates
that property recommendations will be presented to the Board for their review by the May day meeting at
the latest, which will allow the Board to commit funds to the selected properties at that time. Following
the Board’s property selection, easements must be finalized and property closings completed. Progress
on the program from that point on will depend on how quickly these transactions can be completed,
which will be determined to a great extent by outside parties such as property owners and their legal
representatives.
Because this is the first year of the program, staff is unsure of exactly how long certain steps in
the process may take, but will be focused on expediting procedures whenever possible to keep to the
established schedule. Staff feels confident that the process and schedule proposed here will permit
funds to be committed to property purchase during this fiscal year. In order to meet the proposed
schedule, the Appraisal Review Committee should be appointed and in place by March 1, 2001.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors extend the ACE application deadline to
January 1, 2001. Staff also recommends that the Board begin the advertising process in order to
establish an Appraisal Review Committee by March 1, 2001.
(Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the ACE Program. Mr. Tucker responded that because of
some of the Committee’s and staff’s work on the ACE Program, he is requesting that the deadline be
delayed from December 1,2000 to January 1, 2001. He was hoping to have a copy of the brochure for the
Board members tonight, but it has not yet been printed. He stated that everything is on target, and the
Committee is meeting with the County Attorney’s office to finalize the easement document. The movement
of the date forward a month will not affect the tax year. The review could not have been completed and a
decision made that quickly, and the staff feels as though it would be more prudent to take the additional
time to finalize everything.
Ms. Thomas remarked that it is amazing for a program to take so long to get started when it has
always been unanimously supported by this Board. She certainly hopes staff will work to get the ACE
Program under way. She then inquired if adopting the item on the Consent Agenda will delay it until
January 1, 2001. She also wondered if this will allow enough time, since people will be taking time off
during the holidays. Mr. Tucker replied affirmatively to both questions. He had asked the same question
about the delay, but everyone is confident that another month will be enough time.)
By the above-shown vote, the Board extended the ACE application deadline until January 1,
2000, and directed the advertising process to begin immediately in order to establish an Appraisal
Review Committee by March 1, 2001.
__________
Item No. 5.4. Appointment of Architectural Review Board Members.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board made the following reappointments to the
Architectural Review Board:
Mr. Timothy M. Michel and Mr. Rudolph A. Beverly, with terms to run from November 15, 2000
through November 14, 2004. (Note: Discussion on this item at end of agenda under "Other Matters".)
__________
Item No. 5.5. Set public hearing for proposed FY 2001 Budget Amendment.
The executive summary states that the Code of Virginia (15.2-2507) stipulates that the County
must hold a public hearing to amend its current FY01 budget if the additional appropriated amount
exceeds one percent of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The budget
amendment public hearing must also be advertised.
th
At the November 1 meeting, the Board approved a December 6 public hearing date for a
proposed amendment to the FY01 operating budget of $562,000 in donations for Esmont Park. Two
additional amendment requests need to be added to the public hearing.
The two additional requests are:
·
The school division has received a $674,000 state technology grant to purchase classroom
computers, software, etc. These funds will need to be appropriated into the school division
capital improvement program.
st
·
The Capital Improvement Program appropriations approved by the Board on November 1
for $9.77 million also need to be part of the FY01 budget amendment, since they increase
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
the FY01 Capital Improvement Program by over $500,000. Although the approved
appropriations only carry forward prior year project balances and do not add any new
funding to the CIP, the dollars that will actually be spent in the current year will be $9.7
million dollars more than the original FY01Capital Improvement Program appropriated last
June. The $9.77 million will be allocated between general capital projects, school capital
projects, storm water projects, emergency communication center, and tourism projects as
outlined in the November executive summary “Appropriation – Capital Improvement
Program”.
Staff recommends adding these two requests to the FY01 Budget Amendment public hearing
th
scheduled for December 6.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set a public hearing on December 6, 2000 on a
proposed FY 2001 budget amendment.
__________
Item No. 5.6. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for October 17, 2000, was received for
information.
__________
Item No. 5.7. Notice from the State Corporation Commission of an Application of Virginia Electric
and Power Company for approval of generation facilities at Possum Point Power Station in Prince William
County, Virginia, and an application by Virginia Electric and Power Company, for authority under Chapters
3, 4 and 5 of Title 56 of The Code of Virginia to participate in lease financing arrangements, was received
for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on a proposed ordinance authorizing a Joint Powers
Agreement for participation in a pilot program involving the statewide procurement of electrical energy
through the Virginia Municipal League. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30,
2000.)
Mr. Tucker said the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) and the Virginia Municipal League
(VML) usually work together every year to try to get the best agreement for localities in terms of rates for
electric utilities. He said this year, because of deregulation, there is a proposal to run a pilot program to
provide some savings to localities. In order to do this, Virginia Code Section 15.2-1300 requires that each
locality approve the Joint Powers Agreement by ordinance. The agreement and ordinance before the
Board has been developed by outside counsel, and it is recommended by the VML and VACo Steering
Committee. After the public hearing, staff is recommending that the Board adopt and approve the
proposed ordinance and agreement.
There were no questions for Mr. Tucker from Board members.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak to this proposed
ordinance and agreement. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris moved adoption and approval of the proposed ordinance and agreement
authorizing a Joint Powers Agreement for participation in a pilot program involving the statewide
procurement of electrical energy through the Virginia Municipal League. Ms. Thomas seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 00-A(1)
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE VIRGINIA GOVERNMENTAL ELECTRICITY PURCHASING
ASSOCIATION JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT; and PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the VML/VACo Virginia Power Steering Committee (the “Committee”), composed of
representatives of the County of Albemarle and other political subdivisions and municipalities of the
Commonwealth, has for over several decades negotiated on behalf of such governmental units their purchase
of electricity supply from Virginia Power as a sole source provider; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1300, et seq. of the Virginia Code (the “Joint Powers Act”) authorizes political
subdivisions to exercise jointly powers they otherwise are authorized to exercise independently, under the terms
and conditions set forth in the Joint Powers Act; and
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
WHEREAS, the Electric Utility Restructuring Act (the “EUR Act”) further authorizes municipalities and
other political subdivisions in the Commonwealth to aggregate their electricity supply requirements for the
purpose of their joint purchase of such requirements from licensed suppliers, and the EUR Act provides that
such aggregation shall not require licensure; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public Procurement Act (the “Procurement Act”) exempts from its competitive
sealed bidding and competitive negotiation requirements (the “Requirements”) the joint procurement by public
bodies, utilizing competitive principles, of electricity supply purchased through member associations under the
conditions set forth in the Procurement Act; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has voted unanimously to fund an effort to aggregate local governmental
purchases of up to approximately 117,000,000 kWh of annual electricity supply (the “Supply”) from competitive
licensed suppliers during a pilot period commencing no earlier than January 1, 2001, and extending through
no later than December 31, 2002 (the “Pilot Period”); and
WHEREAS, the Committee recommends (i) the aggregation and joint procurement of the Supply as
provided in the form of the Joint Powers Association Agreement, a copy of which is attached to and made a part
of this Ordinance (the “Joint Powers Agreement’); (ii) that one or more requests for proposals (“RFP”) be issued
requesting licensed suppliers (the “Proposers”) to submit proposals (the “Proposals”) to furnish the Supply to
the interval accounts (the “Accounts”) selected by the Proposers from among approximately 200 interval
accounts of the municipalities and other political subdivisions that presently purchase electricity supply from
Virginia Power; (iii) that for the Accounts selected, approximately 30% of the kWh shall be for schools on
Virginia Power’s Rate Schedules 100 and 110 and approximately 70% of the kWh shall be for non-schools on
its Rate Schedule 130; and (iv) that a contract or contracts for the furnishing of the Supply be awarded to the
Proposer (or Proposers) by considering which Proposals best (i) meet the requirements and conditions of the
RFP; (ii) offer the greatest dollar savings for the aggregated group as a whole; and (iii) offer a price for each
Account selected that is projected to be lower than the projected price that would otherwise obtain applying the
Virginia Power supply rate under which the Account would otherwise be served; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has agreed to provide funds from its operating budget in an amount not
to exceed $40,000 to pay the fees and expenses of its counsel, Christian & Barton, L.L.P., and its utility
consultant, the Columbia Group, to prepare the documents necessary for the aggregation, the RFP process,
the evaluation of the Proposals, and the award and execution of the contract or contracts on behalf of the
municipalities and political subdivisions owning the Accounts for which the Supply will be furnished; and
WHEREAS, the Committee recommends that the municipalities and political subdivisions participating
in the aggregation process agree to contribute back to the Committee’s budget up to 25% of the estimated
savings projected to be realized with respect to such of their Accounts, if any, for which the Supply is to be
furnished during the Pilot Period, provided that the aggregate of such contributions back to the Committee shall
not exceed $40,000; and
WHEREAS, the Committee recommends that the aggregation and procurement of the Supply for the
Pilot Period be effectuated as provided in the Joint Powers Agreement utilizing competitive principles pursuant
to an exemption from the Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the procurement of the Supply through the Joint Powers Agreement is structured such that
the projected costs of the electrical energy requirements of the County of Albemarle can only be less than such
costs would otherwise be under otherwise applicable rates, and it has heretofore been determined on behalf
of the County of Albemarle that competitive sealed bidding and competitive negotiations by the County of
Albemarle for such of the Supply as may be applicable to any of its Accounts are not fiscally advantageous to
the public; and
WHEREAS, it appearing to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle that the joint
procurement of the Supply pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement is otherwise in the best interests of the
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1300, et seq., as follows:
Section 1.The aggregation and joint procurement of the Supply during the Pilot Period pursuant
to the Joint Powers Agreement is hereby approved.
