HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-2-11Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
FEBRUARY 11, 2015
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
LANE AUDITORIUM
4:45 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Closed Meeting.
6:00 p.m.
3. Call back to Order and Certify Closed Meeting.
4. Appointments.
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. Adoption of Final Agenda.
8. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
10. Consent Agenda.
Public Hearing:
11. ZTA-2014-00004. Wireless Phase 2. The Board of Supervisors intends to adopt an
ordinance to amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 5.1.40, Personal wireless service facilities, 30.6.4,
Certificates of appropriateness, and 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain
certificate of appropriateness, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance
would amend Sec. 18-3.1, by adding a definition of “mobile personal wireless service facility”;
amend Sec. 18-5.1.40, by amending the required supporting information accompanying an
application for a personal wireless service facility (PWSF) pertaining to trees and photographic
simulations, by amending the exemptions from regulations pertaining to building sites that would
otherwise apply to a PWSF but not exempting lease areas and access roads to lease areas from
critical slopes regulations, by amending the screening and siting requirements for Tier II PWSF’s to
require them to be sited to minimize their visibility from any entrance corridor overlay district, and to
exempt mobile personal wireless service facilities from the requirements of section 18-5.1.40
subject to obtaining a zoning clearance, durational limits, siting requirements, and other
requirements; and amend Secs. 18-30.6.4 and 18-30.6.5 by adding PWSF’s to the classes of
development exempt from review by the County’s architectural review board under Sec. 18-30.6.
(Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects)
Presentations:
12. Airport Director brief presentation update on the renovations and upgrades at the airport as
well as a new 'good neighbor' policy. (Melinda C. Crawford, Executive Director, Charlottesville
Albemarle Airport)
13. YMCA Funding. (Kurt Krueger, Board Chair)
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0211/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/8/2020 8:03:04 AM]
Tentative
Work Session:
14, Community Development Work Program. (Mark Graham, Director of Community Development)
Action:
15. Small Area Plan for Route 29/Rio Road Intersection Improvements.
16. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
17. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
18. Adjourn to February 19, 2015, 5:00 p.m., Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL (action required):
10.1 Approval of Minutes: March 5, April 2, June 10, July 8, August 26, September 9 and October 30,
2014.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0211/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/8/2020 8:03:04 AM]
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: February 5, 2015
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
For information only please find attached an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through
February 5, 2015.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Jaunt Board, Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory
Committee, Pantops Community Advisory Council and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority.
Listed below are the names of individuals who wish to be appointed the respective committees:
Jaunt Board: One vacancy
Norman Potts
Sherry Rose
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee: One vacancy (small business community)
Paul Grady Jr
Lesley Hamilton
Peter Greenberg
Pantops Community Advisory Council: Three vacancies
Louis Lopez
Mark Sackson
Laurel Olson
Erika Castillo
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority: Reappointment
Mike Gaffney – (Joint City/County) recommended by City 2/2/2015
View vacancy list
Return to agenda
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council David van Roijen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible Advertised, No applications recv'd
Historic Preservation Committee Eden Brown 6/4/2015 6/4/2018 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
JAUNT Board Clifford Buys 9/30/2014 9/30/2017 No Advertised, 2 applications recv'd
JAUNT Board Following applications received:
Norman Potts
Sherry Rose
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory CommitteeWilliam Hines 11/30/2015 Resigned Advertised, 3 applications recv'd
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory CommitteeMark Hahn 11/30/2015 11/30/2015 Resigned Small Business Community
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory CommitteeFollowing applications received:
Paul Grady
Lesley Hamilton
Peter Greenberg
Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Brian Morse 9/30/2013 9/30/2017 waiting for response
Pantops Community Advisory Council Rita Krenz 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Advertised, 4 applications recv'd
Pantops Community Advisory Council Casey Beeghly 6/30/2015 Resigned
Pantops Community Advisory Council Amy Preddy 6/30/2014 Resigned
Pantops Community Advisory Council Following applications received:
Louis Lopez
Mark Sackson
Laurel Olson
Erika Castillo
Places 29 Community Advisory Council George Larie 1/31/2016 Resigned Advertised, 2 applications recv'd
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Following applications received:
David Slutzky
Fred Hudson
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Mike Gaffney 12/31/2014 12/31/2016 Joint City/County City recommended 2/2/2015
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Mike Gaffney 12/31/2014 12/31/2016 Joint City/County City recommended 2/2/2015
Revised 2/5/2015
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2014-04 Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Phase 2
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of an ordinance to amend the Personal Wireless
Service Facilities regulations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Fritz
PRESENTER (S): Bill Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 11, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On October 1, 2014, the Board held a work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Personal Wireless Service
Facilities regulations. See Attachment A for the October 1 staff report. The Board directed staff to revise the proposed
ordinance, to seek additional comments from the Planning Commission (PC) regarding the proposal to eliminate the
Certificate of Appropriateness requirement for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, and to develop revised language for
the submittal of tree information on the application. See Attachment B for a summary of the Board’s October 1 actions.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Board direction at the October 1 work session, staff met with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
the PC regarding the proposed elimination of the Certificate of Appropriateness requirement. Staff also developed
alternative standards for the submittal of tree information in order to address concerns raised by both the Board and
the ARB. With the inclusion of the developed language, both the PC and the ARB recommend the removal of the
Certificate of Appropriateness requirement. See Attachment C for a summary of the PC and ARB discussion
regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness issue.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact is expected.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment D).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Staff report presented to the Board of Supervisors on October 1, 2014
Attachment B – Summary of the Board’s Action of October 1, 2014
Attachment C – Summary of PC and ARB discussion regarding certificate of appropriateness issue
Attachment D – Proposed Ordinance
View PC Minutes of June 24 and December 2, 2014
Return to agenda
Attachment A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Bill Fritz
Date: September 22, 2014
Subject: ZTA 2014-04 Personal Wireless Service Facilities Phase 2
In 2012, the Board directed staff to work on ordinance amendments to update the requirements for
personal wireless services facilities (PWSF). The amendments served two purposes. Phase 1 brought the
County’s ordinance into compliance with recent changes to Federal regulations and was adopted by the
Board in May 2013. Staff believes the current ordinance now complies with Federal requirements. Phase
2 is intended to improve the County’s processes and possibly relax some standards. Staff started work on
Phase 2 following completion of Phase 1. Subsequently, Phase 2 was split into two parts to simplify the
considerations. The attached is the first part of Phase 2 which includes minor changes to process and
submittal requirements. The second part of Phase 2 will be brought forward at a later date, as requested
by the Board.
On June 24, 2014 the Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments addressing the Phase 2
PWSFs. The Planning Commission’s executive summary, resolution of intent, proposed ordinance,
comments received from the public, and draft minutes of the meeting are attached.
At the meeting on June 24, 2014 the Planning Commission took the following actions:
- Recommended approval of the modification of submittal requirements and how tree information is
submitted.
- Recommended approval of provision to allow the requirement of photo simulations.
- Recommended additional evaluation of modification of the critical slope regulations to allow the tower
and base station without a special exception.
- Recommended approval of modification of the critical slope regulations to require the access road to
require a special exception.
- Recommended additional evaluation of modification of method of reducing setback to include a letter of
authorization from the abutting owner.
- Recommended approval of modification of allowing base station equipment to be closer to the property
line.
- Recommended approval of provisions for temporary facilities with modifications to the time limit.
- Recommended denial of removal of requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
The purpose of the October 1, 2014 Board of Supervisors work session is to discuss the proposed amendments
and determine the next steps in the amendment process. Specifically, the goal is to:
- Identify those provisions that the Board can support as proposed.
- Identify changes that would allow the Board to support a provision.
- Identify those provisions the Board cannot support regardless of revisions to the language.
If at the conclusion of the work session the Board is satisfied with the ordinance, it would be appropriate to
direct staff to schedule a public hearing to receive formal public comment prior to consideration for action.
Attachment B
The Board of Supervisors held a work session on October 1, 2014 and provided staff with the following
direction:
- Modification of submittal requirements and how tree information is submitted.
o Staff will develop alternative standards and bring them back to the Board.
- Provision to allow the requirement of photo simulations.
o Staff will bring this amendment to the Board.
- Modification of the critical slope regulations to allow the tower and base station without a special
exception.
o The Board did not support this amendment.
- Modification of the critical slope regulations to require the access road to require a special
exception.
o Staff will bring this amendment to the Board.
- Modification of method of reducing setback to include a letter of authorization from the abutting
owner.
o The Board did not support this amendment.
- Modification of allowing base station equipment to be closer to the property line.
o The Board did not support this amendment.
- Provisions for temporary facilities with modifications to the time limit.
o Staff will bring this amendment to the Board.
- Removal of requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
o The Board requested additional comments from the Architectural Review Board and
the Planning Commission.
Attachment C
Staff held two work sessions with the ARB to discuss the requirement for the Certificate of
Appropriateness. The ARB expressed concern similar to that expressed by the Board of Supervisors
about the type of tree information submitted by the applicant. In response to that concern the following
language was developed:
(f) Trees. The height, caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located within fifty (50)
feet of the facility. The height, caliper and species of any tree that the applicant is relying on to
provide that are relied upon to establish the proposed height or screening, or both, of the
monopole or tower. The height, caliper and species of the reference tree. The caliper and
species of aAll trees that will be adversely impacted or removed during installation or
maintenance of the facility shall be noted, regardless of their distances to the facility.
