Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1996-12-11
December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 000002 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 11, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Phil Waigand of the Charlottesville Fathering Initiative invited Board members to attend one of their monthly meetings and participate in the group. The group's goal is to promote positive role models for children. Ms. Samatha Masone introduced "The Brats," a newly formed women's rugby football team in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. She thanked County and City officials who helped them to find space to practice. She invited Board members to come out and support the team. Mr. Dave Klug said he is a new resident of Virginia and has just moved into Peacock Hill. He understands that private landfills must have lined pits, but that public landfills are exempt from that requirement. He asked that the Board not jeopardize the health and welfare of its electorate by not complying with the more stringent standards. What is proposed flies in the face of public health and welfare and prudent judgement. The proposal provides for a greater potential contamination of groundwater with toxins and heavy metals which are known to be health hazards. The continuing use of this landfill degrades the aesthetic beauty and the quality of life of Albemarle County for everybody who lives here. Raising the present level of the landfill could possibly provide visitors to Monticello a new area of interest to look at. Ms. Barbara Strain said she is the president of the Board of Directors of the SOCA Organization of Charlottesville and Albemarle. She also is present to speak concerning the Ivy Landfill. She is representing about 6500 families, either current or recent participants in one of their programs. Some of these people are present with her this evening. SOCA is a private, non-profit, volunteer, community service organization whose mission is to provide enjoyable, effective, quality soccer programs which develop partici- pant skills and encourage citizenship. As the single largest provider of youth and adult sporting opportunities in the area, SOCA represents a signifi- cant portion of the community. According to recent census data, they have participants from one out of every four families in the Charlottes- ville/Albemarle area. Currently they maximize all the available field space in both the County and the City. They recently submitted a report to the County's Parks and Recreation Department, at their request, indicating that SOCA needs nine fields to meet current needs. Projections show that in five years they will need 16 more fields. As the Board considers the consultant's proposals concerning the use of the Ivy Landfill, she hopes they will view it as an opportunity for the community by converting the landfill to playing fields for community residents, thus providing a positive improvement. SOCA is concerned that if the landfill is operated for another five to seven years, Options 3, 4 and 5 of the consultant's proposal, the area SOCA proposes for playing fields will be filled to an elevation of 750 feet which would make the area unusable for field space and it would become unsightly for nearby residents. Only if the landfill is closed on the two-year fast track Option December 11, 1996 (Regular Nigh~ M~ng) 000008 (Page 2) #2 will the space be available for field development. By opting for Option #2, SOCA will be helped to fulfill its mission and serve the community. Working together, the landfill will be turned from a liability to an asset. Ms. Casey Burke, a junior at Western Albemarle High School, Said she is representing the Ivy community. She urged the Board to support Option #2 of the GBB report on the Ivy Landfill which was recently submitted to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA). Option #2 specified that the landfill be closed within two years. They encourage the RSWA to maximize the elevation at 700 feet so the recovered site blends into the neighboring terrain. They feel the landfill should be closed as soon as possible and that the site be covered for recreational use and returned to the community (Ms. Burke listed six reasons for this request which are set out in a letter presented for the record and which is on file with the permanent records of the Board in the Clerk's Office). She made a plea that the site be converted into soccer fields for the SOCA organization. She finished her statement by saying the community deserves better than a substandard landfill in Ivy that threatens the commu- nity. She encourage the Board to consider more enlightened uses to be implemented within two years. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms.~Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.7 and 5.8 on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Item 5.1. Letter dated November 27, 1996, from the Honorable George Allen, Governor, to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, regarding proposed Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) financing initiative. It is noted in the letter that "This ... will provide school divisions access to financing for school construction and education equipment in a more flexible and more efficient manner .... Further .... can also be used for educational technology equipment - not permitted under current limitations .... " The letter was received for information. Ms. Humphris said what the Governor is making possible seems to fly in the face of County fiscal policy. Mr. Tucker said the County has been doing some of that, but is stopping it. The County is not going to utilize any long-term debt financing for equipment of that nature. It is a new County policy not to do that. Ms. Thomas said at a Planning District Commis- sion/local government officials dinner, Delegate Mitch Van Yahres asked how the Commission members would respond to this proposal. She told him the Planning District had not taken a stand yet, but Albemarle County had already made a decision not to use long-term financing for this type of equipment. She asked that the County's policy be shared with all of the area legislators. Item 5.2. Letter dated November 22, 1996, from Ms. Ruth DePiro, President, Our Lady of Peace, to the Honorable Charlotte Humphris, Chairman, providing a report on the assisted living facility residents requirement of the November 24, 1992, agreement between Albemarle County, Virginia, and Our Lady of Peace, Inc., was received as information. Item 5.3. Notice of application filed November 19, 1996, with the State Corporation Commission by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative for approval of a demand-side management (DMS) program. CVEC proposed to implement its DSM program through a direct load control program for electric water heaters. Notice was received for information. Item 5.4. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of October, 1996, received for information. December 11, 1996 (Regular Night M~ing) UUUUU~ (page 3) Item 5.5. copies of Planning commission minutes for November 12, November 19, November 26 and December 3, 1996, were received for information. Item 5.6. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board for October 10, 1996, was received for information. Item 5.7. Voluntary Early Retirement Request for Senior Deputy Clerk. It was noted in the staff's report that the Senior Deputy Clerk has been employed with the County for 25 years. She has requested that she be allowed to take early retirement March 1, 1997. County policy requires that the Board of Supervisors approve all early retirement applications upon recommendation of the County Executive. Staff recommends that the request be approved with the budgetary implications absorbed within the Board of Supervisors' current budget. By the recorded vote set out above, the request was approved. Item 5.8. Set public hearing for January 8, 1997, on expenditure of Law Enforcement Block Grant Award. It was noted in the staff's report that the Department of Justice has awarded Albemarle County $20,290 in federal funding with a required ten percent local cash match of $2,255 for a total of $22,545 available funds for a public safety initiative. The purpose of the grant program is the reduction of crimes and .improv- ing public safety. The funding formula is based primarily on our part I Uniform Crime Report offenses over a three year average. These grant funds may be used in the following areas: Law enforcement support for hiring, training and employing on a continu- ing basis new, additional law enforcement officers or support personnel. If new personnel are hired there must be a net gain over the unit of local government's current appropriated budget, in the number of law enforcement officers who perform non administrative public safety service; Paying overtime to presently employed law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel for the purpose of increasing the number of hours worked by such personnel; Establishing crime prevention programs involving the cooperation between community residents and law enforcement personnel to control, detect, or investigate crime or the prosecution of criminals; and Procuring equipment, technology, and other material directly related to basic law enforcement functions. Staff has recommended using these grant funds for overtime to current officers concentrating in southern are of the county. The Esmont community is an area in the county that we have identified as having a number of order maintenance and crime issues that need to be addressed. The area is small enough that the impact of any additional police presence should be recognized by the citizens of the community and have an effect on crime and public safety in the area. In addition, the Scottsville area would benefit from the increased presence of an officer. Our concept is to utilize one officer on a part time basis to be assigned to the Esmont and Scottsville areas to provide a part time neighbor- hood police officer. The grant funding would be used to provide overtime coverage to re-staff for shortages causes by removing this officer from the patrol shift or investigations division. The neighborhood officer would be assigned to answer calls in the area, when on duty, and to conduct or assist with all follow up cases in the area. The officer would also be assigned to deal with any neighborhood problems and be a liaison for the community with the police department. We also envision locating a neighborhood police station in the community and staffing it during some hours so citizens could come to a safe environment and speak with an officer about any concern they may have. December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Me'ting) (Page 4) 00005 Duties would include: Liaison with all TEAM area schools: churches; civic associations; senior groups; neighborhood watches; South Albemarle Organizations; and public safety committee chairperson (Town of Scottsville); Identify and meet all community leaders in TEAM area; Random vehicle, bicycle and foot patrols in TEAM area, especially Scottsville; Concentrate on meeting people, even door to door visits with businesses and residents in area; and Handle all follow-up investigations assigned in the TEAM area. GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS The following requirements must be met prior to expending any grant funds: At least one public hearing must be held regarding the proposed use of Block Grant funds prior to the obligation of any funds received. Steps should be taken by the unit of local government to encourage the fullest possible participation in the public hearing. Prior to the obligation of any funds received under the Block Grants Program, the unit of local government must establish or designate an advisory board that includes the following representation: Local law enforcement Agency Local prosecutors office Local court system Local public school system Local nonprofit group (eg. Education, religious, or community) active in crime prevention or drug use prevention or treatment) This appointed board would give a non binding recommendation to the County Executive on the use of the funds and grant proposal. Staff recommends that a public hearing be advertised on the proposed neighborhood police officer initiative to be held on January 8, 1997 to meet the grant requirement. By the recorded vote set out above, the Clerk was ordered to advertise for a public hearing on this matter for January 8, 1997. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VII, of the Code of Albemarle entitled ~Real Estate Tax Exemption for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons" to revise the filing deadline for elderly and handicapped property tax exemptions to be no earlier than January first and no later than April first of each taxable year. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 1996.) Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, summarized the reason for this ordinance amendment (see minutes of November 8, 1996). The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas asked if there will be any attempt the first year to recog- nize that the people you are dealing with are older persons and they may miss the deadline. What is the penalty for missing the deadline? Mr. Davis said Section 8-28(b) sets out parameters from the State Code as to what would constitute a hardship for late filing. Mr. Breeden said if that turns out to be a problem, staff can return to the Board to set a later date or establish a different temporary date for the first year. Ms. Thomas said she does agree with the intention to make the ordinance more effective. Motion to Adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemption for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, was December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 000006 offered by Mr. Martin and seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 96-8 (2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXA- TION, ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxa- tion, Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 8-26, Same--Eligibility; restrictions, and section 8-28, Procedure for filing claims, as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec. 8-26. Same--Eligibility; restrictions. Exemption from real estate taxes permitted hereunder shall be granted subject to the following restrictions and conditions: (6) The person or persons claiming the exemption shall file the affidavit required by this article no earlier than January first nor later than April first of each taxable year. Sec. 8-28. Procedure for filing claims. (a) Annually and between January first and April first of each taxable year for which the exemption is claimed, the person claiming the exemption shall file with the director of finance, in such manner as he shall prescribe, and on the forms to be supplied by the county, an affidavit setting forth the names of the related persons occupying the real estate for which the exemption is claimed, their total combined income and their net combined financial worth. If such person is under sixty-five (65) years of age, such form shall have attached thereto a certification by the Social Security Administration, the Department of Veteran Affairs or the Railroad Retirement Board, or if such person is not eligi- ble for certification by any of these agencies, a sworn affidavit by two (2) medical doctors licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth or are miliary officers on active duty who practice medicine with the United States Armed Forces, to the effect that such person is permanently and totally disabled, as defined in section 8-23. The affidavit of one of the doctors may be based upon a physical examination of the person by such doctor. The affidavit of one of the doctors may be based upon medical informa- tion contained in the records of the Civil Service Commission which is relevant to the standards for determining permanent and total disability as defined in section 8-23. A certification pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 423 (d) by the Social Security Administra- tion, so long as the person remains eligible for such social security benefits, shall be deemed to satisfy such definition in section 8-23. If, after audit and investigation, the director of finance determines the claimant to be eligible for the exemption from real estate taxes, he shall certify the claimant's eligibil- ity to the county tax assessor, who shall exonerate the amount of the exemption from the real estate tax liability of those persons entitled to the exemption. (b) Persons claiming the exemption from real estate taxes for the first time may file after April first, but before November first, of the taxable year in the manner set forth in subsection (a) of this section. Further, in hardship cases, persons claiming December 11, 1996 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) (Page 6) 00000'7 the exemption from real estate taxes may file after April first, but before November first, of the taxable year in the same manner as set forth in subsection (a) of this section. For purposes of this section, a hardship case shall include only those cases in which the person claiming the exemption was hospitalized or in a nursing home between January first and April first of the taxable year, or similar situation which in the judgment of the director of finance constitutes a hardship case justifying the extension of the filing period set forth in subsection (a) of this section beyond April first of the taxable year. © Such exemption, if granted, shall be effective only for the current year and shall not be retroactive in effect. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation by repealing section 8-70, Volunteer rescue squad and fire company workers, to eliminate the separate class of personal property for one automobile owned by volunteer rescue squad and fire company members. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 1996.) Mr. Breeden said the County currently exempts the first $4500 of value for one vehicle for personal property purposes for all volunteer fire and rescue workers. Due to revisions to State Code § 58.1-3506, staff began to review County Code provisions and the effort that is required to process this exemption in light of the new proration process for personal property taxes. Concurrently, the policy of issuing a free decal to the same volunteers was reviewed. Staff estimates that the administration process of providing the personal property exemption and free decal to volunteer fire and rescue workers consumes about 1000 man hours per year. Staff recommends that a voucher system be established. Vouchers would be issued to the volunteer fire company and rescue squads to be distributed to their members as they see fit. For the budget year 1996-97, the Board increased the exemption on a single vehicle from $4500 to $5700. Staff recommends that the same qualification process be used for the vouchers as is used for the decal and personal property exemption. One change is that three separate vouchers would be issued by January 1 to the organization for each eligible member. The vouchers would be: (1) a decal fee of $25.00; (2) a voucher for $125.00 for personal property tax; and (3) a voucher for $125.00 for personal property tax. All vouchers would be valid only for the calendar year in which they were issued. By issuing vouchers, staff will no longer be required to track volun- teers' vehicles separately from all other personal property in the County. This will simplify the proration process for these vehicles. The voucher system is estimated to take no more than eight to 16 hours rather than the 1000 hours previously required. The voucher amounts have been rounded to $125.00 (times two) which would effectively grant an exemption of approxi- mately $5850 per volunteer for vehicles, and up to $25.00 for a decal. Mr. Breeden said staff recommends that County Code §§ 8-70 and 12-23 be repealed following a public hearing. These benefits will be replaced by the voucher system as described (and per the attachment [on file] outlining the guidelines for the program). The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas commended the staff for coming up with this way of dealing with this issue. Mr. Bowerman said this is just one of the many things County citizens receive from County staff. They are very efficient and always thinking of ways to do things better. This is certainly a very good idea and one that should be implemented. Motion to Adopt an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article XIV, Personal Property--in General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, was offered by Mr. Bowerman, and seconded by December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) ~'-~v%;V%~(~ (Page 7) Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) ORDINAIqCE NO. 96-8(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXA- TION, ARTICLE XIV, PERSONAL PROPERTY--IN GENER3kL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxa- tion, Article XIV, Personal Property--In General, is hereby amended and reordained by repealing section 8-70, as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec. 8-70. Repealed by ordinance adopted December 11, 1996. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses of the Code of Albemarle, by repealing section 12-23 to remove the vehicle license fee exemption for one vehicle for volunteer fire company or rescue squad members, to amend section 12-24 to amend the application and billing procedure for the issuance of vehicle licenses, and to amend section 12-27 to amend the refund procedure for vehicle licenses. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 1996.) Mr. Breeden said that for several years, the Finance Department has been reviewing ways to reduce the work load required by the vehicle decal process at the same time making the process more convenient of the taxpayer. Staff now proposes that the vehicle license be automatically mailed in early January to all vehicle owners with a current license who have no unpaid personal property taxes. The license fee would be included with the first half personal property bill due and payment by June 5. Each license will have to be mailed individually, but there will be no significant postage cost increase because they will no longer be mailing an application and then returning the decal by mail to the 50 percent who purchase their decal through the mail. This process will hopefully result in some reduction in the long lines of taxpayers which has been experienced during the last few days of January each year. However, since the majority of the people in those lines have not paid their personal property tax, the lines will not be totally eliminated. It will make more staff time available to assist these taxpayers since staff will not be processing the mail renewals at the same time. The revised process will eliminate the use of outside agencies for renewals. Currently, his department is negotiating with these agencies concerning their future role in the process. It is hoped that they will continue to issue decals on new vehicles, perform transfers, etc., as a convenience to the general public, especially at night and on weekends. Mr. Breeden said staff recommends that this process be approved. The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to Adopt an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000009 ORDINANCE NO. 96-12 (1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE V, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec. 12-23. Repealed by ordinance adopted December 11, 1996. Sec. 12-24. Application for license; payment of fee; issuance of decal, etc. (a) Every person owning a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be regularly operated upon the streets or highways in the county will be issued a vehicle license by mail provided that: The vehicle is currently licensed by the county; and All local taxes specified in section 12-29 have been paid. The vehicle license shall be mailed to the vehicle owner in January. License fees prescribed by section 12-25 for such vehicle license shall be included and separately stated on the personal property tax bill and shall be paid by June 5 of each year. (b) Every person owning a motor vehicle, trailer or semi- trailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be regularly operated upon the streets or highways in the county, and not issued a vehicle license for such vehicle pursuant to subsection (a) above, shall make application for and procure a county motor vehicle license for that vehicle. The application for the license required by this article shall be made to the director of finance on forms providing for the name and address of the applicant and a description of the motor vehicle for which the license is to be issued. The license fee shall be paid to the director of finance. Upon the payment of the license fee, the director of finance shall issue to the applicant a license decal or other indicia of license for such motor ~ehicle. © The purchaser of a new vehicle or a new resident of the county is required to obtain a county license within thirty (30) days of the purchase date or the date moved into the county. New residents with a valid local license issued by a Virginia locality will be given a prorated credit based on the expiration date of their current license. Sec. 12-27. Same-Refunds. Any person holding a current registration certificate and license under this article who disposes of the vehicle, trailer or semitrailer for which it was issued and does not purchase another vehicle, trailer or semitrailer may surrender the registration certificate and license decal or other indicia of license to the director of finance and request a refund for the unused portion of the fee paid. The request for refund shall be accompanied by the original license decal or other evidence satisfactory to the director of finance that the original license has been destroyed. The director of finance shall refund to the applicant one-half (~) of the total cost of the license if the application for refund was made prior to the first day of July of the current license year or one-third (1/3) of the total cost if the application for refund was made subsequent to June thirtieth and prior to October first of the current license year. No refund shall be paid when appli- cation is made after the thirtieth day of September of the current December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 0000 .0 license year. The refund shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. An amount of less than two dollars ($2.00) shall not be refunded nor applied to any other fee, tax or amount due the County of Albemarle. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-96-51 (SP-94-28). Mt. Amos Baptist Church. Public Hearing on a request to extend the approval period of a request to add a fellowship hall to an existing building. Property of 1.12 ac zoned RA is located on E sd of Rt 601 about ~ mi S of Free Union. TM29, P46. White Hall Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 10, 1996, recommended approval of SP-96-51, subject to four conditions. He said there were a couple of typos in the staff's report. The word ~exists" in Condition ~3 should be ~exits", and in Condition #4, at the end of the sentence it should have the words "a copy of which is attached." The public hearing was opened at this time. Rev. Mary Carey was present to speak. She said they request a two-year extension to their present special use permit that will expire on December 15, 1996. Within the past two years, they have had the property surveyed, architectural plans have been drawn, have taken bids from various contractors, and undertaken fundraising activities. At the present time, they are in the process of obtaining a loan from a bank. They need the extension in order to do legal work after the loan is obtained from the bank, do a title search, allow for inclement weather situations, and secure a building permit. They ask that the request be approved so they can continue with their plans for the church. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-96-51 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. HUmphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 3 o 4 o Church expansion limited to not more than 1,200 square feet; Usage of the church to be limited to worship and related service only. Use of the church for noncongregational activities shall warrant amendment of this special use permit; The eastern entrance shall be used only as an entrance onto the property from Route 601, and a sign prohibiting exits from the property onto Route 601 shall be posted and main- tained at the eastern entrance; This special use permit shall expire on December 14, 1998, in accordance with Section 31.2.4.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as it exists on December 3, 1996 (a copy of which is attached). Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-96-18. William A. Marshall, Jr (Sign #19). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 1.63 ac from R-1 to HC on N sd of Rt 649 approx 0.2 mi W of Rt 29. TM32, P20D & P20E. (Site is recommended for Regional Service in Community of Hollymead by the Comprehensive Plan.) Rivanna Dist. (Public Hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the final proffer was given to the Board members tonight, and it was only to correct a spelling error in Proffer 1, and to clarify the second sentence of that proffer. It does not change the substance at all. It has been reviewed by the County Attorney. December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 0000 .'1 He said the proposal is to rezone approximately 1.63 acres to HC to allow for off-site parking to serve the adjacent Airport Road Auto Center on TMP 32, P40, which is also owned by the applicant. At some future time the applicant may erect a building on these parcels to serve his current business. Mr. Cilimberg said the Comprehensive Plan speaks to Airport Road in specifics. It suggests that access to the road should be minimized to the greatest extent possible through the use of joint entrances. The applicant has proffered to use his existing entrance for these two parcels. The HC district is generally consistent with the Land Use designation of Regional Service. However, certain HC uses may not be appropriate at this location due to their relationship to this corridor of access to the Airport and the adjacent residential areas. For that reason, the applicant has proffered just for the automobile, truck repair use, and certain other public uses which are allowed on this rezoned property. The Architectural Review Board has ex- pressed an interest in designating Airport Road as an Entrance Corridor. The Planning Commission, at it meeting last week, adopted a resolution of intent to pursue such designation if the road qualifies. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 3, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-96-18 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Ms. Humphris said in the staff report it is noted in two places "The applicant has expressed an intent to return to this access issue after improvements to Route 649 have been completed. This will necessitate further amendment to zoning at that time." Ms. Humphris said she believes it should say "this will necessitate consideration of further amendment .... " She thinks the language makes it seem that it is necessary to do the amendment. Mr. Cilimberg said by law the applicant would have to resubmit a new applica- tion. Ms. Humphris said she understands the intent, but that is not what it says. She would prefer that it say "... consideration of further amendment At this time, the public hearing was opened. The applicant was present, but did not wish to speak. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve ZMA-96-18 subject to the applicant's proffers as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The proffers are set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: Dec. 11, 1996 ZM3~# 96-18 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 03200-00-00-020D0,03200-00-00-020E0 1,63 Acres to be rezoned from RI to HC Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sec- tions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 24.2.1 (2) Automobile, Truck Repair Shops (35) Electric, gas ... (36) Public uses ... December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 0000'! (37) Temporary Construction uses (2) Access to the property for commercial use will be through the entrances on adjacent Tax Map Parcel 32-40, as shown on the attached drawing. (3) Owner reserves the right to request amendment(s) to the above proffers in the future which may be necessary or appropriate resulting from the planned improvements to Airport Road. W. A. Marshall. Jr. (Sianed) W. A. Marshall, Jr. 12-6-96 Signatures of Ail Owners Printed Names of Ail Owners Date Rachel K. Marshall (Signed) Rachel K, Marshall 12-6-96 (Note: The following two items were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-96-20. Kenneth J. Newell (applicant), CCAT2/ University Limited Liability Company (Owner) (Sign #2). Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers for University Village Development (ZMA-87-08) to allow dvlop of assisted living facility on portion of property immediately E of main residential bldg which was previously designated as townhouse-style residences & open space. Property on N sd of Rt 601 (Old Ivy Rd) just E of Rts 29/250 Bypass. Property, zoned R-10 with proffers, is designated as High Density Residential in Neighborhood 7 by the Comprehensive Plan. TM60B2, PI. Jack Jouett Dist. (Public Hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1996.) Agenda Item No. 12. SP-96-42. Kenneth J. Newell (applicant), CCAT2/- University Limited Liability Company (Owner) (Sign #2). Public Hearing on a request to establish assisted-living facility (nursing home or similar institution) on portion of University Village property described under ZMA-96- 20 above. (Public Hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He brought the Board's attention to the signed and current proffer provided to the Board today. It was simply to make final adjustment to date references, it includes all the substantive language of the prior proffers as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal tonight is to amend the proffers for the University Village property so that an area previously designated for residen- tial townhouse and landscape area can be used for development of an assisted- living facility. It will be a three-story building providing approximately 110 beds to be constructed in the area east of the main residential building. Mr. Cilimberg said he had given the Board members a copy of the site plan which is currently being reviewed and is subject to approval under site plan provisions once the ZMA and SP are approved. The intent of the current proffers involves the amount of occupant loading on this property and the general location of facilities and landscap- ing to address buffering from adjoining uses. The main concern for occupant loading relates to the traffic capacity of Old Ivy Road. The applicant has determined, through the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual what the level of traffic will be and has adjusted downward the residential unit allowances on the property to allow the same traffic genera- tion. For that reason, the potential number of residential units has been lowered from the current 260 to 204 total units that could be constructed as part of the development. Mr. Cilimberg said with respect to the general location of facilities and landscaping to address buffering from adjoining uses, substantial vegeta- tion exists along the eastern side of the site which will serve to buffer the use from the Ivy Gardens apartments and the University Real Estate Foundation office building. Staff has determined that the allowances meet the intent of the original review. December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) oooo:l.a, As to the special use permit, assuming the proffers are amended, the use itself will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property. The charac- ter of the district will not be changed. The use will be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and those uses within this particular R-10 district, as well as with public health, safety and general welfare. The staff found that the special use permit for the assisted-living facility is supportable with conditions regarding facility size and provision of landscape buffering. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with the revised proffers and approval of the special use permit subject to three conditions. The second condition changes the number of beds from 120 to 126. He said that is the final number provided during this review. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 19, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-96-20 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, and SP-96-42, subject to three conditions. Ms. Humphris asked for a clarification of the new number of 204 residen- tial Units. She asked if that includes the high rise and the 30 town homes. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the high rise and either an addition to that high rise, or the number of townhouses they could achieve and stay within that 204. That is the total potential usage. It does not include the potential nursing home, or the beds in this facility. With no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, the public hearing was opened on both applications. Mr. Paige Williams with the law firm of Feil, Pettit and Williams, was present to represent CCAT/2 University Limited Liability Company which is the owner of the unsold land at the University Village site, and the owner of approximately 20 unsold condominiums at University Village. CCAT/2 is an affiliate of Holiday Retirement Company of Salem, Oregon, which has developed and constructed numerous retirement facilities throughout the country. Holiday is currently the largest owner and manager of retirement communities in North America, and has more than 160 projects in 31 states and Canada. In addition to University Village in Virginia, Holiday has retirement, residen- tial developments in Roanoke, Richmond and the town of Manassas. Holiday's expertise is in independent living projects. They feel there is a need at both University Village and in Albemarle County for close-to-town, assisted- living facilities. To address this need, Holiday has reached an agreement with a leader in this field, Richmond-based Manorhouse Retirement Company and Mr. Kenneth Newell is president of that company. They have a contract with Mr. Newell to permit Manorhouse to construct and operate an assisted-living facility on property presently owned by CCAT/2. That agreement calls for actions of the Board of Supervisors on these applications. CCAT/2, as the owner of the site under consideration, and as the owner of a number of nearby condominium units, supports the application by Mr. Newell and Manorhouse. To demonstrate this support, they have made certain concessions with respect to the number of dwelling units available on the site. Mr. Williams offered to answer questions. Mr. Kenneth Newell said he is pleased to be here tonight to ask the Board's blessing on additions to the University Village development plan, and for the special use permit to build an assisted-living facility. They have worked closely with University Village residents, neighbors and County Planning staff to maintain the integrity of the proffers in Parcel #7. When he met with the Board in June of this year, the Board recommended that he try to address the concerns of the adjoining neighbors, specifically with Hunting- ton Village and the Ivy Gardens Apartments. It was recommended that they study alternative sites, or redesign the facility to fit areas currently earmarked for development on that site. It was recommended that they allow for the additional landscaping buffers, and to work with the Planning staff to reconfigure the parking spaces for the size of the building. Mr. Newell said Manorhouse did meet with the adjacent property owners to address redesigning the facility in the area of Parcel 7, a future development area for the comprehensive design plan. They accomplished the goals the Board requested and adapted the facility to the design such that it meets the topography of this site by constructing the facility on approximately four acres. Adjacent landowners have expressed their support to proceed with their building. He said that copies of letter of support from the University Village Homeowners' Association, the Huntington Village Homeowners' Associa- tion and Ivy Gardens Apartments were included in the staff's report. Pending approval by the Board tonight, they will proceed with site plan approval and 0000 .4 December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) incorporate in the County's requirements for parking and landscape buffers. The proposed location will offer an attractive residential setting which they believe residents of Albemarle County will call home. Manorhouse will offer a full complement of residential care services for those who are no longer capable of living a fully independent life, but who do not yet need skilled nursing home care. Mr. Newell said the University Village homeowners have continuously shown support and dedication for bringing assisted-living to their retirement community. He said there were many people present at the meeting tonight from University Village to show support for these requests. Mr. Newell said Manor- house is delighted with the support of the community in the modification of their development plan, so he asked the Board's approval to amend the proffers and approve the special use permit to construct their assisted-living facil- ity. He then introduced Dr. Jackson W. Riddle, President of the University Village Homeowners' Association. Dr. Riddle said this is the second time he has had the opportunity to speak to the Board in behalf of this proposal. He reinforced the strong support of the University Viilage residents for this proposal. In two separate meetings, one in March and one in September, this proposal was discussed and received universal approval (only one dissenting vote) of the present population of 105 residents. They feel this is an important project, and not just for University Village, but for Albemarle County as a whole. There is an influx of retired people to this area, and, as they age, this facility will be badly needed. He urged the Board's support of the requests. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Humphris said this is quite a contrast to the last time the Board was here discussing this issue. She has received only one letter in opposi- tion. The Board does have copies of the letters in support from the adjoining neighbors as well as those from the University Village residents. She then asked for a motion on ZMA-96-20. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve ZMA-96-20 subject to the proffers. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The proffers as approved are set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: 8/28/96 ZMA # 96-20 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 60-B2-1 Amendment of proffers, approved with ZMA 87-08 to change the Schematic site Development Plan Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby volun- tarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning re- quested. The property will be developed for residential use as set out in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons. (2) The development of the property will be limited to a maximum of 204 residential units; an assisted-living facility; a nursing home/health care facility; and, service facilities, such as dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, and banking within the limits of accessory uses, as provided in the zoning ordinance. December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 0000 .$ (3) The buildings will not exceed the height limits established in Section 17.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as in effect on October 7, 1987, a copy of which is attached hereto. Buildings, road and parking areas will be located in accordance with the attached Schematic Drawing for Site Development (Attachment A) and as further detailed on At- tachment B - "Proposed Site Plan for Assisted-living." Site development will include extensive landscaping, a network of walking paths/and or trails from Area 7 to Area 12 and substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site shown as Areas 1, 2 and 3. (4) In an effort to minimize traffic, a shuttle bus will be provided for the benefit of all the University Village residents to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal services. (5) Parking requirements for the residential condominium living units will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings for the elderly per Section 4.12.6.