Section 2.The Joint Powers Agreement and the performance of the terms and conditions thereof
on behalf of the County of Albemarle are hereby authorized and approved.
Section 3.The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the
Joint Powers Agreement on behalf of the County of Albemarle in substantially the form presented to this
meeting.
Section 4.The return to the Committee of up to 25% of any savings projected to be realized by
the County of Albemarle on any of its Accounts, as provided in and subject to the overall limitation set forth in
the Joint Powers Agreement, is hereby authorized and approved.
Section 5.The payment obligations of the County of Albemarle pursuant to the provisions hereof
and the Joint Powers Agreement shall be subject to annual appropriation of requisite funds therefor by the
Board of Supervisors.
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
(The Joint Powers Association Agreement is set out in full below:)
VIRGINIA GOVERNMENTAL ELECTRICITY PURCHASING ASSOCIATION
JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT
TH
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), made and entered into as of the 9 day of November , 2000,
by and among the local governments and other political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia which
are signatories hereto and more particularly identified on Schedule B hereto (each a “Member” and, collectively,
the “Members”).
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, the Members are each authorized by law to acquire electric utility services as necessary
or appropriate for the operation of their respective public facilities; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code §15.2-1300 (the “Code”) provides that any power, privilege or authority
exercised or capable of being exercised by a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia may be
exercised and enjoyed jointly with any other political subdivision of the Commonwealth having a similar power,
privilege or authority except where express statutory procedure is otherwise provided for the joint enterprise;
and
WHEREAS, the Code authorizes two or more political subdivisions to enter into agreements with one
another for such joint action and to appropriate funds and sell, lease, give or otherwise supply such property,
personnel or services therefor as may be within their legal power to furnish; and
WHEREAS, the Members, pursuant to the authority granted in the Code, desire to create a joint powers
association (the “Association”) and associate as members hereunder with the assistance of the Consultant and
Counsel (identified below) for the purposes, among other things, of promoting the interest and welfare of the
Members, and developing a closer relation among them, all as hereinafter more particularly set forth; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Electric and Power Company (“Virginia Power”) has agreed in principle to permit
localities purchasing energy from Virginia Power (“Virginia Power Localities”) to participate in a pilot program
(“Pilot Program”) whereby the Virginia Power Localities may purchase up to 117,000,000 kWh of their annual
electricity supply (“Supply”) commencing no sooner than January 1, 2001, and continuing through no later than
December 31, 2002, from one or more competitive licensed suppliers (“Suppliers”); and
WHEREAS, the VML/VACo Virginia Power Steering Committee, which is composed of representatives
of municipalities and other political subdivisions of the Commonwealth, including the Members (“Committee”),
with the advice and consultation of the Consultant and Counsel, has assisted the Virginia Power Localities in
connection with the negotiation of contracts for the supply of electricity, and the Committee has recommended
that the Virginia Power Localities aggregate their purchases for the Pilot Program pursuant to one or more
requests for proposals (“RFP”) to provide electricity service to the accounts (the “Accounts”) selected by the
Suppliers from among approximately 200 interval accounts with a total kWh of approximately 1 billion kWh as
identified on Schedule A hereto (the “Member Accounts”) with the specifications (the “Specifications”) that the
contract or contracts awarded for the Pilot Program (the “Pilot Program Contracts”) will (a) serve up to
approximately 117,000,000 kWh on an annual basis for all or any portion of the period commencing no earlier
than January 1, 2001, and ending no later than December 31, 2002 (the “Pilot Period”) and (b) be allocated
so that approximately 30% of the 117,000,000 kWh will be allocated to schools on Virginia Power Rate
Schedules 100 and 110 and approximately 70% of the 117,000,000 kWh will be allocated to non-schools on
Virginia Power Rate Schedule 130; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has further recommended that the Virginia Power Localities whose
electricity accounts are included within the Member Accounts form a membership association pursuant to the
authority granted to localities under the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Members consist of all or a portion of the Virginia Power Localities whose electricity
accounts are included within the Member Accounts; and
WHEREAS, the Members desire to use an RFP process that will permit them during all or any portion
of the Pilot Period to aggregate their purchases of the Supply from one or more Suppliers using competitive
principles; and
WHEREAS, the Members desire the continued assistance of the Committee, the Consultant and
Counsel in connection with the matters to be undertaken by the Association.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the undertakings hereinafter stated, the
Members agree as follows:
1.Name. The undertaking of the Members hereunder shall be named and designated as the
Virginia Governmental Electricity Purchasing Association (hereinafter the “Association”).
2.Term of the Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective for the period commencing on
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
the date hereof (with each Member to adopt the Agreement on or after such commencement date) and shall
terminate upon the earlier of (a) completion of the RFP process and, as applicable, the completion of the Pilot
Program and any matters necessary to wind up the administration of the Pilot Program, or (b) a vote by 75%
of the members of the Board (as defined below in this Agreement) to turn over the administration of the Pilot
Program to a successor association.
3.Purpose of the Agreement. The Members enter into this Agreement for the purpose of acting
jointly to promote their interests and welfare and to promote the interest and welfare of, and develop close
relationships with, similar public bodies. This promotion and development shall consist of the following actions
undertaken by the Association as the agent for the Members: (a) issuance of one or more RFPs, (b) evaluation
of responses to the RFP, (c) award of one or more contracts to one or more Suppliers, if any, whose responses
are selected pursuant to the evaluation of such responses in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and
(d) the administration of any Pilot Program Contracts that may be awarded pursuant to the RFP. All such
actions by the Association shall be done with the advice and consultation of the Consultant and Counsel and
approved by the Board.
4.Purchase of the Supply.
(a)After evaluating any responses submitted by Suppliers to the RFP, the Board shall
determine what contracts, if any, should be awarded for the purchase of the Supply for the Accounts for the
Pilot Period. The purchase of the Supply shall be made pursuant to the exemption from competitive sealed
bidding and competitive negotiation as set forth in Virginia Code Section 11-45.G of the Virginia Public
Procurement Act (the “Act”) using competitive principles, and, to the extent applicable, other relevant provisions
of the Act. Each Member agrees, subject to annual appropriation, to purchase its respective share of the
Supply for its Accounts selected by the successful Supplier(s) from among the Member Accounts and to pay
therefor the rate for such Accounts negotiated in the procurement process for the Supply, subject to the
provisions of subsection (b) of this Section 4. No member shall be liable or responsible for any payments owed
the successful Supplier(s) under any contract(s) for any portion of the Supply by any other Member with respect
to the Account of any such other Member.