With the inclusion of this language in the ordinance, the ARB supported eliminating the requirement for a
Certificate of Appropriateness. This issue was also considered by the Planning Commission. During the
Planning Commission’s initial review of this ZTA they did not support any change to the review by the
ARB. However, following consideration of additional comments by the ARB and the inclusion of the
above language, the Commission recommended that the ordinance be amended to eliminate ARB
review.
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
1
ORDINANCE NO. 15-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS,
ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations,
are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 5.1.40 Personal wireless service facilities
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Mobile personal wireless service facility: A portable self-contained personal wireless service facility site
that can be moved to a location and set up to provide personal wireless services on a temporary or
emergency basis.
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.40 Personal wireless service facilities
The purpose of section 5.1.40 is to implement the personal wireless service facilities policy, adopted as
part of the comprehensive plan. Each personal wireless service facility (hereinafter “facility”) shall be
subject to following, as applicable:
a. Application for approval: Each request for approval of a facility shall include the following
information:
1. Application form and signatures. A completed application form, signed by the parcel
owner, the parcel owner’s agent or the contract purchaser, and the proposed facility’s
owner. If the owner’s agent signs the application, he shall also submit written evidence of
the existence and scope of the agency. If the contract purchaser signs the application, he
shall also submit the owner’s written consent to the application.
2. Plat or survey of the parcel. A recorded plat or recorded boundary survey of the parcel on
which the facility will be located; provided, if neither a recorded plat nor boundary
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
2
survey exists, a copy of the legal description of the parcel and the Albemarle County
Circuit Court deed book and page number.
3. Ownership. The identity of the owner of the parcel and, if the owner is other than a real
person, the complete legal name of the entity, a description of the type of entity, and
written documentation that the person signing on behalf of the entity is authorized to do
so.
4. Plans and supporting drawings, calculations and documentation. Except where the
facility will be located entirely within an existing structure or an existing building, a
scaled plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawings, calculations, and
other documentation required by the agent, signed and sealed by an appropriate licensed
professional. The plans and supporting drawings, calculations and documentation shall
show:
(a) Existing and proposed improvements. The location and dimensions of all existing
and proposed improvements on the parcel including access roads and structures,
the location and dimensions of significant natural features, and the maximum
height above ground of the facility (also identified in height above sea level).
(b) Elevation. The benchmarks and datum used for elevations. The datum shall
coincide with the Virginia State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), United States Survey Feet North American
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), and the benchmarks shall be acceptable to
the county engineer.
(c) Design. The design of the facility, including the specific type of support structure
and the design, type, location, size, height and configuration of all existing and
proposed antennas and other equipment.
(d) Color. Identification of each paint color on the facility, by manufacturer color
name and color number. A paint chip or sample shall be provided for each color.
(e) Topography. Except where the facility would be attached to an existing structure
or an existing building, the topography within two thousand (2,000) feet of the
proposed facility, in contour intervals not to exceed ten (10) feet for all lands
within Albemarle County and, in contour intervals shown on United States
Geological Survey topographic survey maps or the best topographic data
available, for lands not within Albemarle County.
(f) Trees. The height, caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located
within fifty (50) feet of the facility. The height, caliper and species of any tree
that the applicant is relying on to provide that are relied upon to establish the
proposed height or screening, or both, of the monopole or tower. The height,
caliper and species of the reference tree. The caliper and species of aAll trees
that will be adversely impacted or removed during installation or maintenance of
the facility shall be noted, regardless of their distances to the facility.
(g) Setbacks, parking, fencing, and landscaping. All existing and proposed setbacks,
parking, fencing and landscaping.
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
3
(h) Location of accessways. The location of all existing accessways and the location
and design of all proposed accessways.
(i) Location of certain structures and district boundaries. Except where the facility
would be attached to an existing structure or an existing building, residential and
commercial structures, and residential and rural areas district boundaries.
(j) Proximity to airports. If the proposed monopole or tower will be taller than one
hundred fifty (150) feet, the proximity of the facility to commercial and private
airports.
5. Photographs. Photographs of the location of the proposed monopole or tower shall be
provided that include, for applications for Tier II facilities, the reference tree, and for
applications for Tier III facilities, the area within fifty (50) feet of the proposed monopole
or tower. These photographs shall include reference points to enable the lease area, the
vehicular access, the trees that will remain, and the trees that will be removed, to be
identified, In addition, pPhotographs, where possible, or perspective drawings of the
facility site and all existing facilities within two hundred (200) feet of the site, if any, and
the area surrounding the site.
6. Balloon tests. For any proposed monopole or tower, photographs taken of a balloon test,
which shall be conducted, if requested by the agent, as follows:
(a) Scheduling. The applicant shall contact the agent within ten (10) days after the
date the application was submitted to schedule a date and time when the balloon
test will be conducted. The test shall be conducted within forty (40) days after the
date the application was submitted, and the applicant shall provide the agent with
at least seven (7) days prior notice; provided that this deadline may be extended
due to inclement weather or by the agreement of the applicant and the agent.
(b) Marking key boundaries and locations. Prior to the balloon test, the locations of
the access road, the lease area, the tower site, the reference tree and the tallest
tree within twenty five (25) feet of the proposed monopole shall be surveyed and
staked or flagged in the field.
(c) Balloon height. The test shall consist of raising one or more balloons from the
site to a height equal to the proposed facility.
(d) Balloon color or material. The balloons shall be of a color or material that
provides maximum visibility.
(e) Photographing balloon test. The photographs of the balloon test shall be taken
from the nearest residence and from appropriate locations on abutting properties,
along each publicly used road from which the balloon is visible, and other
properties and locations as deemed appropriate by the agent. The applicant shall
identify the camera type, film size, and focal length of the lens for each
photograph.
7. Additions of antennas. If antennas are proposed to be added to an existing structure,
existing building or an existing facility, all existing antennas and other equipment on the
structure, building or facility, as well as all ground equipment, shall be identified by
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
4
owner, type and size. The method(s) by which the antennas will be attached to the
mounting structure shall be depicted.
8. Site under conservation or open space easement. If the proposed facility would be
located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, a copy of
the recorded deed of easement and the express written consent of all easement holders to
the proposed facility.
9. Photographic simulations. At the request of the agent, photographic simulations of the
proposed facility.
b. Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as otherwise exempted in this
subsection, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations in this chapter.
1. Building site. Notwithstanding section 4.2.3.1, a facility is not required to be located
within a building site. Vehicular access to the lease area shall be subject to the
requirements of section 4.2 and shall not be exempt under section 4.2.6.
2. Setbacks. Notwithstanding section 4.10.3.1(b), the agent may authorize a facility to be
located closer in distance than the height of the tower or other mounting structure to any
lot line if the applicant obtains an easement or other recordable document showing
agreement between the lot owners, acceptable to the county attorney as to addressing
development on the part of the abutting parcel sharing the common lot line that is within
the facility’s monopole or tower’s fall zone (e.g., the setback of an eighty (80) foot-tall
facility could be reduced to thirty (30) feet if an easement is established prohibiting
development on the abutting lot within a fifty (50) foot fall zone. If the right-of-way for a
public street is within the fall zone, the Virginia Department of Transportation shall be
included in the staff review, in lieu of recording an easement or other document.
3. Area, bulk and minimum yards. Notwithstanding the requirements of the district in which
the facility will be located, the area and bulk regulations, and the minimum yard
requirements of the district shall not apply.
4. Required yards. Notwithstanding section 4.11, a facility may be located in a required
yard.
5. Site plan. Notwithstanding section 32.2, a site plan shall not be required for a facility, but
the facility shall be subject to the requirements of section 32 and the applicant shall
submit all schematics, plans, calculations, drawings and other information required by the
agent to determine whether the facility complies with section 32. In making this
determination, the agent may impose reasonable conditions authorized by section 32 in
order to ensure compliance.
c. Tier I facilities. Each Tier I facility may be established upon approval by the agent of an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a), demonstrating that the facility will
be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, and
satisfying the following:
1. Compliance with subsection 5.1.40(b). The facility shall comply with the applicable
requirements of subsection 5.1.40(b).
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
5
2. General design. The facility shall be designed, installed and maintained as follows: (i)
guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted
only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17; provided that these
restrictions shall not apply to any outdoor lighting required by federal law; (iii) any
ground equipment shelter not located within an existing structure or an existing building
shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing
vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the agent; (iv) a whip antenna less than
six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure or the existing
building; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose
width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be
installed at the top of the facility, the existing structure or the existing building; and (vi)
within thirty (30) days after completion of the installation of the facility, the applicant
shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of all components of the
facility complies with this regulation.
3. Antennas and associated equipment. Antennas and associated equipment that are not
entirely within a proposed facility, an existing facility, an existing structure, or an
existing building shall be subject to the following: (i) the total number of arrays of
antennas shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed under the pending
application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not
exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall
project from the facility, structure or building beyond the minimum required by the
mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project
more than twelve (12) inches from the facility, structure or building; and (iii) each
antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the facility, structure or
building. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes, regardless of their
use, shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.
4. Tree conservation plan; content. Before the building official issues a building permit for
the facility, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified
arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to ensure that
all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection
methods and procedures, identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the
installation, operation and maintenance of the facility, and identify all dead and dying
trees that are recommended to be removed. In approving the plan, the agent may identify
additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included
in the plan.