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclo- sures or in individual garages. Attachments to this proffer amendment include the following: Proffer Schematic Revision date 12/3/96 Proposed Site Plan for Assisted-living Facility Zoning Ordinance - Section 17.8 By: By: By: CCAT 2/University Village Limited Liability Company, a Delaware Liability Company CCAT 2 L.P./., a Delaware limited partnership, its manager Cheyenne Investments, Inc., an Oregon corporation, its general partner Bruce D Thorn Bruce D. Thorn, Secretary 12/6/96 Signatures of Owners Printed Names of all Owners Date (Executive on behalf of: Cheyenne Investments, Inc., The General Partner for CCAT 2/University Village Limited Liability Company) Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-96-42 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Facility to be located in general conformance with the proposed site plan for "Manor House at University Village" dated November 6, 1996; The number of beds for the assisted-living facility shall not exceed 126; Landscape buffering between the assisted-living facility and the University Village residential development, the Ivy Gardens development, and the University Foundation Offices shall be provided, and existing vegetation maintained, as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department staff. Agenda Item No. 13. SP-96-04. Albemarle County Service Authority by 360 Communications Company of Charlottesville, d/b/a 360 Communications Company. Public Hearing on a request to allow 100 ft tower & equip bldg on December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) oooo .6 portion of a 9.536 ac parcel zoned R-1 located on E sd of Avon St Ext (Rt 742) N of Cale Elem Sch on property dvlp with wtr storage tank. TM91, Pi. Scottsville Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this petition was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission in May, 1996 at which time the Commission unanimously recommended denial. The applicant then requested indefinite deferral before this Board in order to allow time to work with the County on a tower siting policy. The County created a Tower Task Force to work on such issues. Based on service needs the Avon Street site is intended to meet, and the progress of the Task Force to date, the applicant could not wait for conclusion of that work and requested that consideration of this application move forward. Staff usually provides to the Board the same report presented to the Commission. In this case, at the advise of the County Attorney, staff modified that report. At the time the original staff report was prepared, staff had little familiarity with the Federal Telecommunications Act signed into law in February, 1996. The revised staff report is intended to provide analysis to insure the provisions of the Act have been appropriately ad- dressed. Staff does not believe these revisions have resulted in any substan- tive changes that would have changed the conclusions of the Commission. The applicant is proposing to construct a 100-foot monopole (80-foot tower plus lightning rod for a structure height of 100 feet) with a support building to improve communications in the southern urban area by increasing the capacity of the cellular system. The site is currently developed with the Albemarle County Service Authority's water tank. Mr. Cilimberg said staff made several observations and findings as to factors favorable. 1) The tower will provide increased cellular capacity. 2) The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. Staff also identified factors which are unfavorable. 1) The tower will change the character of the Entrance Corridor district, and that was a finding of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). 2) Approval of the tower is not in harmony with the stated intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the creation of an attractive community. 3) There is an existing reasonable use of the property. Staff did not identify the visual impact made by the tower as a substantial detriment to existing nearby residential areas from which the tower will be visible. As regards the Telecommunications Act, staff does not believe the special use permit process, nor the denial of this application, has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The applicant's engineering exhibit indicates that personal wireless services already exist in the Avon Street service area. The stated need for the tower is based on a desire by the applicant to improve the quality of the service in that area. The applicant stated that the area of the proposed tower has recorded the number of blocked calls to be as high as twenty percent above maximum capac- ity. The FCC mandates that personal wireless companies build out their systems so that adequate service is provided. The applicant has not provided any evidence of any FCC regulation or license requirement pertaining to blocked calls and, in particular, any provision that blocked calls exceeding a certain percentage of the maximum capacity of the system shall be deemed to be not providing service. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations currently available for a tower or for co-location of an antennae to absorb telecommunications traffic. In the Charlottesville and Carter's Mountain sites, or for sectoring neighborhood facilities, staff does not believe denial of the application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. Mr. Cilimberg referenced a map on the wall, the map from the Tower Task Force. It refers to areas the cellular companies have indicated are search areas and areas where they will be looking for potential tower sites. One area covers the southern half of Charlottesville and Albemarle's southern urban area. Staff did note a number of structures which establish the character of the area, and either support, or are capable of supporting wireless communication facilities. It does not mean a tower would be located on the site or on the structure. It indicates there are structures where an antennae may be provided. One of the findings for a tower at the tank site is that the tower itself is 100 feet and the tank is only 47 feet, which is a December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 0000 .7 difference in elevation and creates the visibility of the tower. The Task Force will be dealing with standards and criteria for tower siting. This map does indicate where the companies have indicated they will be searching. This is for the two cellular companies, and does not speak to the personal communi- cation service searches that may go on in the future. Staff also indicated mountain areas identified in the Open Space Plan, Historic areas and some of the high voltage power lines with wooden or steel supports that run through the County. In some cases, high voltage power line support structures have been used for the location of cellular communication facilities. Ms. Thomas asked if in each of the cross-hatched, round areas shown on the map, there will be a request for one or more towers in each one. Mr. Cilimberg said they are search areas where they' have indicated that for whatever reason they would need to have antennae locations which may involve tower construction, or may involve using existing structures. Staff tried to identify where those existing structures may exist that could be utilized in providing for the antennae or tower location. It does not mean that site would be available, or that it would fit their need. Ms. Thomas said to the west of the site under consideration tonight, there seem to be two yellow circles. She asked what those circles indicate. Mr. Cilimberg said one of those is at the Virginia Power building at the I- 64/Fifth Street interchange. The other is a FAA tower just to the west of the Virginia Power building. One thing that was discussed with the applicant was whether they could locate on the water tower on Avon Street. The problem is that structurally the water tower cannot accommodate what they need to do in providing their facility. With no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dick Gibson was present to represent the applicant. He said there were several other people present with him. Mr. Kent Lusk, General Manager based in Charlottesville, Mr. Cliff Shaffer, Real Estate Manager, Mr. Asit Shah, RF Engineer, Ms. Danielle Anderson, Project Engineer, Mr. Larry Bickings, Site Acquisition, and Mr. Bob Denny, outside consulting RF engineer. He believes there is someone present who can answer any question the Board might have. Mr. Gibson said this application was filed in January, 1996. The Planning Commission acted on it in May. They actually requested a deferral rather than have action taken at that meeting, but it determined for parlia- mentary reasons that it would be acted on, so it was acted on. They had requested deferral in order to be in a position to work with the County in the study of the broader issue of towers. A problem arises because it has been seven months since that deferral request. Until recently, there was not much progress, and the company got in a position where action needs to be taken. This is a critical site in the system because it is what is identified as the core system which involves several of the most high volume traffic sites in the area. What has happened is that the engineers have ~tweaked" the existing towers to the point that they are being utilized to their maximum engineering capacity. What happens then is that calls are blocked. That is basically the inability to use a phone. This site particular is designed to relieve some of that pressure so that the segment to be covered by this site will help to relieve the pressure that is on the other sites in the core. Hopefully, the 20 percent blocked call figure will be reduced as close to zero as possible. Mr. Gibson said they are working with the Tower Task Force and things are going well. They had a productive meeting the other day, and one thing that came out of that is that this particular tower would fit a profile that would be viewed favorably by the Task Force. Another application is pending, and they have not asked that it be reactivated at this time. It has problems that are unique to it. To update the Board, the cellular business continues to grow at a phenomenal rate. The national rate continues to be about 40 percent, about 30,000 new customers a day nationally, two-thirds of all the new numbers are for cellular as opposed to land line. Albemarle County is one of the fastest growing localities in the entire company system, so it is a customer-driven demand. It is the customers who create the need for these additional towers. Since one of the key issues seems to be the visual aspects of the tower, he reviewed the project itself. The overall structure is 100 feet. The tower December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 000015 itself is 80 feet. The tree line in that area is approximately 65 feet. To the top of the structure there will a lightning rod and that will be a little under 100 feet overall height of the structure, but the monopole tower itself with be 80 feet high. It will be unlit, and it will be a gray color to blend in with the skyline. There will be 12 panel antennas located on the facility. It is adjacent to an existing 50-foot water tower. The water tank is between the tower and Avon Street. It is about 500 feet off of Avon Street. Mr. Gibson said they exhausted efforts to locate on other facilities, including the water tank. Basically, his site acquisition people checked the area to see if there is another tall structure to which an antennae could be attached, and there is not another. The VEPCO situation was looked into, but unfortunately that had a $7.0 million price tag. The building is being sold as a whole and apparently that is a situation that would not be workable. Visibility is the only issue and it was addressed by the ARB. This request started off with a 180-foot tower. Responding to concerns by the ARB, company engineers went back and asked what is the lowest possible height for this facility and still make it a viable cell site. The 80-foot tower before the Board tonight is the lowest monopole structure that would be able to support the antennas and actually make the site viable. Mr. Gibson said they have one concern. The ARB is looking at it in terms of aesthetics. They admit they are not engineers. The conflict is that when the