(b)The Board shall determine which one or more of the responses to the RFP, if any,
(i) best meets the requirements and conditions of the RFP, (ii) offers the greatest projected savings, in
aggregate, for all or some portion of the Supply, (iii) meets the Specifications and (iv) proposes a price for each
Account to be served under any Pilot Program Contract that is projected to be lower than the projected price
that would otherwise pertain when applying the Virginia Power supply rate under which the Account would
otherwise be served (the “Virginia Power Rate”).
(c)The Pilot Program Contracts awarded hereunder by the Association for the purchase
of the Supply shall be executed by the Chairman or the Vice Chairman of the Association on behalf of the
Members owning the Accounts to be served under the Pilot Program Contracts.
(d)The Association shall cause to be communicated to other municipalities and political
subdivisions in the Commonwealth the advantages of this Agreement with a view to furthering their economic
interests in the aggregation and procurement of electricity services on a competitive basis.
5.Governance.
(a)The Board. The Association shall be governed by a Board (the “Board”) that shall
initially consist of the primary representatives of the Members listed on Schedule B hereto. The Members listed
on Schedule B may also appoint a secondary representative who may attend all meetings of the Board, but who
shall not have voting privileges unless the primary representative of the Member shall be absent. The Board
shall have power to decide all matters relating to the Association’s activities and operations, subject to the
provisions set forth herein. Whenever any Member withdraws from the Association in accordance with this
Agreement, that Member shall no longer have any representation on the Board.
(b)Meeting of the Board. The Board shall meet at such times and places within the
Commonwealth of Virginia as shall be designated by the Chairman. Three working days’ notice by fax or E-mail
shall be given in advance of all Board meetings.
(c)Officers of the Board. Paul Proto is hereby designated as Chairman of the Board and
Steve Sinclair is hereby designated as its Vice Chairman, to serve until the earlier of (a) the termination of the
Association or (b) the submission of such officer’s resignation or his removal and the election of a successor
by the Board. The Chairman shall preside at all meetings of the Board, and in his absence, the Vice Chairman
shall preside. Vacancies in such offices may be filled by the Board at any meeting. Steve Craig of the VML,
or its designee, shall serve as the Board’s secretary, but without vote.
(d)Quorum. Twenty-five percent of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum
for any Board meeting.
(e)Actions by the Board. All matters for action by the Board may be adopted upon the
affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present and voting.
(f)Consultant and Counsel. The Columbia Group is hereby initially designated as
Consultant to the Association and Christian & Barton, L.L.P., is hereby initially designated as Counsel to the
Association.
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
6.Budget of the Association.
(a) There is hereby established a budget of $40,000 for the RFP process and the
selection of and contracting with the successful Supplier, based upon an estimate therefor of $20,000 for the
Consultant and $20,000 for Counsel, including fees and expenses. The budget shall be funded from amounts
set aside by the Committee from its current operating budget.
(b)Each of the Members owning any of the Accounts shall, subject to annual
appropriation, contribute back to the Committee by December 31, 2001, for credit to the Committee’s current
operating budget an amount of up to 25% of such Member’s savings projected to be realized from purchasing
its respective share of the Supply for its Accounts compared to the amount that otherwise would be projected
to be paid by applying the Virginia Power Rate for such Accounts; provided, that the aggregate of such
contributions back to the Committee shall not exceed $40,000 total for all members. Such projected savings
and contributions back to the Committee shall be reasonably determined by the Consultant following the award
of the contract or contracts for the Supply and a written report thereof promptly delivered by the Consultant to
the Committee and to each of the Members. Should the projected aggregate savings for all the Accounts
exceed $160,000 (.25 x $160,000 = $40,000), the percentage of each Member’s contribution back shall be
adjusted by the Consultant in making its determinations by multiplying .25 by a fraction, the numerator of which
shall be 160,000 and the denominator of which shall be the sum of the projected savings for all the Accounts.
No Member shall be required to pay any portion of any contribution back assessed to, but unpaid by, any other
Member.
(c)The Association shall not create or incur any liability for the Members, jointly or
severally, other than (i) the costs incurred by any Member in paying for any Accounts of the Member that are
served under any Pilot Program Contracts and (ii) the reimbursement owed to the Committee pursuant to
subsection (b) above.
7.Withdrawal of Members. A Member may withdraw from the Association effective upon the
earlier of (a) notice from the Association that no Pilot Program Contract will serve any of the Member’s Member
Accounts, or (b) notice from the Association that the term of all Pilot Program Contracts serving any of the
Member’s Member Accounts has expired and the Member has reimbursed the Committee for any amounts
owed under Section 6(b) of this Agreement.
8.Notices. Unless otherwise provided for herein, notices, approvals, requests, consents and
other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when
delivered in person, by fax or by E-mail or mailed by first class, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid,
addressed to the primary representatives of the Members at the addresses shown on Schedule B. The
Members may designate by notice given hereunder any further or different addressees or addresses to which
subsequent communications under this Agreement shall be sent.
9.Execution of Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed by the Members in
multiple original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall
be deemed to be one and the same instrument.
WITNESS the following signatures, effective as of the date first above written.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2000-45. Triton PCS CVR 362B (Sweeney) (Sign #70). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow communication facility incl 90’ high wood pole, flush-mounted antenna &
ground equipment on 14,747 sq ft leased area of 519.118 ac pcl. Znd RA & w/in EC Overlay Zone. TM94,
P17. Loc at 2670 Thomas Jefferson Pkwy (Rt 53) E of Rt 729. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 23 and October 30, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the request from Crown Communications is a proposal to lease 14,747 square
feet in a 520 acre parcel. A 200 square foot portion of the lease area would then be subleased to Triton
PCS. The proposal is for a wooden pole and ground equipment to serve the communication facility. He
explained that the pole would have flush mounted antennas and a grounding rod attached to the top, and
access to the site would be provided by a 12-foot wide extension to an existing gravel/dirt road. The
proposed location in on a rise within a wooded parcel off a partially improved lane which is accessed from
State Route 53. He noted that a balloon test revealed that the pole would be visible for approximately one-
tenth of a mile for eastbound traffic on State Route 53. He said adjacent open farmland is within sight of
the lease area, and the proposed pole will be visible from the adjacent property. The balloon test showed
that the proposed height of the pole at 90 feet would be visible from adjacent property and from the road.
Mr. Cilimberg then passed around photographs showing the balloon at the 90-foot height. He does
not have photographs to show a lower height of 86 feet where the balloon was also flown that day, but this
would be the height of the top of the pole. He pointed out that the balloon was still highly visible above the
trees and appeared significantly higher than the tallest tree. A survey provided by the applicant indicated
that the highest tree within 25 feet of the proposed pole is an 83-foot high oak. The oak is located between
the proposed pole site and State Route 53. He explained that the photographs were taken from State
Route 53 west of the proposed pole location, which is looking eastward into the area that would be visible
as vehicles travel along State Route 53. The applicant advised that the surveyors had a difficult time
accurately measuring the heights of the trees especially in the densely wooded areas. He stated that this
could be the reason the balloon, when flown at what was believed to be three feet above the trees at the 86
foot height, was so visible, as well as the difference between the heights as measured in feet and Above
Sea Level (ASL).
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that conditions of approval are recommended that would require
certification of the tree height as well as certification of the pole height. The applicant has advised that the
location of the proposed site would provide the coverage needed for cars traveling on State Route 53, and
the alternative site will not provide the needed coverage. He explained that as the proposed facility site is at
a higher elevation than the roadway, a condition of approval is offered reducing the height of the wooden
pole to no more than three feet above the highest tree. He pointed out that the recommended height would
not include the two-foot high grounding rod. This is also an application subject to review by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB), which has approved a Certificate of Appropriateness with conditions.
The ARB based its decision on a presentation made at its meeting of photographs showing a balloon test
height of 82 feet which is different from the current height under review.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the special use permit subject to conditions
provided including a stipulation that the top of the pole, as measured ASL, shall never exceed three feet
above the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as the pole,
measured ASL. The Planning Commission took an action on the facility at seven feet above the trees,
which would have been the 90-foot height the applicant requested, but failed to recommend approval by a
three to three vote. If the request is approved by this Board, the Commissioner who made the motion
recommended that the height be seven feet rather than three feet above the tree line and that condition #2
(f) regarding the RF isolator be removed. Mr. Cilimberg then called attention to condition #9 on Page 13 of
the staff report which used the word, “luminaries,” and he asked that all such references be changed to
“luminaire.” He said staff will be using the word, “luminaire,” from this day forward.