5. Tree conservation plan; compliance; amendment. The installation, operation and
maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation
plan. The applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within one
hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility
except for those trees identified on the plan to be removed for the installation, operation
and maintenance of the facility and dead and dying trees. Before the applicant removes
any tree not designated for removal on the approved plan, the applicant shall submit and
obtain approval of an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the
proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to ensure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
6
6. Discontinuance of use; notice thereof; removal; surety. Within thirty (30) days after a
facility’s use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued, the owner of the
facility shall notify the zoning administrator in writing that the facility’s use has
discontinued. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety
(90) days after the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If
the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will
be removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the
facility submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount
sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the
surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In
determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i)
whether there is a change in technology that makes it likely that the monopole or tower
will be unnecessary in the near future; (ii) the permittee fails to comply with applicable
regulations or conditions; (iii) the permittee fails to timely remove another monopole or
tower within the county; and (iv) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
7. Creation of slopes steeper than 2:1. No slopes associated with the installation of the
facility and its accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining
walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are
employed.
8. Ground equipment shelter; fencing. Any ground equipment shelter not located within an
existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the
fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicul ar or
pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife;
(ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
d. Tier II facilities. Each Tier II facility may be established upon approval by the agent of an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility
will be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, and
satisfying the following:
1. Compliance with subsections 5.1.40(b) and 5.1.40(c). The facility shall comply with the
applicable requirements of subsection 5.1.40(b) and with the requirements of subsections
5.1.40(c)(2) through (8).
2. Screening and siting to minimize visibility. The site shall provide adequate opportunities
for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels
and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. The facility also shall be sited to
minimize its visibility from any entrance corridor overlay district, state scenic river,
national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent to the district,
river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation
easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open
space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources
specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
3. Open space plan resources. The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in
the county’s open space plan.
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
7
4. Horizontal separation of multiple facilities. The facility shall not be located so that it and
three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within
an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two
hundred (200) feet.
5. Diameter of monopole. The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty (30)
inches and the maximum diameter at the top of the monopole shall be eighteen (18)
inches.
6. Height of monopole. The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea
level, shall not be more than ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five
(25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises
the monopole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation.
7. Color of monopole, antennas and equipment. Each monopole shall be a dark brown
natural or painted wood color that blends into the surrounding trees. The antennas,
supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color
that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment
shelter, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the
monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not closely
match the color of the monopole if they are enclosed within a ground equipment shelter
or within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color that
closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and
(iii) makes the ground equipment, ground equipment shelter, and the concrete pad
invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street.
8. Placement of cables, wiring and similar attachments. Each wood or concrete monopole
shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and similar attachments that run vertically
from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on the monopole to face the
interior of the site and away from public view, as determined by the agent. Metal
monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments are
contained within the monopole’s structure.
9. Building permit application; submitting certification of monopole height and revised
plans. The following shall be submitted with the building permit application: (i)
certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that is used to
determine the permissible height of the monopole; and (ii) a final revised set of plans for
the construction of the facility. The agent shall review the surveyor’s certificate and the
plans to ensure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
10. Completion of installation; submitting certifications of monopole and lightning rod
height. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the monopole is
completed and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a
registered surveyor stating the height of the monopole, measured both in feet above
ground level and in elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or reference
datum identified in the application; and (ii) certification stating that the lightning rod’s
height does not exceed two (2) feet above the top of the monopole and width does not
exceed a diameter of one (1) inch.
11. Notice. Notice of the agent’s consideration of an application for a Tier II facility shall be
sent by the agent to the owner of each parcel abutting the parcel on which the proposed
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
8
facility will be located. The notice shall describe the nature of the facility, its proposed
location on the lot, its proposed height, and the appropriate county office where the
complete application may be viewed. The notice shall be mailed by first class mail or
hand delivered at least ten (10) days before the agent acts on the application. Mailed
notice shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to
the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment records of the county shall be
deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of an owner to receive the notice
as provided herein shall not affect the validity of an approved facility and shall not be the
basis for an appeal.
12. Disapproval of application; appeal. If the agent disapproves an application, he shall
identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be
done to satisfy each requirement. The applicant may appeal the disapproval of an
application to the board of supervisors. An appeal shall be in writing and be received in
the office of the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days after the
date of the disapproval by the agent. In considering an appeal, the board may affirm,
reverse, or modify in whole or in part, the decision of the agent, and its decision shall be
based upon the requirements delineated in this subsection (d).
13. Agent approval of increase in height of monopole based on increase in height of
reference tree. Upon the written request of the applicant, the agent may authorize the
height of an existing Tier II facility’s monopole to be increased above its originally
approved height upon finding that the reference tree has grown to a height that is relative
to the requested increase in height of the monopole. The application shall include a
certified survey of the reference tree’s new height, as well as the heights of other trees to
be considered by the agent. The agent shall not grant such a request if the increase in
height would cause the facility to be skylighted or would increase the extent to which it is
skylighted.
e. Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit
by the board of supervisors, initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of
subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 33.4, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter and the following:
1. The facility shall comply with the applicable requirements of subsections 5.1.40(b), the
requirements of subsections 5.1.40(c)(2) through ( 98), and the requirements of
subsections 5.1.40(d)(2), (3) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
f. Collocation, replacement or removal. Any collocation, replacement or removal of antennas or
equipment is subject to the following:
1. Collocation or replacement that would not substantially change the physical dimensions
of a facility approved as a Tier I, II or III facility. Upon receipt by the agent of an
application satisfying the requirements of subsections 5.1.40(a)(1), (3), (4) and (7), any
collocation or replacement that would not substantially change the physical dimensions
of an existing facility approved as a Tier I, II or III facility shall be approved by the
agent. The agent shall approve the application regardless of whether the proposed
antennas or equipment are different from those shown on, or were not shown on, the
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
9
previously approved application under subsection 5.1.40(a)(4)(c) or any condition
imposed in conjunction with a special use permit for a Tier III facility.
2. Collocation or replacement that would substantially change the physical dimensions of a
facility approved as a Tier I, II or III facility. Any collocation or replacement that would
substantially change the physical dimensions of an existing facility approved as a Tier I,
II or III facility shall be reviewed and acted upon as a Tier I, II or III facility, as
applicable.
3. Collocation or replacement that would not substantially change the physical dimensions
of a facility approved by special use permit prior to October 13, 2004 or a facility that is
a nonconforming structure. Upon receipt by the agent of an application satisfying the
requirements of subsections 5.1.40(a)(1), (3), (4) and (7), any collocation or replacement
that would not substantially change the physical dimensions of an existing facility
approved by special use permit prior to October 13, 2004 or that is a nonconforming
structure shall be approved by the agent. The agent shall approve the application
regardless of whether the proposed antennas or equipment are different from those shown
on any plans approved or condition imposed in conjunction with a special use permit.
4. Collocation or replacement that would substantially change the physical dimensions of a
facility approved by special use permit prior to October 13, 2004 or a facility that is a
nonconforming structure. Any collocation or replacement that would substantially change
the physical dimensions of an existing facility approved by special use permit prior to
October 13, 2004 or that is a nonconforming structure shall be subject to, reviewed and
acted upon as a Tier I, II or III facility, as provided in subsection 5.1.40(g)(2).
5. Removal of antennas or equipment on any Tier I, II or III facility, any facility approved
by special use permit prior to October 13, 2004 or any facility that is a nonconforming
structure. Any antennas or equipment on any existing Tier I, II or III facility, any existing
facility approved by special use permit prior to October 13, 2004 or that is a
nonconforming structure may be removed as a matter of right and regardless of any
special use permit condition providing otherwise.
6. Meaning of “collocation or replacement that would not substantially change the physical
dimensions of an existing facility.” A collocation or replacement that would not
substantially change the physical dimensions of an existing facility is any change to the
physical dimensions of an existing facility that is not within five hundred (500) feet of a
dwelling unit located on a parcel under different ownership than the parcel on which the
facility is located, that would: (i) add one or more antennas to the facility provided that
the requirements of subsections 5.1.40(c)(1), (2), (3), (6) and (8) are satisfied; (ii) replace
an existing monopole or tower with a monopole or tower of an equal or lesser height,
provided that the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(d) (1), (5), (7), (8) and (10) are
satisfied; (iii) replace an existing treetop facility with a monopole that is not more than
ten (10) feet taller than the reference tree, provided that the requirements of subsection
5.1.40(d) (1), (5), (7), (8) and (10) are satisfied; (iv) strengthen an existing monopole or
tower without the use of guy wires, provided that the requirements of subsection
5.1.40(d)(5), (7) and (8) are satisfied; or (v) expand the lease area or add ground
equipment either within or outside of a ground equipment shelter, provided that the
expanded lease area does not exceed twice the square footage of the original lease area,
and further provided that the requirements of subsections 5.1.40(c)(7) and 5.1.40(d) (2),
(4), (5), (8) and (9) are satisfied. Any change to the access to the facility that results in the
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
10
removal of any tree shall be deemed to be a substantial change to the physical dimensions
of an existing facility.
g. Administration of special use permits for facilities approved prior to October 13, 2004. The
following applies to the administration of any special use permit for an existing facility approved
prior to October 13, 2004:
1. Conditions. If any condition of the special use permit is more restrictive than a
corresponding standard in subsection 5.1.40(c) or (d), the corresponding standard in
subsection 5.1.40(c) or (d) shall apply. If any condition of the special use permit is less
restrictive than a corresponding standard in subsection 5.1.40(c) or (d) and the applicant
establishes that vested rights have attached to the approved facility, the special use permit
conditions shall apply.