company engineers look at it, they are looking at it from an engi- neering perspective and there is obviously a clash between the two. Unfortu- nately, the tower is as low as it can go without creating interference with the trees themselves. He asked that the Board take that into consideration this evening. Mr. Gibson showed to the Board some aerial photos. He said the photos are self-explanatory, but do contain captions. You can clearly see the existing improvements in the area, a water tank on the site, a school to the south of the site, and an industrial equipment rental business between the site and the school. To determine visibility, they took photos of a balloon test. That test was performed when the height was proposed at 180 feet. It clearly demonstrates the dramatic difference between 180 and an 80-foot structure. It also demonstrates that with only a couple of exceptions, the tower simply disappears in the skyline. He said there is visibility, but it is visible to a minimal degree, and it is visible in a backdrop of many other visual man-made intrusions, some of which provide utilities, some of which are business, some of which provide education. Mr. Gibson said by bringing this tower down to 80 feet, the ARB has said it creates an anomaly. When reviewed in the context of what is already there, he is not sure an anomaly is being created. Mr. Gibson said opposition to the proposal to date has been minimal to nonexistent. There was one letter in the file from the owner of the adjacent property. He took a couple of photographs from the edge of the pavement from in front of the adjacent property. The concern was expressed that the tower would be too tall and visible. There is a significant stance of trees between the tower site and the adjacent property which would ameliorate that, but, more importantly, the view from the adjacent property already takes in the expanse of Carter's Mountain. He submits that because of the view that is already available from that property, there is no substantial detriment that would occur to that property which is zoned industrial. Mr. Gibson said the company has made serious good faith efforts to select the best site in the area, the site with the least impact. It has gone to extra efforts to reduce the height of the facility to the lowest height possible and still make it a viable facility. He apologized for going out of order with the Task Force, but there is no finite end in site, and the company does not feel it can wait for the indefinite future because of the serious pressures on the system in the core area now. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Gibson had a picture of what the tower will look like. Mr. Gibson said it will be a monopole, with panel antennae of four and one-half feet by eight inches by two or four inches deep. One of the issues the Board raised was co-location, and the Task Force asked to see what a co- locate tower looks like. He has a picture of that, but not the other. Mr. Bowerman asked about the monopole tower at Virginia Power. Compared to that tower, is it thinner? Mr. Gibson said it would be shorter and thinner. There are some local examples. Buck's Elbow Mountain is one. December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 000019 Obviously with the tree coverage on this site, all you would see is the top portion. The portion of the tower visible above the tree line would be 18 inches in diameter. Mr. Asit Shah, an RF engineer with 360 Communications Company, was introduced by Mr. Gibson to speak about the RF justification for this site. Mr. Shah said part of his job is to design the network with the existing cell sites, and manage the frequencies given to them by the FCC. Sites are defined either as an off-loading site or a coverage site. A coverage site is one where there is no coverage in the area. Another is off-loading or engineering site which the Avon Building would be. There is very good coverage there, but there is a high demand off of that service in the area. They need more frequencies to avoid any kind of interference. They have 395 frequencies which have been given to them by the FCC. That means that if he puts all the channels given to him by the FCC, only 395 customers at one time can use and overload the system. With some hardware restrictions on the cell phone site, as well as the cell site equipment site, they cannot run all 395 frequencies at one time anyway. That means that if in this small geographic area where the demand is really high, they have deployed all of the channels possible from this channel. Any channels he tries to add into that will add interfer- ence, and interference will cause either cross-talk or your call will be very noisy. Finally, the cell site might also just drop your call. That is the main reason they need another tower. They have a site on Carter's Mountain which provides good service to Albemarle and Charlottesville. Due to the high elevation of that site, it is carrying so much traffic, they are at the point where they cannot add anymore channels and that site is blocking all the calls now, along with other sites in the system which are blocking calls also. They want a lower location than Carter's Mountain to take some of the traffic off of that Carter's Mountain site. At a lower height, he can reuse some of those frequencies without adding interference in the system. As an engineer, he would like to design a good network in the system. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Bob Denny, an RF engineer with Denny and Associates in Washington, D.C., was introduced by Mr. Gibson. Mr. Denny provides RF engineering system design and computation to cellular companies. Mr. Gibson said he would like to say something about the photograph. It is a photograph of a 150-foot monopole. The purpose of the photograph is to demonstrate what a co-locate facility would look like. Mr. Bowerman asked if you could come down from the top of that pole 80 feet in order to see the relative diameter of a monopole 80 feet in height. Mr. Gibson said that is correct. Ms. Thomas said even if it is not a co-locate, it will still have the arms which exaggerate its size. Mr. Gibson said that is correct. The antennae themselves are mounted on these arms. Mr. Marshall said that at one time it was said that the towers could be made to look like trees. Mr. Gibson said the Board did not like that idea. Ms. Humphris said that was only because it was the wrong kind of tree. Mr. Humphris asked Mr. Denny to speak. She said the Board had read his nine-page report, so she asked that he add something and not repeat the written material. Mr. Denny said he is a consulting engineer and they represent clients like 360 Communications before the FCC in Washington, D.C. with respect to communications engineering matters. He is here to say that they have independently reviewed the engineering propagation studies that were conducted by 360 Communications. They concur fully with the criteria they used for evaluating the need for the Avon Street site. They found that the appropriate methods were used to determine the minimum overall structure height above ground level. Their studies are contained in the report which is a part of the Board's record. The only other issue to address is with respect to human exposure to radio waves which emanate from these antennas. They evaluated the exposure levels in accordance with 47CFR1.1307 which is the part of the Federal regulations which establishes the standards for human exposure. They found that the worse case exposure will be less than two percent of the maximum permissible public exposure. They are 50 times below the maximum that would be permitted for a facility such as this. Mr. Marshall asked if they had talked with any members of the homeown- ers' associations in Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia. He asked if these people are aware that this facility is going on this parcel of land. Mr. Denny said December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) ooooeo that was not within his scope. He was to evaluate the technical part of the proposal. Mr. Gibson said he believes they are aware of it. He did not contact them because there is only one point where the facility would be visible above the tree tops. It was not an impact situation. Mr. Marshall asked that someone explain to him again why the Planning Commission voted against this request. Mr. Gibson said he believes it was because the ARB said it was an anomaly in the entrance corridor. He said that while Mr. Denny was speaking, he spoke to Mr. Shaffer, who is from 360, and they were under the mistaken impression that the Board did not like tree towers. If the Board wants a tree tower on this site, the company will put up a tree tower. Ms. Humphris said she believes again that a tree tower in that location will loom way above the tree line, and it will look very strange. Mr. Gibson said it would be above the dominant tree line there. It is a matter of personal perception, but they will do what is necessary to cooperate and get this petition approved. Mr. Cilimberg said he looked at the Planning Commission's minutes and Mr. Gibson is correct. One of their findings was the ARB's recommendation based on visibility from the entrance corridor. Also, some concern was expressed about not having a tower siting plan or having gone through that effort yet, and having some result of that to guide where towers are to be located. Also, Mr. Dotson mentioned the potential impact on visibility from other residential areas surrounding the site. Mr. Gibson introduced Mr. Larry Bickings and he will give some informa- tion concerning the effect of towers on real estate appraisals. Mr. Bickings said he is from Lifes Unlimited. He said they do acquisition work for 360 Communications. They were asked to assess the impact of towers on the surrounding properties. They did a brief analysis of some of the existing towers in Albemarle County. One of them is the WWWV Tower on Route 29 North, there are four towers on Lambs Road, and a tower on the Southwest Mountains which is also a WWWV Tower. He handed to the Board some information on properties he had picked out. They had followed a sequence from when they were built to sales and assessments. The subdivisions were built after the towers were already in existence. The impact on sales were none. All of the sales they found gained in appraisal and sales over the years. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Marshall asked how far out Route 20 South this tower will improve reception. Right now at Keene, there is a dead spot. Mr. Gibson said it will be one and one-half to two miles down Route 20 South. Mr. Gibson introduced Mr. Kent Lusk, local General Manager for 360 Communications Company for the Central Virginia market which includes Albemarle County. Mr. Lusk handed to the Board some letters in support of the petition. He said Albemarle is one of the fastest growing markets in the company. He said because of their growth they will be moving in early 1997 from Rio Hills to a newly-built location on Rio Road next to Nations Bank. He mentions this to show their economic ties to the community and to show their commitment. As a fast growing market, capacity is a critical issue in satisfying demands for their service. He said there has been a noticeable increase in comments from their customers about blocked calls. That is the critical issue. Because there is on-going concern with competition, the quality of their service is important. Also, non-revenue generating uses of their service, such as emergency services, is also affected by capacity restraints. For example, in the last 30 days, there have been 1500 emergency calls on their network in the County. During Hurricane Fran, they donated funds to the Red Cross, Virginia Power, Sprint-Centel, and to the Army Corps of Engineers. These phones were used in their efforts to restore facilities to the residents. He read two letters, one from Virginia Power and one from the Red Cross, into the record. Finally, he will point out that the cost of their service has dropped dramatically. He said capacity is a critical need in providing their service. He then offered to answer questions. Ms. Humphris asked if it an option to add something to the existing Carter's Mountain site. Mr. Shah said '~no", they are at the maximum number of frequencies at that site. Mr. Phil Sparks, Virginia Power, said Mr. Lusk had read the letter from Jeff Hutchinson. He will reiterate what that meant to Virginia Power during Hurricane Fran. There were 30,000 customers locally without power. They called 360 and they immediately gave them as many phones as they had avail- December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) able. They called the next day, and received additional phones. They had up to 16 telephones that the field forces used the entire time they were doing restoration services. It greatly aided the engineers in the field to see what was going on and to get that information back to the office so they could restore service faster. After they restored all the service in Albemarle, they took part of those phones to Raleigh, North Carolina. He talked to the director of construction there and he said that in many cases that was the only communication ability they had in North Carolina. He just wanted to say what a great service 360 provided Virginia Power and how much it meant to them and the community as a whole. Mr. Richard Martin said he has studied communications for some 25 years. What the engineer has said is that only so many frequencies can be used at one site. Because of the separation of the frequencies, they begin to interfere with each other. The lower the site, and the more sites there are, the more frequencies can be reused. The frequencies used on Avon Street can possibly be repeated on Route 29 at the Airport Road site. He said there are 300+ frequencies assigned to cellular service, but only so many of them can be used at a certain site because they have to be a certain distance apart. The equipment needs to separate the radio interference. Mr. Martin said that yesterday he was going to Scottsville and he attempted to use his cellular phone to contact someone in Scottsville. Near the Jail on Avon Street he got a blocked call. He said a lot of th~ Police officers have been able to obtain phones from 360 at a very reasonable rate, and they also provide a service to the Emergency Communications Center which is a toll free number that citizens and police officers can use. Also, citizens and police officers can speak to the Police Department at no charge to them. He hopes this site will be approved. The system is becoming more necessary. He knows a lot of people who are getting phones to carry in their purses so they feel safer in the modern world. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Marshall said he has had no one from his district call to object to this request. He rarely ever votes against the Planning Commission. He has two daughters who use cellular phones, and his wife had an accident a few years ago and used her phone in that instance to get help. He knows the service is of value. He looked at the pictures shown by Mr. Gibson to determine if it would be an eyesore to the people in the surrounding areas, and he does not think it will be more of an eyesore than the other towers already existing in the area. Without opposition from the surrounding neighborhoods, he will support the request. He then moved approval of SP-96- 04 subject to the six conditions recommended in the staff's report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Ms. Humphris said she wanted to discuss the position taken by the ARB and the Planning Commission's recommendation. She wants the Board members to know what is taking place nationally and statewide. The issue of location of communication towers following the Communications Act of 1996 is perceived as being so serious in light of what that Act says about potential location of towers and numbers of towers (they are being located in highway rights-of-way and in post offices, etc.), that the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League have joined together in establishing a joint task force to draw up a model ordinance to help localities deal with these complex and difficult problems. Now, they have requested VDOT to join with them because of VDOT's proposed utility accommodation policy which was approved in its draft form on November 21. The head of the joint task force is Mr. John Jenkins, President of VACO. She was asked to be a representative on that task force. They are having a major meeting in Richmond next week. She wants to be sure the Board understands that anything that is done now might set a precedent or fly in the face of recommendations that might be made by the task force which, when it completes its work, will have studied all the implica- tions of the Telecommunications Act thoroughly, and will have brought to bear on it all of the knowledge and information that's possible from VACO and VML for everybody's benefit. The Albemarle County Task Force has now had three meetings. It is going forward in trying to get what the requirement will be for all of these towers that are going to shown to be necessary all over the County. She thinks the Board needs to be careful about what is done now before the Board has the information that will generated by the Albemarle task force, and by the statewide task force. December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 000022 Mr. Martin said considering all of the towers this Board has approved to date, how does this one set any kind of a precedent that would be different from others? Ms. Humphris said she is not saying action tonight will be setting a precedent, she is just saying it is one more tower. The task force will be looking at the overall picture for locating these in all kinds of places. Mr. Marshall said two things convinced him to approved this request. The statements made by Mr. Richard Martin, and one of the pictures showing the view from Grist Mill Drive toward Carter's Mountain. He did not even pay any attention to the balloon, looking instead at the towers on Carter's Mountain. Aesthetically he does not think it will be detrimental to the sight vision of any of those people who live in the subdivisions. Mr. Bowerman said he has never voted for any of those towers because he felt the County needed to study co-locations and do an overall plan to locate these towers. He thinks a fairly compelling case has been presented tonight as to the need for this tower. This particular tower has been minimized in terms of its impact. It does not seem to an unreasonable use in that loca- tion. He is also mindful of Ms. Humphris' comments. He does not want to do anythinH to jeopardize any future decisions that this Board may make. He does not think that in this particular case it is that objectionable of a use. He does not think they would have come before the Board if they did not need the site. For that reason, he will probably support the motion. Ms. Thomas said her stand has been that if people want to have good coverage, they should buy stronger units. She thinks the Federal law has undercut that. Mr. Denny's letter on page 9 says that ~declaring mobile phones are sufficient for cellular systems would clearly impede cellular's ability to compete with new wireless services." That says if you want to be sure your loved ones have constant contact, they should get stronger systems because then that is impeding cellular's ability to compete with these new systems which are going to be small and portable. She finds that an intrusive thing for Congress to have done, but important in this case. Mr. Davis said the Federal law clearly says the Zoning Ordinance cannot unreasonably discriminate against wireless telecommunications devices and that they cannot have the effect of prohibiting service. The evidence is clear that service is available here and there is nothing in the County's Zoning Ordinance that is promoting the stronger bases in contrast with having service provided by this particular application. Although, in effect, it may not be encouraging the new stronger technology to make these poles not needed, in this particular circumstance, since service is provided, the Board does not have to stand with the proposition that the Zoning Ordinance is discriminating between the provisions of service. If there were no service available, under the Federal statute the Board would have to approve this tower. The differ- ence in the situation now is that service is already available in this area. The County has allowed towers under its Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Martin said he does not particularly agree with Ms. Thomas' first argument. It is the person who is less able to afford the extra equipment that will be likely to be broken down on the side of the road. Ms. Thomas said she does not have a phone, so she does not know what she is saying when she says to have a stronger phone. Ms. Humphris said given the Board's experience with the tower on 1-64, she would feel more comfortable if all the Board members will collectively assure her that what she saw in those pictures is actually what she will see after this tower is installed. Mr. Marshall said there was nothing else around the tower on 1-64 so it "stuck out like a sore thumb". In this case, when looking from Grist Mill Drive, the people are used to seeing towers, and there are six or more on the Mountain that they will see before they see this one. Mr. Perkins said the tower on 1-64 is much taller than the one proposed here tonight. Ms. Thomas said she is not sure the ARB's use of the word anomaly fits what this tower does to this area. People in her district were adamant that one eyesore did not mean you could add another eyesore to it and come out with something better. December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) ooooza Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant proffered that the tower would be gray in color. All Board members agreed that he had. Mr. Davis said it is not a part of the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Mr. Cilimberg said that is not included as a condition. Mr. Martin suggested that it be added. Mr. Bowerman said he did not know if it should be limited to gray or a color that is the least obtrusive as possible. He would like to have a condition that reflects that, but leave it to people who know more about it than he does to select an appropriate shade. Mr. Davis said this has been discussed before. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Fritz just reminded him that since the land lies in the Entrance Corridor, it requires that a site plan go to the ARB and they can deal with the color. They usually prefer that those issues be left to them. The Board members agreed this is a good idea. At this time, roll was called on the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Tower height shall not exceed 100 feet (80-foot monopole with 20-foot antennae/lightning rod); Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a Federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area. (See note below concerning this condition.) The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for cellular communication purposes. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board needs to take separate action on the modification of Section 4.10.3.1 to allow the tower to be located closer to the property line than the height of the tower. Mr. Davis agreed. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to grant the modification of Section 4.10.3.1 to allow location of the tower closer to the property line than the height of the tower. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: Condition No. 5 will now read: "The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area. A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower closer to the property line than the height of the tower." Agenda Item No. 14. SP-96-48. Terry Dean's Dance Studio (Signs #68 & #69). Public Hearing on a request to establish school of special instruction on approx 0.525 ac zoned CO on W sd of Commonwealth Drive at Westfield Road. TM61W, Secl, BlkB, Lot2. Rio Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to establish a school for ballroom dance instruction in the former Life of Georgia office building on December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 000024, Commonwealth Drive in an area of office and residential uses, It is a Community Service designation in the neighborhood. Staff identified hours of operation for noise and traffic. They did feel the hours would not create problems with parking. The Zoning Administrator has determined that parking is adequate for their operation. Their sound system would be similar to one for home use. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission heard this request last night and unanimously recommend approval subject to one condition. The public hearing was opened. The applicant was present, but did not care to speak. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-96-48 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.) 1. Hours of operation: 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Friday. Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: October 4, 1995, and November 13, 1996. Mr. Bowerman had read October 4, 1995, and had two typos. Mr. Martin had read November 13, 1996, and had one typo. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Tucker said on Dec 4th, VDOT held a public hearing on the proposed improvements to Bridge #3 on Route 614. At that meeting, the County's Water Resources Manager presented an alternative plan to that bridge that everyone felt was more sensitive to the Moormans Scenic River and the County's Scenic Stream Ordinance. He has prepared a letter for the Chairman's signature asking that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) support the County's alternative plan. Ms. Thomas said there is a piece of property in the Samuel Miller District which is a total residue. It has no development rights so it was given to the Wildlife Center. The County's tax assessors assumed it was tax exempt and then found out that it is not. A tax bill arrived this year for more than $1000. The Wildlife Center takes wild animals and try to rehabili- tate them and get them back into the wild. The Center cannot generate any income on the property because of the terms of the gift; they cannot harvest the timber, cannot lease the hunting rights, have to allow public access, but they cannot dispose of the property except to a similar nonprofit tax-exempt organization. Someone suggested that they be granted tax-exempt status by this Board which means the Board would have to agree to that in principle tonight, order a public hearing and then get the request to the General Assembly immediately. However, the Board has adopted a policy saying it will do that sort of thing only in extreme circumstances. Ms. Thomas said she asked the Wildlife Center to see whether they can get into the Land Use Program. They do have a land management plan. Most of the property is in forestry. They probably can get their assessment down to December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) oooozs where they will be paying between $200 and $300 each year instead of the $1000. An alternative brought up by Mr. Melvin Breeden was whether they might want to give the land to the County. She is going to ask them to think along these lines, so the issue might come back to the Board as to whether it would accept the property as a gift. Rather than starting the process of making this a tax-exempt organization, she would rather have them look into these alternatives unless someone has another suggestion. Mr. Bowerman said it seems Ms. Thomas has given a lot of thought to this matter. He believes they can get the tax down to a minimum amount. If that still presents a problem, the Board might consider tax exemption next year. Mr. Perkins said that brings up another question. If they can't do anything with the property, what is its value? Ms. Thomas said they need to find out if the tax records take all of the terms of the gift into consideration. It is assessed at $150,000. It was probably a tax write-off that gave it that value. Ms. Humphris said that if nobody appealed the assessment, then staff does not know about the restrictions. Ms. Thomas said that even without any kind of program, its value must be less than that. It is 182 acres, but they can't build a single house on it. Mr. Martin said he did not know a person could legally tie up a piece of land with those kinds of restrictions. Ms. Thomas said it was a gift, and they accepted it with all of that. Mr. Davis said it can be done, but it does not necessarily affect the fair market value because these are restrictions that could be removed if the owners and the grandchildren agreed to remove the restrictions. What the County does is decrease tax bases for lands that are granted perpetual easements and are given to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, for example. At that time, the statue provides that they are granted land use value and they have a reduced assessment. If the County reduced the assess- ment on every piece of vacant land that had a voluntary restriction on it, people would go out and put restrictions on the property until they were ready to develop it, then remove it, and they would never pay taxes on their property. That doesn't work. Mr. Perkins said they should pursue the granting of a conservation easement on the property. Ms. Thomas said she is going to suggest that they pursue any number of other things, other than what the Board might have done tonight. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wanted staff to look into the matter of the County accepting the property as a gift. Ms. Thomas said "yes". She does not know what will turn out to be best for everyone involved. Mr. Tucker said there are a lot of good options still available to them. They may not want to get rid of the property if they can find some other alternative. Ms. Thomas said she attended a demonstration at Western Albemarle High School recently showing all the things they are doing with computers. She was extremely impressed. She had wondered if all of the computers which are going in the classrooms were doing more' than being fancy typewriters, and she got an "eye full". She recommended that other Board members attend such demonstra- tions. Ms. Humphris said Mayor Kay Slaughter sent her a copy of a memo she had gotten through the Virginia Conservation Network, and then Ms. Humphris saw it in more detail in the VACO Newsletter. House Joint Resolution 160 of the 1996 General Assembly set up a high level study on transportation that will attempt to identify and recommend ways to pay for major long-range, statewide trans- portation needs. The representative on that study committee from this area is Ms. Nancy O'Brien, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commis- sion. Meetings will be open to the public and participation by visitors has been encouraged. This is a major committee. Ms. Humphris said the County needs to know when the meetings are scheduled so Albemarle County can back up Ms. O'Brien as to the major transportation needs of this area. Ms. Humphris said she heard from a number of people that at the last meeting of the Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee, Mr. Gene Potter appeared representing the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) because he had been dismayed to find that no particular attention had been given to protecting the South Fork Rivanna water intake. All these years it has been understood that (1) the main reason for postponing building the Bypass as long as possible was to save the Reservoir as long as possible from degradation, December 11, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) 000026 and, (2) VDOT said all along that they would take extraordinary measures. Now, we are being told that we did not request any measures and we have to not only make a special request, but we have to justify them. Ms. Thomas said Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir will have a multi-million dollar extra expense of piping that water if the Rivanna Authority is not assured the present Rivanna Reservoir is sufficiently protected from any possible emergency spill into the Reservoir. Otherwise, they would let the water just come naturally into the Reservoir. She thinks it was a $5.0 million difference in the cost. This is real County water-user money and not just Highway Department money. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Potter and Mr. David Hirschman are collaborating on a report to VDOT regarding this issue of state- of-the-art type detention along the bypass. He said that everybody was quite shocked when Ms. Humphris heard this. Ms. Humphris said the County has been assured all along that all of this would be taken into consideration because of the history of eutrophication in that water supply. Ms. Humphris said she saw in the VACo Newsletter that two more counties passed a meals tax referendum on November 5 (Bland County and Gloucester). It says they were passed by overwhelming margins. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to make a statement for the press and the public. The Board has had a number of executive sessions regarding reversion and has met with legal counsel twice in the last week. Over the past 18 months, the Board has discussed reversion many times in executive session. At this point, the Board feels it is appropriate for counsel, Mr. Dick Cranwell, to give a presentation to the Board, the public and the press next week during the regular Board meeting (this meeting had originally been canceled). Mr. Cranwell will lay out everything the Board knows about reversion and the Board's position on reversion. The meeting will be held next Wednesday, December 18, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Tucker said the intent of the meeting is informational and is not a public hearing. Mr. Marshall said the Board members will be asking Mr. Cranwell questions about reversion, in public. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board hold a regularly scheduled meeting on December 18, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. for informational purposes regarding reversion. The motion was seconded by Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Approved by the ~oard of bunty i;~!!!~Pervi_ sors