Ms. Humphris questioned why the Board was being requested to approve the entire 14,747 square
feet Crown Communications is requesting instead of the 200 square foot lease area that Triton is going to
use for the pole. Mr. Cilimberg referred Ms. Humphris to condition #3(a) which is a limiting condition. He
then read that, “The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled Crown
Communications/Carroll Creek.” This is a reference to the specific site, and the pole would have to be
located according to this plan.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned condition #2(f) on Page 11, and asked if the height above the tallest tree is
seven feet. Mr. Cilimberg answered, “no.” The Planning Commission’s failed action was for seven feet
rather than three feet above the top of the tallest tree. Ms. Thomas said the Planning Commission’s action
ended in a tie vote. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. The motioning Commissioner wanted the Supervisors to
understand that his motion was for the pole to be seven feet above the tallest tree. Mr. Cilimberg next
suggested that condition #2(f) be eliminated, since it is not necessary.
Ms. Thomas inquired if an RF isolator will be used. Mr. Cilimberg responded, “no.”
Ms. Thomas referred to Attachment C-5 on Page 27 showing the outline of trees which is supposed
to give the feeling of the appearance of the tower next to the trees. She asked who gives guidance to the
applicant regarding such things. She stated that it is totally out of scale, and if the access road is 12 feet
then the trees have a six-foot diameter. If this is a 12 inch oak then the panels that are 40 inch panels come
about one-third of the way down the pole. She went to the site today, and this is a misleading picture. She
noted that Commissioner Will Rieley, who has the computer ground expertise to draw the actual
appearance of a tree, has drawn a couple of trees which are more accurate. She asked if staff examines
such things and gives the applicant feedback or is it something the Supervisors should take up with the
applicant. Mr. Cilimberg answered that he was not in on this review, so he is unsure about the suggestions
staff gave to the applicant. He said it has been brought up in Commission meetings before that things are
out of scale, so he thinks the applicant should speak to this issue. He added that the staff usually does not
use such a thing as guidance for a specific recommendation.
There were no other questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board, so Mr. Martin opened the public
hearing and asked if the applicant would like to speak to the issue.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, called attention to a comment in the staff report about
problems with tree height measurements in the past. This is correct. However, she pointed out that the
copies of the plans the Board has are the most recent ones, and she does not feel there is any question or
problem about the heights of those trees. She mentioned that there were problems in the very beginning
when the surveyors went to this property, as well as other properties, because they were not using the
precise measurement techniques as the applicant would like. They originally were submitting plans
showing average tree heights, or perhaps only one tree height, or the average height of the canopy. She
stated that this threw off the balloon test quite a bit. She then referred to Ms. Thomas’ question about
Attachment C-5 relating to items being drawn to scale. She said, to her knowledge, the only time this was
pointed out to her was at the Planning Commission hearing on this particular application. She stated at the
Planning Commission meeting that it was not intended to be to scale or reflect the scale of the width of the
trees. She can certainly see how a person would interpret it that way, and it should state that it is not
intended to be to scale. This view was initially used to demonstrate with another application where there
was a nice backdrop to the pole. She stated that the trees directly behind the pole were at an elevation of
about 10 feet taller than the pole at base elevation, so this view was used to demonstrate that. The
surveyors have not been very consistent about carrying that through, and the applicant has since decided if
they are not going to show the difference in elevation or the tree width to scale, then they should not include
these items in the drawings. She apologized for this misunderstanding. Once it was brought to her
attention, she has tried to remedy the problem. Ms. Long then noted that there are some consultants
present at this meeting. Crown Communications is represented, as well as Ms. Carolyn Sweeney, the
landowner.
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Ms. Long said this proposal is consistent with the County’s Wireless Policy in all respects, and she
asked that the Supervisors look at the big picture. The staff has pointed out that the pole will be seen for
one-tenth of one mile in one direction, and she will not try to deny that. The pole is not invisible, and
although she wishes that it was, she does not think the Policy makes this requirement. The applicant tries
to make the poles as minimally visible as possible, and they also try to put them in locations that are
appropriate when looking at the big picture. The applicant tries to find properties with existing access roads,
so a big path will not have to be cut through a bunch of trees which would have a big impact on the
property. She commented that this property has an existing access road next to it. The applicant tries to
find a clearing that is of a good size within the trees, so that the pole can be put into the ground to the extent
that power lines can be run underground without having to interfere with tree roots. She added that
sometimes tree roots do become a problem, but this site has a large clearing within some very tall trees,
and tree removal is not anticipated.
Ms. Long said there are a lot of good things about this proposal. She indicated that it is in a heavily
wooded area, there are a number of other trees, and she is not aware of any landowners with any
complaints including the landowner who lives closest to the property and would be the most impacted. It is
not a perfect site, but it meets all the criteria of the County’s Manual. She stated that the Manual speaks to
mitigating visibility by using design criteria in order to mitigate and minimize any visibility there is or would
result from the pole. She thinks this proposal accomplishes the goal that is laid out in the Manual. The only
substantive issue with regard to the staff’s suggested conditions of approval has to do with the height of the
pole. The staff has recommended three feet above the tallest tree, and the applicant has requested a
height of seven feet above the tallest tree. She said at seven feet above the tallest three, the facility will
work well within the designed network, and this facility is designed to connect to facilities on either side of it
down Route 53. She recalled that the Board has already approved a prior application which is SP-2000-46
on the Winston property which is the next site toward Fluvanna County. There is another application in the
other direction coming before this Board in approximately four to five weeks. She remarked that it is a
carefully designed network where the distance is kept at a reasonable length so there will be as much
continuous coverage as possible. She commented that there are a lot of careful constraints the applicant
has to work with when the poles are so close to the tops of the trees, and they cannot be placed too far
apart or too close together.
Ms. Long then called attention to the error in the staff report which stated that the tallest tree is 80
feet in height. The tallest tree is actually 83 feet in height. In terms of visibility, she reiterated that the pole is
minimally visible from one direction, but it is not visible from vehicles heading toward Charlottesville from
Fluvanna. She referred to the staff report where it stated that the pole will be visible from surrounding
properties, and she pointed out that when she was with the staff for the balloon test, they did not travel on
the other properties. She said it may be visible there, but there is also a row of trees between the site and
the adjacent property, so it is possible it blends very well within those trees. She mentioned that she has a
package of photographs to distribute and some of them show the balloon at the 86 foot level. She also has
some photo simulations which depict a side by side view of the balloon test. The applicant’s main concern
is the four-foot difference in height which, from a visibility perspective, is minimal. She stated that if the pole
can be seen for one-tenth of a mile, it becomes a matter of whether people see three feet of the pole or
seven feet of the pole for one-tenth of a mile. In terms of coverage, Ms. Long emphasized that four feet is
quite significant. The pole will work with this system at 90 feet or seven feet above the tallest tree, but it will
not work as perfectly as the applicant would wish. However, when wooden poles are used, nothing works
as well. She pointed out that if there was more room available above the trees, much better networks could
be designed. She said working within the constraints and policies the County has agreed upon and
selected, seven feet above the tallest tree at this location, works at the desired levels. She reiterated that
four feet lower does not allow the system to work nearly as well. She asked the Board again to think about
the big picture and the benefits of this application which are the little impact and the very small footprint this
application will have.
Ms. Thomas referred to the pictures that were passed around to the Board members, and she
asked at what height was the balloon flown in these pictures. Ms. Long answered that the balloon was
flown at 90 feet first. She said when a staff member indicated a concern that it was too visible, she asked
that it be lowered three feet above the tallest tree to 86 feet. Ms. Long said this was also done.