2. Change to a facility that would substantially change the physical dimensions of a facility
approved by special use permit prior to October 13, 2004. Any proposed change to a
facility that would substantially change the physical dimensions of the facility approved
by special use permit prior to October 13, 2004 under subsection5.1.40(f)(4) shall be
subject to the procedures and standards for a Tier II facility if the facility would qualify
as a Tier II facility, or a Tier III facility if the facility would not qualify as a Tier II
facility.
3. Effect of changes. Any change to a facility by collocation or replacement under
subsection 5.1.40(f)(3) shall not reclassify the facility as a Tier I, II or III facility. Any
change to a facility by collocation or replacement under subsection 5.1.40(g)(2) shall
reclassify the facility as a Tier II or Tier III facility, as applicable. If the facility is
approved as a Tier II facility, the prior special use permit conditions shall have no further
force or effect.
h. Time for action. Each action on an application for a Tier I, II or III facility shall be taken within
the following periods:
1. Applications for Tier I and Tier II facilities and applications for existing Tier III facilities
that would not substantially increase the size of an existing monopole or tower. Any
application for a Tier I or Tier II facility, and any application for an existing Tier III
facility that would not substantially increase the size of the existing monopole or tower,
shall be approved or disapproved within ninety (90) days, as calculated under subsection
5.1.40(h)(3).
2. Applications for new Tier III facilities and applications for existing Tier III facilities that
would substantially increase the size of an existing monopole or tower. Any application
for a Tier III facility, and any application for an existing Tier III facility that would
substantially increase the size of an existing monopole or tower, shall be approved or
disapproved within one hundred fifty (150) days, as calculated under subsection
5.1.40(h)(3).
3. Calculating the time for action. The time for action on an application shall be calculated
as follows:
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
11
(a) Commencement. The time for action under subsection 5.1.40(h)(1) or (h)(2) shall
begin on the date the application is received in the department of community
development.
(b) Determination of completeness. Within thirty (30) days after the application is
received, the department of community development shall determine whether the
application includes all of the applicable information required under subsections
5.1.40(a) through (e). If any required information was not provided, the
department shall inform the applicant within the thirty (30) day period about
which information must be submitted in order for the application to be
determined to be complete.
(c) Tolling. The running of the time for action under subsection 5.1.40(h)(1) or
(h)(2) shall be tolled between the date that the department informs the applicant
that its application is incomplete under subsection 5.1.40(h)(3)(b) and the date on
which the department receives all of the required information from the applicant.
(d) Extension of running of time for action. The time by which action must be taken
under subsection 5.1.40(h)(1) or (h)(2) may be extended upon request by, or with
the consent of, the applicant.
4. Effect of failure to approve or disapprove within time for action. The failure to approve
or disapprove an application within the time for action shall not be deemed to be approval
of the application but, instead, shall only create a rebuttable presumption that the failure
to timely act was not reasonable under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).
5. Meaning of “substantially increase the size of an existing monopole or tower”. The
phrase “substantially increase the size of an existing monopole or tower” means: (i) the
mounting of the proposed antenna would increase the height of the monopole or tower by
more than ten (10) percent, or by the height of one additional antenna array with
separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is
greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set
forth herein if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; (ii) the mounting of
the proposed antenna would include installing more than the standard number of new
equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four (4), or more than one
new ground equipment shelter; (iii) the mounting of the proposed antenna would involve
adding an appurtenance to the body of the monopole or tower that would protrude from
the edge of the monopole or tower more than twenty (20) feet, or more than the width of
the monopole or tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater,
except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth
herein if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the
antenna to the monopole or tower by cable; or (iv) the mounting of the proposed antenna
would involve excavation outside the current boundaries of the leased or owned property
surrounding the monopole or tower and any access or utility easements currently related
to the site.
i. Mobile personal wireless service facilities. Mobile personal wireless service facilities
(“MPWSF”) shall not be subject to any requirements of section 5.1.40, and are otherwise
permitted by right in any zoning district, subject to the following:
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
12
1. Zoning clearance required; temporary non-emergency event. The owner shall obtain a
zoning clearance under section 31.5 prior to placing a MPWSF on any site for a
temporary non-emergency event. The MPWSF may be placed on the site for a maximum
of seven (7) consecutive days, and shall not be placed on any site for any temporary non-
emergency event more than twice in a calendar year.
2. Zoning clearance required; declared state of emergency. If a state of emergency is
declared by the president of the United States, the governor of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, or the board of supervisors, the owner shall obtain a zoning clearance under
section 31.5 within forty-five (45) days after placing a MPWSF on any site. The MPWSF
may be placed on the site for the duration of the state of emergency.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
The architectural review board is authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and
associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is
contiguous, as follows:
a. Development requiring a certificate of appropriateness. The following developments require a
certificate of appropriateness:
1. Building permits required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building
permit is required, even though it is not a development for which a site plan is required,
unless the structure and/or site improvement is exempt under section 30.6.5. No building
permit shall be approved until the certificate of appropriateness is obtained.
2. Site plans required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building permit
is required in a development for which a site plan is required, unless the improvement is
exempt under section 30.6.5. No site plan shall be approved until the certificate of
appropriateness is obtained.
b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The architectural review board is authorized to issue the
following types of certificates of appropriateness:
1. Specific developments. For specific developments associated with one or more building
permits or a single site plan.
2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new
multi-business complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first
conducts a comprehensive sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in
a new multi-business complex or shopping center is issued, the director of planning is
authorized to determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate
of appropriateness.
3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness. County-wide certificates of appropriateness
may be issued for classes of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements,
subject to the applicable design criteria and procedures, as follows:
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
13
a. Categories of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements eligible
for county-wide certificates of appropriateness. The following categories of
structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements shall be eligible for
county-wide certificates of appropriateness:
1. Structures located seven hundred fifty (750) feet or more from an EC
street that are not more than five (5) stories tall.
2. Structures that are proposed to be located behind another structure that
fronts an EC street as viewed from the EC street, where the rear structure
is no more than twice the height of the front structure.
3. Personal wireless service facilities.
43. Signs, except for wall signs whose height exceeds thirty (30) feet.
54. Safety fencing and screening fencing.
65. New or replacement rooftop-mounted or ground-mounted equipment.
76. Additions to structures or improvements for which a certificate of
appropriateness was issued, where the design of the addition to the
structure or improvement is consistent with the architectural design
approved with the certificate of appropriateness.
87. New structure or site lighting or changes to existing structure or site
lighting.
98. Minor amendments to site plans and architectural plans.
109. Building permits for which the proposed change occupies fifty (50)
percent or less of the altered elevation of an existing structure.
1110. Permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) not
otherwise exempt under section 30.6.5(k).
b. Design criteria. The board may establish appropriate architectural or design
features under the design guidelines that a structure, site, improvement or
architectural element must be found to be consistent with in order to be eligible
to be subject to a county-wide certificate of appropriateness. The architectural or
design features may include, but are not limited to: (i) building and structure
height; (ii) building and structure size; (iii) scale or mass; (iv) appropriate roof
forms; (v) appropriate building materials and/or colors; (vi) minimum planting
requirements; (vii) minimum screening requirements; (viii) building, structure
and/or site improvement locations; and (ix) the structural and design details of
signs.
c. Determination of compliance by director of planning. Once a county-wide
certificate of appropriateness is issued, the director of planning is authorized to
determine whether a particular structure, site, improvement or architectural
element satisfies the specific design criteria of the county-wide certificate of
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
14
appropriateness. The director or a member of the architectural review board may
request at an upcoming meeting that the architectural review board, instead of the
director, determine whether a particular structure, site, improvement or
architectural element satisfies the specific design criteria of the county-wide
certificate of appropriateness.
d. Action and appeal. Any person requesting a determination whether a proposed
structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design
criteria of a county-wide certificate of appropriateness shall submit a request to
the director of planning providing the information required by the director. The
procedure for submittal and action under section 30.6.6(b), (c), (d) and (f) shall
apply.
1. By the director. If the director determines that the proposed structure,
site, improvement or architectural element does not satisfy the specific
design criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness, the
director shall send notice to the person requesting the determination of
his decision. The person requesting the determination may either: (1)
appeal the director’s decision to the architectural review board by filing
an appeal with the director within ten (10) days after the date of the
director’s notice of decision; or (2) file an application and proceed under
sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7.
2. By the board. If the board determines in its own review or on an appeal
of the director’s decision that the proposed structure, site, improvement
or architectural element does not satisfy the specific design criteria of the
county-wide certificate of appropriateness, the board shall send notice to
the person requesting the determination of its decision. The person
requesting the determination may either: (1) appeal the board’s decision
to the board of supervisors under the procedure in section 30.6.8(b), (c)
and (d); or (2) file an application and proceed under sections 30.6.6 and
30.6.7.
c. Authority to assure consistency with applicable design guidelines. In determining whether a
structure or associated improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines, the
architectural review board may specify the following, which are in addition to the requirements of
the underlying zoning district or of section 32, provided that the board may not authorize any
maximum standard to be exceeded, or any minimum standard to not be met:
1. Architectural features. The appearance of any architectural feature including, but not
limited to, its form and style, color, texture and materials.