Next, Ms. Long discussed the photographs and pointed out that the first two pages are side by side
photographs with the balloon test on the left and a photo simulation on the right. She stated that the first
ones are at the requested height of seven feet above the tops of the trees, and the second set is at three
feet above the tops of the trees. She also passed around photographs showing the existing lease area, the
clearing and the existing access road.
Mr. Dorrier inquired about the other pole down the road from this site. He asked about the number
of miles between the two poles as well as the height of the other pole. Ms. Long responded that the pole to
which Mr. Dorrier referred pertains to SP-2000-46 on the Winston property. It is also for Triton and Crown,
and it was approved at a height of seven feet above the tallest tree which would make the tower 86 feet in
height. Mr. Dorrier asked if this site is also in Albemarle County. Ms. Long answered affirmatively.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the reason for this request is because of the dead spots along Route 53 for cell
phones. Ms. Long replied that that there are currently places on Route 53 where cell phones do not have
power. Triton’s marketing name is SunCom and this company has been hearing quite a bit from their
customers that they really want coverage along this area. There are lots of commuters traveling back and
forth.
Mr. Dorrier next asked if Triton has poles in Fluvanna County along Route 53. Ms. Long answered
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
that the applicant provides service in Fluvanna County also, but she is not sure if any of the facilities are
operating yet. However, there are some applications currently going through the zoning approval process
in Fluvanna.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if the reason poles are not currently visible along Route 53 is because they
have not yet been built. Ms. Long said this is true as far as Triton is concerned, but she can only speak to
Triton’s situation. She was told there is a pole associated with another carrier located a few miles away
from this site, but she does not know where it is located.
There were no other questions from Board members for Ms. Long, so Mr. Martin opened the public
hearing. He asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to SP-2000-45.
No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris referred to condition #3 on Page Eleven of the staff report where it states that, “The
pole shall be located as follows: (a) The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan
entitled Crown Communications/Carroll Creek.” She asked if she is to understand that this is referring only
to Triton’s 10 by 20 foot portion of the Crown Communications lease area. Mr. Cilimberg replied, “yes.”
Specifically, there are a series of actual plans involving Crown Communications/Carroll Creek and all of
them shows the site location of this facility.
Ms. Humphris called attention to the drawing on Page 26, and inquired if the 200 square feet in the
black rectangle equals the subject area. Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively. He went on to say this is a
composite of the whole location showing what is around the pole including the facilities that go with it and
the area of the access road.
Ms. Humphris next mentioned Page One of the staff report where it states that, “The applicant,
Crown Communications, has proposed to lease a 14,747 square foot portion of a 519.118-acre parcel.”
She asked why does the larger portion that Crown proposes to lease enter into the County officials’
consideration at all. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it is put in the staff report as information for the Board.
The applicant has additional special use permit applications with possible requests for one or more poles.
Ms. Humphris then called attention to Page Seven of the staff report under condition #3(f). She
read that, “The applicant, Crown Communications, has leased over 14,000 . . . . . . ” She continued reading
that “Crown also intends to sublease to other providers, given the opportunity in the future.” She
understands that each application is dealt with individually based on the merits involved, but this seems to
be saying that a precedent is going to be set. If the Board approves this pole, then there will have to be a
good reason not to approve as many others as can be put on the site. She inquired how County officials
can differentiate between this application and others. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the Board has approved
several applications that were second ones on a site.
Ms. Thomas noted that the other ones with second towers were on good sites, and this one is
marginal. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it depends on how the Supervisors approve this application. This will
set up how they want to design on the particular site, if they approve it at all. This is one of the reasons staff
recommended the three feet above the tree line rather than the seven feet. If the applicant requests
another pole on this site, it will be different and the visibility will be different. In this sense, each application
has to be considered on its own merits. The applicant may have another location for a pole proposal with a
very different visibility, and that would be before this Board as its own application, and it would be reviewed
in that way.
Ms. Humphris recalled a site on Spring Haven Farm which was in the middle of the woods. She
said if she saw a 1,500 square foot site there, which was visible from nowhere, it would be a lot different.
She is not happy with this request for a seven-foot height above the treetops.
Mr. Martin called attention to Pages One and Seven of the staff report where it referenced the size
of the site. The Board members are always asking for more information, and he sees this as the staff giving
them additional information. He added that it is just a statement of fact, and it has nothing to do with a
future application. If the applicant bought Mr. Kluge's farm, it would not mean towers are going to be built
all over it. He emphasized that the Board members do not have to approve towers over the whole property
simply because they are told that the applicant owns the property.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she has visited the site. She said Crown has leased the grove of trees,
and any poles in the grove of trees are going to be similarly visible. She also noted that this time of year,
the entire pole will be seen. She said it is brown, and it will blend in, so it is not a major issue. She
remarked that Board members are going to base their decision on whether three feet or seven feet are the
most intrusively visible. She wondered, though, if there will be a legal problem in the future if the
Supervisors deny any more requests for that particular site or if they will only allow poles of a different
height. Mr. Davis answered that he does not think there will be any future problems if the Board chooses to
approve this request. He added that by approving one pole, the Supervisors are not obligating themselves
to approve others. The Board members could argue that by approving one pole, they have provided the
applicant with a reasonable use of this property, and they do not have any obligation for approving anything
else on this lease area. He stated that the Board has a great deal of discretion in how to deal with future
applications.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he has also been to the site, and he drives the road quite frequently.
The photograph showing the 90-foot tower is a little deceiving because it is taken from the side of the road
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
with a completely unobstructed view. When he is driving along Route 53, he is watching the road closely
because it is a narrow road with ditches on each side. The road is dangerous and heavily used. He added
that while he was driving on Route 53, he looked for the balloon, and he saw it for a split second. He was
worried because of the danger of taking his eyes off the road, and he does not think people are going to be
looking up toward the tower. He went on to say the Board has approved one of the poles, and this one is in
a grove of trees. He added that he knows the Sweeneys, and Red Lively as well as other people in the
neighborhood. He noted that none of the neighbors are here to speak tonight which means they are not
opposed to the tower. This is meaningful to him because he respects those families.
At this time Mr. Dorrier offered a motion to approve SP-2000-45, Triton PCS CVR 362B (Sweeney)
with the seven foot restriction and the elimination of condition #2(f). Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas stated that she was undecided, but Mr. Dorrier’s comments have influenced her. She
was not there when the balloon test was done, but she was there today when the trees are thinner. She
does not want to damage the network, and one pole has already been approved for this road. However,
she emphasized that this is an important road.
Mr. Dorrier remarked that he thinks it is important to have a very good network of cell phones along
Route 53. He said although cell phones can sometimes be harmful as far as safety is concerned, they can
also help in emergencies.
Ms. Humphris commented that she will reluctantly support this application. She stated that she
wanted to have a clear understanding that the next time an application comes before this Board for another
pole on this site, it will be a whole different issue. She said each application will be considered on its
individual merits.
Ms. Thomas stated that when she drove home from this site, she passed the Bellair site where a
second pole was being installed. Ms. Humphris mentioned that Bellair is often misspelled in information
coming from the Planning Department.
Ms. Humphris also recalled talking to Dennis Rooker, Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission,
who assured her that the Commission had a discussion about the additional area around this site.
However, there was nothing reported about it in the Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Cilimberg said the
discussion did not take place while he was in attendance, but he was not there at the beginning of the
meeting. He reminded Ms. Humphris that many times, because of the timing, this Board gets draft copies
of the minutes.