2. Size and arrangement of structures. The configuration, orientation and other limitations
as to the mass, shape, area, bulk, height and location of structures. In considering the
arrangement and location of structures, the architectural review board may require that
the existing vegetation and natural features be used to screen structures and associated
improvements from one or more EC streets to which the parcel is contiguous as provided
in section 30.6.2(b).
3. Location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping. The location and
configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements.
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
15
4. Landscaping measures. In addition to the requirements of section 32.7.9, landscaping
measures determined to be appropriate to assure that the structures and associated
improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines.
5. Preservation of existing vegetation and natural features. The preservation of existing
trees, wooded areas and natural features.
6. Appearance of signs. In addition to the applicable requirements of section 4.15, the
appropriate style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of all proposed signs,
and any other applicable design guidelines. Each application for a certificate of
appropriateness for one or more signs shall be accompanied by a site plan or sketch plan
that shows the location of all signs proposed to be erected on the lot or lots subject to the
site plan or sketch plan.
7. Fencing. The location, type and color of all fencing, including safety fencing.
d. Authority to impose conditions to assure development is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines. The architectural review board is authorized to impose reasonable conditions in
conjunction with any approved certificate of appropriateness to assure that the development is
consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The architectural review board also is
authorized to approve plans showing, or identifying in a certificate of appropriateness, existing
trees, wooded areas and natural areas to be preserved, the limits of grading or other land
disturbing activity including trenching and tunneling, in order to, among other things, protect
existing features, and grade changes requiring tree wells or tree walls.
e. Authority of zoning administrator to determine compliance with certificate of appropriateness.
The zoning administrator is authorized to determine whether a development, including a sign,
satisfies the terms and conditions of the certificate of appropriateness.
f. Effect of certificate of appropriateness. Each structure or associated improvement for which a
certificate of appropriateness was issued shall be established and maintained in accordance with
the terms, conditions and requirements of the certificate. Each site plan and building permit shall
demonstrate that the structures and associated site improvements will satisfy the terms, conditions
and requirements of the certificate.
(§ 30.6.4, 10-3-90; § 30.6.4.1, 10-3-90; 5-18-94; § 30.6.4.2, 10-3-90; §30.6.5(formerly § 30.6.3.2, 7-8-92;
Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01); § 30.6.4, Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12)
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6:
a. Primary and accessory dwelling units if no site plan is required by this chapter.
b. Structures for agricultural or forestal uses if no site plan is required by this chapter.
c. Temporary construction headquarters (section 5.1.18(a)), temporary construction yards
(section 5.1.18(b)), and temporary mobile homes (section 5.7).
Draft: 01/26/15
Attachment D
16
d. Agricultural product signs, political signs, public signs, sandwich board signs, temporary
signs, window signs and signs exempt from the sign permit requirement under section
4.15.6.
e. The repair and maintenance of structures and site improvements where there is no
substantial change in design or materials.
f. The repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures or site improvements as
authorized by section 6.3(B).
g. Additions or modifications to structures or site improvements where there is no
substantial change in design or materials.
h. Additions or modifications to structures to the extent necessary to comply with the
minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, or
any other similar federal or state law providing for the reasonable accommodation of
persons with disabilities.
i. Additions or modifications to nonconforming structures as authorized by sections
6.3(A)(3) and 6.3(A)(5).
j. Interior alterations to structures where there is no change in the exterior appearance of the
structures.
k. Issuance of permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) if a building
permit has also been issued and the work authorized by the permit classified in those
sections does not change the external appearance of the structure.
l. Personal wireless service facilities.
(§ 30.6.6, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.1, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.2, 10-3-90, 6-14-00; § 30.6.6.3, 5-18-94; § 30.6.5; Ord.
10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 24, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 24, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., at the
County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Tim Keller and Mac Lafferty, Vice
Chair. Absent was Karen Firehock, Bruce Dotson and Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia.
Staff present was Bill Fritz, Manager of Special Projects; Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Zoning; Francis MacCall, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning
Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting
moved to the next agenda item.
Public Hearing Item
ZTA-2014-00004 Personal Wireless Service Phase II
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comment s on its intent to recommend adoption of an
ordinance that would amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 5.1.40, Personal wireless service facilities, 30.6.4, Certificates of
appropriateness, and 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of ap propriateness, of
Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 18 -3.1, by adding a definition
of “mobile personal wireless service facility”; amend Sec. 18 -5.1.40, by amending the required supporting information
accompanying an application for a personal wireless service facility (PWSF) pertaining to trees and photographic
simulations, by amending the exemptions from regulations pertaining to building sites and setbacks that otherwise
would apply to a PWSF, by amending the screening and siting requirements for Tier II PWSF’s to require them to be
sited to minimize their visibility from any entrance corridor overlay district, and to exempt mobile personal wireless
service facilities from the requirements of section 18-5.1.40 subject to obtaining a zoning clearance, durational limits,
siting requirements, and other requirements; and amend Secs. 18-30.6.4 and 18-30.6.5 by adding PWSF’s to the
classes of development exempt from review by the County’s architectural review board under Sec. 18-30.6. A copy of
the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of
Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Bill Frit z)
Mr. Fritz presented a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address the
Wireless Policy.
This zoning text amendment is the result of a Resolution of Intent that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors to
amend the ordinance for these changes. A work session was held with the Board in April to go over the Phase 2
portion of the Wireless Policy, which was going to be a much broad er and all encompassing amendment. It was
going to address a wide variety of things about the siting and design of facilities as well as a number of other things.
However, the Board of Supervisors scaled that back and instructed staff to just look at these minor issues. The
specific language actually comes from the Board with some guidanc e given to staff.
There are six main changes in the proposed ordinance, as follows:
Modification of submittal requirements and how tree information is submitted.
Provision to allow the requirement of photo simulations.
Modification of the applicability of critical slope regulations. (two parts)
Modification of method of determining setback. (two parts)
Inclusion of provisions for temporary facilities.
Removal of requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board.
Modification of submittal requirements and how tree information is submitted
Currently the applicant is required to submit information that shows all trees within 50 feet of the proposed tower to be
surveyed, including height, caliper and species. The proposed ordinance would amend that to allow the submittal of
photographs. The ordinance would require the applicant to identify those trees which are going to remain, those trees
which are going to be removed, and where the lease area is. Staff finds that having this information in a visual form
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
2
is much easier to review. The ordinance still retains the ability for the county to require all of the information if staff
determines that it is necessary when the photographs don’t provide the information needed. It gives staff flexibility to
require what is needed in a particular case.
Provision to allow the requirement of photo simulations
Currently the ordinance does not have a provision that allows staff to require photo simulations. There has never
been a case where anyone has objected to providing photo simulations. However, staff felt it would be appropriate to
include it in the ordinance in the unlikely event that someone actually would not give us a photo simulation.
Mr. Randolph asked if this was in lieu of using the balloon.
Mr. Fritz replied no, this is in addition to the balloon test.
Mr. Fritz continued the Power Point presentation.
Modification of the applicability of critical slope regulations:
This particular change has two parts. The first part is to discuss the tower and base station.
Currently the ordinance requires a special exception if critical slopes are going to be disturbed. If they are
disturbing slopes of 25% or greater, a special exception is required by the Board of Supervisors to build the
tower and base station equipment.
The proposed ordinance would allow by right the disturbance of critical slopes for the tower and base station
provided certain design standards are met.
In the recent Steep Slopes Overlay District, adopted in March, they created “Preserved” and “Managed” slopes in the
development areas. Preserved slopes had a very short list of permitted uses, which included communications
facilities. This is something the previous boards have directed staff to work on, and they are just now getting to it.
The County has routinely approved and never denied requests to disturb critical slopes for the construction of
Personal Wireless Service Facilities. The areas disturbed are limited due to the limited footprint of the fac ilities. If a
facility is being located on critical slopes and it has adverse visual impacts , it could still be denied. What staff has
found over the years of processing is that by being on critical slopes sometimes trees can be avoided or the tower
site can be sited in such a way that it minimizes visibility. What the ordinance also does is use the design standards
that are in the Steep Slopes Overlay District in an effort to minimize adverse impacts that may be caused by any
disturbance of critical slopes. The proposed ordinance allows critical slopes to be disturbed by-right and requires that
performance standards be met.
Access Road:
Currently the access road would be exempt from critical slope regulations if no reasonable alternative
location exists for the access road.
The proposed ordinance would remove the exemption. Any disturbance that was generated by the
construction of the access road would require a special exception. This was a directive of the Board of
Supervisors when they adopted the resolution of intent.
Those are the two changes as they deal with critical slopes.
Modification of method of determining setback has two parts to it .
Changes in measuring setback:
Setback is 100% of the tower height or a 1 to 1 setback to the facil ity. Right now the tower and base station
are considered part of the facility. So the tower and base station both need to be setback a distance equal to
the height of the tower.
Proposed ordinance maintains 100% setback for tower only. The base station e quipment could be located
closer. Again, if the location of the base station results in adverse visual impacts the facility could be denied.
Changes in reducing setback
Current ordinance allows the 100% setback to be reduced by Board through the approva l of a special
exception or if the abutting owner grants an easement.
Proposed ordinance allows reduction by Board or if abutting owner grants an easement or a letter of
authorization.
The existing ordinance allows the 1:1 setback to be reduced if the Board grants a special exception or if the adjoining
owner grants an easement in a recordable form. Multiple instances have occurred where the adjoining owner was
willing to grant an easement but because the property had a mortgage they were unable to gran t the easement
without the lending institutions approval. The proposed ordinance would allow the setback to be reduced if the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
3
adjoining owner approved of the reduction. The approval would not have to be recorded. If this provision is adopted,
the County will develop a standard format for the authorization of the reduction.
Inclusion of provisions for temporary facilities.
The County currently has a Board endorsed policy on the location of temporary facilities. Staff believes that
incorporating this policy into the ordinance is appropriate. Temporary facilities have been authorized several times,
most recently for Fox Field, without any complaints or concerns. They are:
Short term – 7 day maximum twice a calendar year.
Allowed for duration of a state of emergency.
Removal of Requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
The Board has previously authorized the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to establish criteria for a County Wide
Certificate of Appropriateness for Personal Wireless Service Fa cilities. This will allow the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness administratively by staff instead of requiring review by the full Architectural Review Board (ARB).
The existing regulations for Personal Wireless Service Facilities have very detai led design standards for the
construction of a facility. This leaves the Architectural Review Board (ARB) with limited discretion when reviewing an
application.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) review is limited to two issues: 1) The ARB provides advic e to the Agent regarding
whether or not the facility is being sited to minimize its visibility along the Entrance Corridor street, and 2) the ARB
issues a Certificate of Appropriateness for the base equipment portion of the facility, which in many cases is not
visible from the EC. Staff review considers the impact on the general area, including but not limited to the Entrance
Corridor. Staff opinion is that ARB staff should continue to be involved in the review of applications to ensure that the
visual impacts of a facility are mitigated. However review by the full ARB should not be required.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission do one of the following:
Recommend approval of the amendments.
Identify those provisions they support and those they oppose.
Recommend denial of the amendments.
This set of amendments is unusual in that they can act on it a la carte. Usually they are all linked together; if they
change one provision they change another. That is not the case in this one. There are ei ght (8) distinct actions the
Planning Commission can take. There are six items and two of them have part a) and b). There are eight (8)
different provisions and they can be acted on individually because one is not dependent upon the other.
Possible Motions
I recommend approval of the modification of submittal requirements and how tree information is submitted.
I recommend approval of provision to allow the requirement of photo simulations.
I recommend additional evaluation of modification of the critical slope regulations to allow the tower and
base station without a special exception.
I recommend approval of modification of the critical slope regulations to require the access road to require a
special exception.
I recommend additional evaluation of modification of method of reducing setback to include a letter of
authorization from the abutting owner.
I recommend approval of modification of allowing base station equipment to be closer to the property line.
I recommend approval of provisions for temporary facilities with modifications to the time limit.
I recommend denial of removal of requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked how far the platform can be from the antenna.
Mr. Fritz replied typically it is very close because they want to keep the runs that go from the base station to the tower
as short as possible to reduce signal loss. They are talking usually not more than 10’ and sometimes as little as 6’.
However, there may be some that are as much as 12’.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they do anything to simulate the base like they do with the balloon test for the tower.
Mr. Fritz replied no, that information is shown on the plan so staff can visualize it and understand whe re those things
are going to make it easy to verify in a field visit.
Mr. Loach questioned how the tree information is submitted. The first sentence says the current ordinance requires
all trees within 50’ of the proposed tower should be surveyed including height, caliper, and species. He asked if that
is usually done by the applicant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
4
Mr. Fritz replied yes, that was correct.
Mr. Loach said the proposed ordinance is to change only the reference tree and photographic information. He asked
which staff would do the evaluation in the change in the ordinance. He asked would it be the planner or would this be
someone like Dan Mahone who is a landscape architect. He was wondering why they are doing it now for the height,
caliper and species. He assumed that was to make sure there was no damage to the environment.
Mr. Fritz replied they have the height, caliper and species of the reference tree, which will remain. The height was
important because it sets how they are measuring a tree top tower and determ ining what the visual impacts are going
to be. The species and caliper was important so they know which tree they are talking about. That will still have to be
provided. That was a catch all when they developed the ordinance. What they have found is that by going to visit the
site and photographing it they get a better idea of which trees are going to remain and be removed. They can give
those to the zoning inspector and they can stand there with the photograph and can actually see. It is an easier way
to review and enforce than having the plan because they can actually see. They will need to identify in the
photographs and by tying ribbons around trees and things like that which trees will be removed or stay. It will be
easier for staff to then replicate that actually on the ground. It can be confusing when staff is out in the woods trying
to figure out about what they are really talking about.
Mr. Loach said basically the reason for this was to identify precisely the reference tree because that was go ing to be
used as a marker for the visibility of the tower over and above the reference tree.
Mr. Fritz replied yes, and the reference tree will always be identified. The other trees will be identified if they need
them to be identified. However, they will be identified in the photographs. If they need to be identified in the plan ,
they can require them to be identified on the plan. Sometimes it may just be appropriate to identify them as to their
location or caliper and maybe sometimes the species or the height. It gives flexibility to get the information needed in
a particular case because all of the sites are not the same.
Mr. Loach questioned what the purpose was of the survey doing the additional trees out 50’.
Mr. Fritz replied that it was giving staff a feel for the area and helping identify what trees were to stay or be removed.
They are suggesting that there is an alternative way of getting that information.
Mr. Loach pointed out photo simulations are very helpful and had no problem with them being required. He asked
with the state of the technology can the photo simulation replace the balloon test since they are using those in the
photo simulation.
Mr. Fritz replied yes, in some cases. However, in some cases they need the balloon test to have a point of reference
with which to do the photo simulation.
Mr. Morris said he had one question related to the critical slopes. They worked and staff provided an excellent
process for the development areas where they have come up with a preserve d and managed type of slope. He
seems to recall that the same type of process might be looked at for the rural areas in the future. He asked if staff
sees any additional work in identifying how they handle critical slopes in the rural area.
Mr. Fritz noted he would answer it in two ways. First, he would answer it as how it relates to telecommunication
facilities. Telecommunication facilities on both managed and preserved slopes are permitted. Managed and
preserved slopes are slopes of 25% or greater. The proposed amendment to allow the facility to be located on critical
slopes is consistent with the recently adopted Steep Slopes Overlay District. In the Steep Slopes Overlay District a
communication facility can be located on either managed or preserv ed slopes. They don’t need a special exception,
but just have to meet the performance standards. That is in essence what this ordinance does. It says on critical
slopes a facility can be located without getting a special exception, but it has to meet the performance standards. This
makes wireless facilities in the rural areas and development areas on equal footing as slope is concerned. The
bigger question is whether or not they are going to look at the rural areas for managed and preserved slopes. He
would hope not because it took a long time to do 10% of the county, and it would take a very long time to do 90% of
the county. The Board was very specific in their guidance that they only wanted to look at the Steep Slopes Overlay
District in the development area. In part it was because it was seen as a tool to facilitate development that was
desired in the development area and to discourage development that they did not want in the development areas.
The rural areas are not intended as a development are a. Agricultural activities are exempt from the critical slopes
provisions and that is the primary intent of the rural areas. Therefore, he thinks it is highly unlikely that the Board
would direct staff to work on a steep slopes overlay district in the rural areas.
Mr. Keller asked if they have cell towers mounted on county public facilities such as our buildings or schools.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
5
Mr. Fritz replied yes, there are wireless telecommunication facilities on county property. There are stand alone towers
on county schools. He believed there are some attachments to some of the jointly owned E911 towers. He did not
know that there are any communication facilities on any purely county owned towers. They don’t have that many that
purely is county owned. Most of them are with the E911 center. As an example, Scottsville School has a tower on it.
Mr. Keller asked if he understands correctly that in Virginia they can’t consider health issues.
Mr. Fritz replied in the country they cannot consider health issues. The 1996 Telecommunications Act is very clear
that environmental factors can’t be considered to the extent that they are regulated by the FCC.
Mr. Keller asked if they can consider visual impact on resources that they have earmarked.
Mr. Fritz replied with traditional zoning they can still consider it.
Mr. Keller asked if #3 on page 7, open space plan resources, mean that views from greenways, parks, trails, blue
ways, such as the Rivanna River, will be taken into account by staff
Mr. Fritz replied that they are currently.
Mr. Keller asked how that decision is made as to what that impact is. He asked if that is a subjective decision on the
part of staff.
Mr. Fritz replied that it was two-fold. The ordinance has performance standards that are to minimize. For example,
the tree top design minimizes the visual impact. They don’t regulate based on aesthetics because they can’t do that
in Virginia. So they are trying to minimize the visual impacts. They use the guidance contained both in the ordinance
and Personal Wireless Service Policy to determine what an acceptable level of visual impact might be. The best site
obviously is when it can’t be seen at all. They have a few of those. However, if it can be seen, then it is to the extent
that it is mitigated and what it is having a visual impact on. When staff is reviewing a particular application for a Tier
II, which they act on administratively, they have a fairly long ten year history of the Board of Supervisors acting on
special use permits and Tier II facilities that they have built up a very good reservoir of guidance from the Board of
Supervisors as to what an acceptable level of impact is. So staff used that experience they had with the Board of
Supervisors, the comprehensive plan, and the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. They also used Section
5.1.40 of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Keller asked in the part to be handled administratively if there is a significant community issue and concern
expressed, such as they are hearing from Key West residents, is there an opportunity for the staff to elect to bring
that specific case to the Board of Supervisors for a decision or will it all be handled administratively.