Ms. Humphris remarked that if color photographs are available, the Supervisors need to see them
when they receive their packets. The photograph included in the packets for this item was not in color, it
was very dark and totally worthless. Mr. Cilimberg informed Ms. Humphris that there was only one color
photograph available, and the Planning Department does not have a color copier.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never 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 pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The pole shall be wood and dark brown in 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, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached
plan entitled Crown Communications/Carroll Creek;
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, 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; 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;
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
3.The pole shall be located as follows:
a.The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled Crown
Communications/Carroll Creek; and
b.The proposed facility shall be located not more than twenty-five (25) feet from the existing
access road;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled Crown
Communications/Carroll Creek;
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole; and
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
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 luminaire shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a
luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply; and
10.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2000-047. Pantops Convenience Center (Sign #86). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to allow drive-through window. Znd PD-MC, EC. TM78, P76. Contains 1.5 acs. Loc on
Richmond Rd (Rt 250) at intersec of Rolkin Rd & Richmond Rd. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 23 and October 30, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg said SP-2000-047 is a request to allow the operation of a single lane drive through
restaurant pickup window at Pantops across the driveway from the existing gas and convenience Amoco
station. There will be a principal building on the site containing a drive through window, as well as a food
store and second floor office and a car wash building. The site is bounded by Route 250 on the north,
Rolkin Road on the east and a parcel of proposed planned development and mixed commercial
development to the south and west. He said it is referred to as the Kroger site. The site is recommended
for regional service in Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan, and the site has been designed with an
internal one way by-pass lane to alleviate possible congestion in the vicinity of the drive through window and
car wash. The applicant has indicated that the drive through window has been designed so the vehicles
being served will be turned away from Route 250 so the headlight glare will not be a problem. He recalled
that at the Commission meeting there was a question as far as the view from Monticello. The drive through
window is on the opposite side of the building from the sight lines from Monticello. He added that staff and
the Planning Commission have recommended approval of the special use permit, and there are no
conditions necessary.
Mr. Martin noted that there were three issues brought before the Planning Commission. They
were: the drive through window, the approval of the egress and ingress and the one way circulation. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that these are things to be considered with the site plan. Mr. Martin asked if the only
issue before this Board is the drive through window. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively.
Mr. Dorrier asked where the proposed business will be in relation to Westminster Canterbury. Mr.
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Martin replied that it is proposed to be across the street from Westminster Canterbury.
Ms. Thomas inquired if Mr. Cilimberg is comfortable with the circulation pattern. She is not
comfortable with it. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this has been an item of discussion with the applicant
including the entrance onto the site as well as circulation within the site. The County Engineering
Department felt the circulation as proposed with the drive through facility was workable with the activities
occurring on the site. The staff also wanted to make sure no conflict was being created on Rolkin Road or
Route 250, and that is why there is only an entrance to the site off of Rolkin Road.
Ms. Thomas next asked if there will be a safe pedestrian access for people who will have parked in
the Kroger parking lot and may want to go to the restaurant. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff will be addressing
access within the Kroger site with the site plan. He pointed out that in this particular phase, there is the
existing sidewalk on the Rolkin Drive side of the site, as well as sidewalks along the south side which is
adjacent to the aisles where the Kroger site will be developed. He said sidewalks will go to Route 250, and
Route 250 also has a sidewalk.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the only entrance to the two story building proposed is the U-shaped area
facing Route 250. Mr. Cilimberg said as far as an entrance for the building, itself, there is a walkway that
comes from the canopy area into the building, and it faces an easterly direction. He said within this
proposed two story building site there is a concrete walk, as well as a concrete walk on the other side of the
building opposite the parking that is adjacent to the Kroger site. He emphasized that there are on site
walkways.
There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he would like to speak to SP-2000-
047.
Mr. Frazier White, with Virginia Oil Company, stated that representatives of Virginia Oil have worked
a long time with staff, and there have been many changes. He commented that there were things his
company representatives did not like as far as circulation patterns, but this is the best plan upon which
everyone could agree. There are four entrances to the building -- one in the six-sided portion, one in the
center, one on the end and one on the side for the second story. There will be a sidewalk around the whole
building.
Mr. Martin asked if anyone from the public would like to speak to this matter.
No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin stated that this is within his district. The issue before the Board has to do with the drive
through window, and there are other drive through windows in the area. The window is located on the other
side away from Monticello, and the lights will be pointing away from Route 250 and Monticello. He does not
have any problems with this request.
At this time, Ms. Thomas made a motion to approve SP-2000-047, Pantops Convenience Center.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Perkins told Mr. White that the people in Crozet appreciate the new Amoco Station and Dairy
Queen. He said it is a nice addition to the community. Ms. Thomas concurred. Mr. White replied that he
would like to thank the people in Crozet for all their support.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2000-51. David Pastors (Triton PCS) (Sign # 51). PUBLIC HEARING on
a request to allow construct of personal wireless facility w/ 99’ tall wooden monopole (7’ above height of
tallest tree w/in 25’). Znd RA & EC. TM55, P93. Contains approx 21 acs. Loc on Half Mile Branch Rd (Rt
684), at Yancey Mills, approx 1/8 ml N of intersec w/Hillsboro Ln (Rt 797). White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg said SP-2000-51 relates to a proposal to install a wooden monopole at a height of
seven feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet. The pole would have three flush mounted antennas and 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 10 by 12 foot concrete pad. According to the request, approval of this facility would
allow Triton and AT&T to increase wireless coverage along I-64 West. This is another case where Crown
has leased a larger area, and this specific request is for a 200 square foot portion of a larger lease area.
The property is located in Yancey Mills, west of Route 684, and it lies more than 300 feet north of I-64 within
a heavily wooded area containing large and mature trees. There are no dwelling units located within 200
feet of the facility, and the nearest existing structure is an abandoned house which is located approximately
470 feet away. He said access to the site will be provided off of Route 684 from an existing gravel road
which would be extended to the west and then south to the site. He stated that because a portion of the
access road to be extended from the existing road is a rough path, and it is already clear, there will be no
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
need for removal of any significant vegetation. He said it is a relatively flat site, it is in an area of significant
woods, and the trees in the woods are approximately the same elevation as the site.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the balloon was floated at the proposed pole height of 99 feet.
During a recent field visit to the site, staff observed that the balloon was only visible for a short distance
while traveling at a low speed in the eastbound lane of I-64. He said staff also attempted to locate the
balloon from adjacent properties and observed that the balloon was most visible from points along the front
of the subject parcel when looking west from Route 684. The ARB has supported and approved this
proposal with conditions. He pointed out that staff, among its findings, saw the design and siting of the
facility as being such that will have limited visual impact on adjacent properties and public roads. He said
staff recommended approval subject to conditions, but the conditions were somewhat modified by the
Planning Commission in its recommendation. The conditions from the Commission are represented by the
October 23, 2000 action letter. He next emphasized the change in reference to the word “luminaire.” He
wanted to make sure it is used consistently throughout the information. He also noted that condition #4(c) is
redundant since it is covered in condition #1. In light of this fact, staff suggests that condition #4(c), as
shown in the action letter, be eliminated.
Ms. Thomas mentioned condition #2 (f) which states that only flush mounted antennas shall be
permitted. She pointed out that in other letters there has been a sentence stating that in no case shall
antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. This one doesn’t actually say that, but she would
feel better if it did. She would also feel better including condition #4 (c), since it involves the height and
width of the grounding rod, unless condition #1 is reworded.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that it is fine to include condition #4 (c), but it was noted by the
Commission that it probably should be eliminated. He added that it doesn’t hurt anything to keep the
condition.
There were no further questions from the Board.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if she would like to speak to SP-
2000-51.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, said she is agreeable to the changes and conditions
suggested. She stated that the panel antennas are always kept within the 12 inch distance from the pole,
and all plans have been revised to show that two foot lightning rods are now being used instead of four feet.
The current plans do not stipulate this, but the plans that will be submitted for final approval will show that
the lightning rods will be of the approved height. She is agreeable to leaving the two conditions as Ms.
Thomas suggested. She pointed out that consultants are present, as well as Mr. Pastors, the landowner, if
anyone has questions. This property is an excellent site, because it is heavily wooded, and there are lots of
trees nearby. She stated that the applicant was lucky to discover the site. There is a path leading
throughout the trees to the lease area, and it goes back close to the road. There will only be a short
extension necessary to the access road. The road will be upgraded and gravel will be put down so it can be
accessed during the inclement weather. She said no tree clearing is anticipated, unless the certified
arborist suggests to the contrary pursuant to the Tree Conservation Plan. She added that she thinks it will
be a good location. She stated that both the Planning staff and the ARB staff viewed the balloon test at the
same time. The applicant is requesting the tower to be seven feet above the tallest tree within the 25-foot
radius, and the pole will only be visible for short distances along the interstate. This request complies with
all the requirements of the County’s Manual in terms of design, location and siting.
Mr. Perkins called attention to condition # 10 where it states that fencing of the lease area shall not
be permitted. He directed his question to Ms. Long as well as Mr. Cilimberg when he inquired if cattle could
damage the equipment if they wander onto the property. Ms. Long answered that technically cattle could
cause damage, but she does not believe there are any on the property. She said Mr. Pastors can speak to
this issue. The applicant did not propose fencing since it was the understanding that County officials prefer
that fencing not be used.
Mr. Perkins said that is why he directed his question to both Mr. Cilimberg and Ms. Long. He stated
that perhaps fencing would not be necessary for this particular site, but it may be in some rural settings. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that when this is the case, it will be brought out in discussions with staff and the
Commission, and the conditions will be altered. There have been some conditions which allow for fencing
when there is an agricultural livestock type of use on the property.
Mr. David Pastors, owner of the property, remarked that he has three fenced pastures for his Black
Angus cattle. They are five to six hundred feet away from the site. The area where the cell tower will be
located is heavily wooded and it is actually cross fenced with wood and wire. He added that sometimes
cattle will get out of his wooden fences and occasionally get out into the woods, but his fences are fairly
secure, so he does not think there will be a problem.
Ms. Thomas asked what the pink ribbons indicate when they are tied around trees on these sites.
Ms. Long said the pink ribbons are put on the trees to show the surveyors which ones they need to
measure. She stated that sometimes the surveyors are told to measure everything within a certain
distance, but sometimes they cannot get to all the trees when they are in a dense area. She said bucket
trucks are used and cranes are raised. However, sometimes the woods are so dense, the trucks are
unable to get through them.
Mr. Martin inquired if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this issue. No one came
forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Cilimberg referred to condition #2 (f) and suggested that wording could be added to state:
“Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the
minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas
project out from the pole more than 12 inches.”
Ms. Humphris commented that this could become a standard condition. Mr. Cilimberg said the
staff is trying to get standard conditions in place, and he is unsure why this wording was not included.
Mr. Davis suggested that condition #4 (c) be retained.
Mr. Perkins them offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-2000-51, David
Pastors (Triton PCS) as amended and with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and
staff.
Ms. Humphris said she would support the motion with the understanding that if there are any future
proposals for the same site Crown has leased, they will all be considered on their own merits.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never 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, concrete pad 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 attached plan entitled “Yancey Mills”;
e. The antennas shall be painted dark brown in color, to match the color of the pole;
f. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
g. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
measured both in feet above ground and also elevation Above Sea Level from the same
base elevation within twenty-five (25) feet of the pole;
h. 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 in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL); and
i. The pole shall not extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition
number one (1) of this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this
special use permit;
3. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled “Yancey Mills”
4. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled “Yancey Mills”;
b. Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited; and
c. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not
exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
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;
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
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 shall identify each user of the
pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider;
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 luminaire shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a
luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted;
11. The applicant shall obtain and record a tree preservation easement on Tax Map 55/Parcel 19D, to
protect the trees providing screening between the proposed facility and the right-of-way; and
The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community
Development, in order to ensure that all conditions of this special use permit and the ARB Certificate of
Appropriateness are reflected in the drawings. The revised drawings must be approved and signed by
Planning staff and the Design Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the
facility.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2000-53. Limited Service Hotel (Signs #36&37). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to extend approval period, & modify conditions of approval, for SP-98-47, approved by the
Board on 1/13/99, for hotel w/restaurant. Znd C1 w/proffers. TM32, P41D. Contains 37 acs (proposal is on
4.5 acs of). Loc on Rt 29, just W of intersec of Rt. 29 & Timberwood Pkway. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30, 2000.)
Mr. Martin noted that the applicant for SP-2000-53 was not present. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that
the applicant was aware of this meeting and the date was clearly defined. Mr. Martin suggested that other
agenda items be considered at this time, with the hope that the applicant for SP-2000-53 would appear
before the meeting adjourned. Other Board members indicated their desire to consider the matter at its
proper place on the agenda.
At this time, Mr. Cilimberg began his summary of SP-2000-53 which is a request to extend an
existing special use permit. The applicant made a request to remove a condition from the last special use
permit which required that the final site plan for the limited service hotel shall not be approved until after
approval of a development plan for the entirety of Tax Map 32, Parcel 41-B which is over 30 acres. The
applicant felt it was very restrictive, since this type of plan cannot be submitted until the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is completed, because it involves land the applicant does not control. However, staff felt
it was important to continue this condition, and the Planning Commission agreed. Mr. Cilimberg informed
Board members that the application is recommended to them for approval in the exact form it was originally
approved. The actual condition regarding the period of extension is two years.
Board members had no questions for Mr. Cilimberg.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for SP-2000-53, and asked if anyone would like to speak to
this special use permit. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin said this is just an extension of an approval the Board of Supervisors has already made.
He suggested that the extension period be approved, but that the conditions be left as they are
recommended by the staff and Planning Commission. He recalled that the last time an applicant was not
present, the Board members agreed to put the item on the Consent Agenda for the next meeting.
However, the applicant appeared before that particular meeting adjourned.
Mr. Davis commented that whether or not a decision is made about the issue without the presence
of the applicant is at the discretion of the Board.
Ms. Humphris next made a motion to approve SP-2000-53, Limited Service Hotel, with the three
conditions as recommended by the staff and Planning Commission, and to approve the two-year extension
(to January 13, 20002). Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
1.The use authorized by this special use permit shall be developed as a limited service hotel, not to
exceed one hundred (100) rooms in size, in general accord with the applicant's justification dated
8/21/98 and initialed "SET" (copy attached);
2.The use authorized by this special use permit shall be limited to approximately 4.5 acres in size;
and
3.The final site plan for the limited service hotel shall not be approved until after approval of a
development plan for the entirety of Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: August 9, September 6 and September 20, 2000.
There were no minutes read.
Mr. Martin mentioned that Board members should read the minutes assigned to them so they can
be approved in the near future. Mr. Dorrier stated that he would have the minutes assigned to him ready for
approval at the next meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Authorize County Executive to sign contract on KIMCO Property.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that Board members have been made aware of the contract for the KIMCO
property, and they need to authorize the County Executive to sign it. This is property the staff has been
negotiating with Grant Cosner for some time. The property consists of 32 acres and was appraised at
approximately $1,600,000. Mr. Cosner is going to make a contribution and gift of approximately $401,500
to the purchase leaving the balance of $1,198,500 to be paid by the County. The owner would like to close
on the property by the end of this year.
Ms. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to authorize the County Executive to
sign a Contract of Purchase for the KIMCO property.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The Contract of Purchase is set out below:)
CONTRACT OF PURCHASE
th
THIS CONTRACT OF PURCHASE made and entered into this 9 day of November , 2000 between
KIMCO, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company (the "Seller"), and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
(the "Purchaser").
1.REAL PROPERTY: Purchaser agrees to buy and Seller agrees to sell the land and all
improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto (the "Property"), situated on State Route 20 in Albemarle
County, Virginia, shown on Tax Map 91 as Parcels 8B, 10, and 11, containing 31.91 acres.
2.PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price is ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND AND
NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,600,000.00), payable as follows:
a.$1,198,500.00 payable by cashier's check to Seller at Closing; and
b. $ 401,500.00 payable by charitable contribution to the County of Albemarle.
3.SETTLEMENT AND POSSESSION: Settlement shall be made at the offices of McClure,
Callaghan & Atkins on or before December 31, 2000, or as soon thereafter as the parties may be able to close,
unless the parties mutually agree to a different settlement date.
4.EXPENSES AND PRORATIONS: Seller agrees to pay the expense of preparing the deed,
lease agreement(s), certificates for non-foreign status, Form 1099-B, recordation tax applicable to grantors,
and any attorney, accountant or financial advisor fees incurred by Seller. Except as otherwise agreed herein,
all other expenses incurred by Purchaser in connection with this purchase, including, without limitation, title
examination, appraisal, survey costs, recording costs, fees of Purchaser's attorney, shall be borne by
Purchaser. All taxes shall be prorated as of settlement.