Mr. Fritz replied nothing in this zoning text amendment is changing the process. Th e process was changed by the
Board of Supervisors last year so that Tier II facilities are done administratively by staff. The only way an item would
get to the Board of Supervisors would be if it was denied by staff the applicant could appeal that decisi on to the
Board. They would not fail to take action and instead refer it to the Board because there is no mechanism to do that.
If staff thought it had an adverse visual impact they could deny it and the applicant would have the opportunity to
appeal that to the Board of Supervisors. The applicant could also appeal it to court.
Mr. Keller asked would it come forward on the consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fritz replied no, if there were a denial it would be on the full agenda. It would be an appeal of a denial and it
would go to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Keller asked if there a mechanism for public input on individual cases that might have a degree of controversial.
Mr. Fritz replied there would be for everything except for Tier I . They have the three tier system and this ordinance
does not affect any of that. The resolution of intent does not cover any changes in the process. The Tier 1 requests
are attachments to existing structures, which are treated like building permits and routinely just acted on. The
requests would either meet the requirements or not. A Tier II facility, which would be a tree top facility, they would
notify the abutting property owners who would have an opportunity to review and comment. Staff would take those
comments into consideration, and then would take an action. They very recently had an application for a Tier II
facility and several abutting property owners objected to it. Staff reviewed it and actually denied the application. The
applicant then appealed that to the Board of Supervisors who upheld the denial. That is already done. In a Tier III,
which is a special use permit, there would be a notice to the public and there would be a meeting with the Planning
Commission and a meeting with the Board of Supervisors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
6
Mr. Keller noted a recurring question in the emails received from the community was if they approve something
administratively there is not a mechanism for that to come back in a public manner for discussion through the
Supervisors.
Mr. Fritz replied that was correct.
Mr. Randolph noted he had several questions. The first question was about the seventh item about removal of
requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness. He asked if staff had consulted with the Architectural Review
Board about the proposed change listed in the last sentence in the summary, “however review by the full ARB should
not be required.” He asked if there had been prior consultation.
Mr. Fritz replied there had been prior consultation with the Archite ctural Review Board in prior years. This has been
an ongoing process. This particular text, as listed in the staff report, was actually looked at by the ARB Design
Planner to ensure that it was consistent with what the ARB has been talking about in the pa st and currently. So yes
to that extent it was run by the ARB Design Planner.
Mr. Randolph said next he would like to go up to the modification of method of determining setback. He thinks it is a
common sense proposal to unlock the tower from the base station. There does not seem to be any logic that the
base station is tied into the distance from the property line. It is the tower that poses the threat. He questioned the
language in the last three sentences of that section, “the proposed ordinance wou ld allow the setback to be reduced if
the adjoining owner approved of the reduction.” Second, the approval would not have to be recorded. He asked how
the mortgage lending community would feel if an adjoining property owner agreed that a cell tower that would be 100’
goes up and their house is within 80’ and would not be recorded. The mortgage company would never know that an
agreement has been made, which puts all of the depositors and officers at the bank at risk because if the cell tower
falls over it hits the bank property. He asked if it was an appropriate idea that perhaps the mortgage lender be
informed. He asked if staff has talked to anybody in the mortgage community in Albemarle County about how they
would feel about the setback agreement not being recorded.
Mr. Fritz replied no, staff has not spoken to any of the lending community. The practical matter has been they have
had a number of cases where an abutting property owner was willing to grant the easement, but was unable to
because of the mortgage. They signed a letter that said they had no problem with this, and then the special exception
went to the Board of Supervisors who authorized the reduction. So the effect is exactly the same. What they are
simply doing is removing the need for the Board of Supervisors to take that action. The Board of Supervisors has
approved every special exception request where the abutting property owner said he did not have a problem with
reducing the setback.
Mr. Randolph said as Mr. Keller pointed out if it was an administrative decision there is no public notice; whereas, the
Board of Supervisors makes a decision that is available through webcast and minutes for the public to review. There
would be some awareness. However, for an administrative decis ion the people in this audience would not know that
an administrative decision had been made.
Mr. Fritz pointed out the abutting owner would know because they are the ones where the reduction is occurring and
they would have to take a positive action. So they would be involved in that.
Mr. Randolph noted the other neighbors would not.
Mr. Fritz agreed that was true. However, they would still be aware of what was going on because of a notification of
the application and could show up at the Board of Supervisors meeting with the special exception.
Mr. Loach said he has a big concern about the language regarding the mortgage company would not be notified nor
would it be recorded. It seems to indicate they are trying to circumvent a circumstance they ran into in the past that
made it more difficult to achieve the tower.
Mr. Fritz pointed out what happened in those cases was the abutting owner had no problem with the reduction, but
staff could not grant it. The ordinance has a second clause that says even if the abutting owner opposes a reduction
in setback the applicant can still go to the Board of Supervisors and request a reduction in setback. The Board of
Supervisors can reduce the setback to zero if they were so inclined even if the abutting owne r was entirely opposed
to it. The original intent was the 1 to 1 setback to protect the interest of the abutting property owner. The logic
behind the reduction was being faithful to the original idea of protecting the abutting owner to let them say they are
okay with the reduction and giving two ways of doing that.
Mr. Randolph questioned who would be notified and if it means the property touches the subject property. He asked
if it would not be interpreted to be where the tower may fall or the distance from the tower. He asked if they are going
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
7
to creep into a situation where the height of the tower and the distance to the adjoining property owner determines
who is notified.
Mr. Fritz replied no, that is a separate clause in the ordinance that is not being proposed for any amendment. All
abutting property owners would be notified for a Tier II or Tier II I.
Mr. Randolph said that critical slopes are a natural resource feature. He was concerned a bit about the slippery
slope. They talked actively when they looked at preserved versus managed slopes that this was only going to be
applicable in the planned residential area or 10% of the county. However, here they find all of a sudden they are
leading into a by right disturbance of a critical slope. He was concerned this was the nose of the camel that sets up a
precedent. It could be cited in the future that for a Tier II for the construction of a tower critical slopes can be
disturbed. He asked why other publicly beneficial industries also could not be allowed to have disturbance of critical
slopes because the precedent is set. He just wanted to raise that on the record that he is concerned about the
precedent that might be established.
Mr. Fritz replied during the review of the Steep Slopes Overlay District they specifically stated they were taking the
previous guidance of the Board of Supervisors to allow wireless facilities on critical slopes. They were taking the
opportunity to use the steep slopes process to do part of what the Board had already done. So he does not see this
as a slippery slope. The Board had already previously directed staff to do that. Staff simply used the steep slopes as
the first effort. They were there and did that and knew they were going to come back later with the ot her critical
slopes. So it is not the introduction of a new concept. They just simply did it with the steep slopes because they
were doing it at the time. So they just took the opportunity to do that. They did state that was something that had
been a previous direction of the Board. He understands his concern, but he thinks it is actually the other way around.
This is not a slippery slope, but was just something that had been previously cited by the Board. They are not using
the steep slopes as a means to get there, but were just pointing out the commonality between the two.
Mr. Randolph said that may well be something that was discussed at the Board level, but at the Planning Commission
level it has not been discussed previously in his recollection. Therefore, it is a new subject for the Commission this
evening. As he reads through this, he suggested there may be a need to really reexamine the setback proposals in
light of community concerns and the due process for the community based on setbacks. H e did not know how the
community of Key West is going to feel about it. However, if email communications are any precedent he thinks they
will be in support of some additional language in here to guarantee that there is further due process for the
community on the setbacks.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. He noted the Commission has received over 55
emails. He had read all the emails and there was a distinct similarity in at least 50 of the 55.
Public comment was received from the following persons:
Ellen Dudley, resident of Key West, said AT&T has been trying to place a cell tower right between two houses in the
Key West neighborhood for the past five years. Last year AT&T’s application was turned down because their bi g
structural base for the 102-foot tower would have been too close to the house on the adjacent lot. Now there is a rule
change proposal in the industry’s favor so they can put the support structures even closer to any Albemarle County’s
neighbor’s house irrevocably damaging that home’s livability. Also, there is another rule change proposal, again in
the industry’s favor, so they can send in heavy construction equipment atop even the County’s most valuable
biodiversity areas, irrevocably damaging critical slopes. They are here tonight to ask the Planning Commission to act
in the citizens’ favor to protect residential neighborhoods. The other speakers will address four important points:
FIRST: Why the restriction on building on critical slopes should not be relaxed, particularly considering the
County’s responsibility to protect vulnerable biodiversity areas.
SECOND: Why there should not be any change in the setback rules to allow construction of a cell tower’s
structural base any closer to any existing home.
THIRD: Why, although some may think there are already cell towers close to homes in similar residential
neighborhoods, this is not the case.
FOURTH: Why the Albemarle County government should stand with many other Virginia counties that
protect residential neighborhoods and don’t allow cell towers in their midst.