5.APPRAISAL: Purchaser herein acknowledges that it arranged, accepted, and paid for the
appraisal report by Pape and Company, Inc., dated July 24, 2000.
6.EASEMENT: Purchaser shall agree to the express reservation by Seller of a
permanent road easement for ingress and egress along the existing old road to be acknowledged
within the deed of conveyance. Seller and Purchaser agree that neither party shall have any
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
responsibility for maintenance of said road and each agree to repair any damage caused by its own use.
7.LEASE: Seller shall prepare a lease agreement wherein Maynard P. Cosner may rent the
designated house for his lifetime or as long as he resides on the Property for an annual rent of $600.00, to be
paid in monthly installments of $50.00. The Lease Agreement shall contain a provision that Seller, its
successors and assigns will be solely responsible for all maintenance, repairs and insurance on the premises
for the duration of the lease.
8.TIMBER RIGHTS: Seller shall retain the right to cut timber on the Property, at its sole expense,
prior to this Property being developed by Purchaser. Such timber will not be cut until Purchaser has an
approved site plan and will only be cut in accordance with that plan. Seller shall be granted a reasonable period
of time, not to exceed ninety (90) days, to cut timber prior to site development. If Seller is not granted time to
cut said timber, then Purchaser agrees to pay Seller the market value of such timber. Both parties may extend
said ninety (90) day period subject to agreement.
9.CONDEMNATION: Purchaser agrees to execute requisite documentation relating to the
acquisition of this Property "under threat of condemnation". Seller shall draft said documents for review by
Purchaser.
10. NON-CASH CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION: Purchaser shall arrange for Pape and Company
to prepare Form 8283 for use by Seller for the filing of its tax returns. Seller shall be solely responsible for the
filing of Form 8283 or any other necessary disclosures or filings to the Internal Revenue Service or Department
of Taxation in connection with this transaction.
11. USE AND CONTROL: Purchaser agrees that Seller shall retain free use and control of the
property until Purchaser begins development, subject to the following terms and conditions:
(a)Seller shall be entitled to rents from rental properties;
(b)Seller will indemnify and hold Purchaser harmless from any liabilities of any
kind, including attorney's fees, associated with or arising from the rental
property or any other use of the property by Seller during this period, and
will provide liability insurance in connection with the use and control of the
Property, including rental property, with Purchaser as additional insured;
(c)Seller will be responsible for all maintenance on rental properties;
(d)Seller agrees to pay an annual service charge on this Property while Seller
has control and use of Properties. This service charge shall be equal to the
year 2000 Real Estate Tax on this property in the amount of $2,778.56. This
service charge shall be due in two (2) equal installments of $1,389.20, due on
thth
June 5 and December 5, and
(e)Purchaser agrees that it will not develop this Property until at least two (2)
years after settlement. Seller will not enter into any lease/rental agreements
that extend past the two (2) year period.
12. TITLE: At settlement, Seller shall convey to Purchaser good and marketable fee simple title
to the Property by deed of general warranty containing English Covenants of title, free of all liens, defects and
encumbrances, except as otherwise indicated herein, and subject only to such restrictions and easements of
record that do not affect the use of the Property or render the title unmarketable. If a defect is found that can
be remedied by legal action within a reasonable time, Seller shall, at Seller's expense, promptly take such
action as is necessary to cure the defect. If Seller, acting in good faith, is unable to have such defect corrected
within 60 days after notice of such defect is given to Seller, then either Seller or Purchaser may terminate this
Contract. Purchaser may extend the date for Settlement to the extent necessary for Seller to comply with this
paragraph.
13. RISK OF LOSS: All risk of loss or damage to the Property by fire, windstorm, casualty or other
cause, or taking by eminent domain, is assumed by Seller until Settlement. In the event of substantial loss or
damage to the Property before Settlement, Purchaser shall have the option of either (i) terminating this
Contract, or (ii) affirming this Contract, in which event Seller shall assign to Purchaser all of Seller's rights under
any applicable policy or policies of insurance and any condemnation awards and pay over to Purchaser any
sums received as a result of such loss or damage.
14. PROPERTY CONDITION AND INSPECTION: Purchaser agrees to accept the Property at
Settlement in its present physical condition, except as otherwise provided herein.
15. MECHANICS LIEN NOTICE: Seller shall deliver to Purchaser an affidavit to the effect that no
labor or material have been furnished to the Property within the statutory period under Virginia law for the filing
of mechanics' or materialmen's liens against the Property or, if labor or materials have been furnished, that the
cost thereof have been paid.
16. MISCELLANEOUS: The parties to this Contract agree that it shall be binding upon them, and
their respective personal representatives, successors and assigns; that its provisions shall be merged into the
deed delivered at settlement and survive closing. If any amendment is made, it is agreed that unless amended
in writing, this document contains the final agreement between the parties hereto, and that they shall not be
bound by any terms, conditions, oral statements, warranties or representations not herein contained; and that
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
it shall be construed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
17. DEFAULT: If Seller or Purchaser defaults under this Contract, the defaulting party, in addition
to all other remedies available at law or in equity, shall be liable for all reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
SELLER:KIMCO, L.C.
By: ________________________
E. Grant Cosner
Operating Manager
PURCHASER:By: ________________________
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Davis pointed out that under Item 5.4 of the Consent Agenda there was a matter where the
Board of Supervisors approved the appointment of two ARB members. The memo proposed that they
would only be appointed for a six month term, but by ordinance they have to be appointed for a full term.
Although they may not wish to serve a full term, the appointments have to be full term.
Mr. Tucker responded that the appointees understand this ordinance requirement.
Mr. Martin stated that this is the only way the Board can make such appointments. He said it will be
noted that although the information states that the ARB members will be appointed for six months, this
Board will have to make full term appointments of four years.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned a concern about high school students who drive to Western Albemarle
High School along Route 250. She remarked that since it is one of the roads that was built in the 1950s,
and it is a three lane road, it has certain places where people drive a lot faster than they should. The fact
that there is no shoulder on the road also makes it particularly dangerous. She suggested passing this
issue on to the 250 West Advisory Committee via Mr. Cilimberg, since this Committee looks at safety
issues. She also suggested that Mr. Bill Mills be alerted to the situation because the letter of concern was
written to him.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the matter be brought up to Mr. Mills at the December day meeting. Ms.
Thomas concurred with Mr. Tucker. However, it would also be good to alert the 250 West Advisory
Committee.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she gave a presentation to the Architects Institute of America about the County’s
DISC program. The members of this group were so enthusiastic about it that people were standing up in
the audience telling other county representatives that they should be doing just what Albemarle County is
doing. It was a good moment for Albemarle County. They were envious of the
County’s relatively slower growth rate here, and although they were not thinking about moving to Albemarle
County, they wanted other counties to do what Albemarle County is doing.
__________
Mr. Perkins stated that he has received some comments about speeding in the Earlysville area
particularly relating to the trucks going to the old Murray plant. He suggested that the County police be
notified. Mr. Perkins then mentioned the same problem on Route 810 from Crozet to White Hall. He
remarked that he would also bring the matter up with Mr. Mills at the December meeting about signage in
Earlysville, since there are trucks getting lost there. He is getting reports that the trucks are going past their
turn and ending up in White’s supermarket parking lot.
Mr. Tucker concurred with these suggestions.
__________
Mr. Davis announced that under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) there has been some
question about whether or not it constitutes a meeting when the Board of Supervisors meets at the VACo
meeting. It is his understanding that there is no intent for this Board to meet and conduct any business at
the VACo meeting, so technically he believes it is not an issue for the FOI. He explained that, as a matter of
disclosure, Boards are dealing with this issue now by announcing that Board members will be attending a
VACo meeting on November 12, 13 and 14, 2000 with no intent of conducting any business at a meeting of
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Martin asked if the Supervisors can be seen in the same room together. Mr. Davis answered
that they can be seen in the same room and at the same table together, but they would not be meeting for
the purpose of conducting business.
_______________
November 8, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to December 6, 2000, 8:00 a.m., for Joint Meeting with
Charlottesville City Council.
At 8:20 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, Ms. Humphris offered
motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adjourn to December 6, 2000.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date 01/03/2001
Initials EWC