Ms. Dudley said they are here to ask the Commission to act for the benefit of the citizens of Key West as well as
many other Albemarle County citizens who live in similar developments. The y surveyed 152 Key West households
and 142 signed a petition objecting to this cell tower placement. Other Albemarle residential neighborhoods are
bound to have the same objections and would not want the cell tower site rules relaxed any further. She aske d that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
8
the Commission please deny the industry’s push to further relax the county’s standards for cell tower sites. She
asked anyone that agreed that Key West and all similar residential neighborhoods should be off limits to cell towers to
please stand up. (Attachment A – Ellen Dudley’s Statement Submitted- Attachments on file with the printed minutes
in the office of the clerk)
Daphne Spain, Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at the University of Virginia and resident of Key West
for 25 years, said each semester when she begins with her students she asks them to read the American Institute of
Certified Planners Code of Aesthetics. She insists that they understand that planners are responsible for the public
interest involving people whose decisions may affect them. They are concerned about protecting the environment.
She also requires students to attend these Planning Commission meetings for three reasons. One is to observe the
planning staff and whether they might like to become planning staff in the public sector; whether they might serve the
public as a Commissioner, or whether they might simply be part of the public participating in a democratic process.
She also asks them to pay attention to this group because it is this group that helps put policy into place to uphold the
comprehensive plan goals.
Ms. Spain noted the goals that refer to the current situation in the comprehensive plan recognizes the importance of
protecting biological diversity and rural and development areas. To make su re that happens, the county has
appointed a committee on biodiversity to document and promote the stewardship of natural resources. Another goal
is to protect the water resources that are written to the Code of Albemarle, Chapter 17 in maintaining the int egrity of
existing streams and networks for their biological functions. The Biodiversity Committee has identified Key West as
an important site for biodiversity preservation, especially the rock outcroppings that are near the proposed cell tower
site. It also identified disturbance of critical slopes as detrimental to biodiversity and to water quality of the Rivanna,
which is one of our most valuable stream resources. Given these goals as stated by the comprehensive plan, she
and her neighbors urge the Planning Commission to require a site review for every application of land use like the
proposed cell tower. She invited everyone who agrees to stand.
Kent Sinclair, resident of Key West for 31 years, said he believes that really they are focusing on two pa ragraphs that
are on page 4 of Attachment B. One is exempting the cell tower location itself from the critical slopes review. He
thinks that is wrong because they have experienced in the Key West applications that the staff actually does its work
and they do review. He thinks it is just a little glib to say we have approved these things in the past. It does not give
credit to the fact that issues arise when the applicant has to explain to the county and staff on the case reviewing a
critical slopes issue. For example, construction using blasting came up in Key West and it turned out to be excluded
from the plan. He was not sure it would have if they had not had to make the application. He thought the logical flaw
in exempting the footprint of the tower and the support structure is they want staff, which is looking at the road that
will be reviewed under the critical slopes, to assess the cumulative effect of what is going to be built. That effect
includes the road access, parking, and the area that is destroyed right where the platform is built. If they make the
platform exempt from critical slopes review, he did not see how the staff can decide whether the road plus the
destruction of the slope where it is actually built is an appropriate intervention in the critical slopes area.
Mr. Sinclair said secondly, they oppose the second paragraph on page 4 with respect to the setbacks in addition to
Commissioner Randolph’s point, which they discussed at length this evening in this is an end run on the mortgag e
holder’s interest. He thinks that it is also of concern to buyers who cannot research this when they are looking at a
piece of property to know that the prior owner has given a letter which places them subject to a restriction as to what
they can do with the property they are about to buy. Our objection to the reduction of the setback is in one sense that
this approach to what the facility is would be inconsistent with all of the other regulations in Albemarle that consider
the tower and platform to be a facility. If they step back the basic message of allowing the ground equipment to creep
closer to the property line, they make it easier for the cellular industry to put these installations in narrow residential
lots. They believe they should act to discourage the placement of these towers in built up residential subdivisions.
He asked if the people present agree with that position.
Eric Seaborg, resident of Key West, said he wanted to make a brief point about the significan ce of the proposed
changes. He was talking about the critical slopes and the setbacks using the tower that was proposed by AT&T on
Key West Drive as an example. When they discussed this tower site with the Planning Department last year , they
said this must be a unique situation because the tower facility would only be a few feet from a home, less than 90’
from a property line, and only 200’ from an adjoining home. However, the Planning Department told us that oh no ,
there are many similar towers built in similar neighborhoods in Albe marle County. They eventually gave them a list of
these towers. They had a committee of concerned citizens who visited and documented every single one of these
towers on the list. What they concluded was that none of these tower locations came close to the situation in Key
West. Therefore, the tower proposed at Key West would have been unique in the county. Because these changes
would now allow towers in such a location they think that the changes are a significant change in the requirements. If
they approved the proposal, they could be opening all neighborhoods in Albemarle to cell towers in close proximity to
many houses. (Attachment B – Statement of Eric Seaborg) (Submitted Attachments on file with the printed minutes
in the office of the clerk)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
9
Bob Toplin, resident of Key West for ten years, said right now they were being asked to rule on a decision that will
make it easier to place cell towers in established neighborhoods. If they agree to these changes they will have a
specific impact on Key West in particular. They saw up on the screen a little diagram on the idea of separating the
platform from the monopole. That was what saved Key West. The tower might be under construction or already be
there today if it were not for that combination. The se tback includes the platform. The point is simply that they have a
neighborhood of residents living in close proximity and yet on a lot right by that home would have been a huge tower.
It would have been an eyesore and a problem in many respects for the ne ighbors. They assessed and surveyed the
various people and almost every home, of 150 plus homes, the people said they did not want it. In talking about this ,
they may be wondering across the state of Virginia: what do other localities do. Are they more strict or free about the
placement of towers than Albemarle? They have before them a list of several of these places. If you read the
quotations and even inquire with, the individuals they spoke with are planners, development people and people in law
and administration. They said one after another they could not believe what we are doing here. When they talked
about the Key West situation, they discovered many of them have much larger setbacks. So they could see that they
were very surprised and found that we are rather loose in our arrangement. The idea here is that the proposed
changes at first glance look like they are minor, and yet when you look at them carefully , you discover they are very
serious in their applications. Key West is just one example. It is sort of a canary in the coal mine. However, this
really applies to so many neighborhoods. They should be moving in the right direction and that is towards greater
concern in monitoring and care for critical slopes and caution about placing these towers in the middle of a
neighborhood where it would be seen while sitting on your porch. In fact, he would just close on what one such
platform looks like at Monticello in our city with a picture in the presentation. They are not talking about a small a ffair.
They have something to think about here. He asked if they would like this across the street or next door.
(Attachment C - PowerPoint Presentation including photos and “What Other Virginia Counties and Cities Do about
Cell Towers in Established Neighborhoods presented by Bob Toplin) (Attachments on file with the printed minutes in
the office of the clerk)
Marcia Joseph, current member of the Architectural Review Board, pointed out the ARB looked at a cell tower
yesterday at Royal Acres, which is adjacent to I-64. They looked at all of the information in the lovely packet. One of
the things that it does show is the 50’ of trees around the site with the height. She thinks it is an important thing that
they keep because it helps visualize what is happening out there. If you only have one tree, then you don’t know
what the relative heights of all the other trees are around it. It is the reason they ask for that initially when they
created this ordinance. The other thing is the road location. The road location on the Royal Acres site changed a
little bit and they showed it. The reason it changed is because apparently the road was very steep going down so
they moved it a little bit. However, when you see all these things you are able to figure out what the visual impact is
going to be including the cut of the road, and the surrounding trees. Staff talked about the current staff’s abilities and
she agrees with him that everybody knows what they are doing. However, not all of the same staff people w ill be
reviewing this in the future. So if they are just relying on photographs it gets a little bit difficult if something does go
wrong to be able to pin point exactly what it was that happened because they are dealing with photographs instead of
base maps.
Jeff Werner, with Piedmont Environmental Council, presented items to the Commission for reference that included
two photographs and site elevations. (Attachment D – Photographs and three Site Elevations) (Attachments on file
with the printed minutes in the office of the clerk) He said the entire point of a tree top tower is there are trees
around the tower and those trees remain after the tower is constructed. He handed out examples of site elevations.
A detailed site plan is currently required to be able to see where the trees are. If necessary, at a later site visit staff
can determine if the trees are in fact still there. He referenced the two photographs in which they can see how
difficult it is to really get a spatial idea from just a photogr aph. He thinks a site visit by the staff does not provide that
information unless, of course, staff is prepared to go out there and generate a detailed sketch plan of the site. Also,
as Ms. Joseph pointed out it also assumes the county has in the budget the money for staff to do such a thing.
Second, on eliminating the Architectural Review Board and deferring to ARB staff he understands in some locations it
would make sense. He thinks on development sections of Route 29 one could see where people would not be
clearing necessarily for a public hearing. However, he thinks in some of the historic districts and scenic byways folks
really rely on the ARB to take care of their interests. Whether it is on Route 29, Route 22 or anywhere , he thinks the
county needs to be extremely cautious when it begins removing opportunities for public input. Again, the whole
deferral to staff assumes there is staff to do this.
Mr. Werner said Albemarle adopted this policy years ago that was based and anchored in one thing, the aesthetics of
this community. That mattered very much to this community. Ever since they adopted that they have heard
repeatedly from the service providers that these regulations are just too costly and they can’t afford to do these
things. He did some research and in the last couple of years of the top five companies who spend the most on
advertising in the United States two of them are AT&T and Verizon. In fact, in 2011 each spent in excess of 2.3
billion dollars in advertising, yet it is too costly for the service providers to produce a detailed and thorough site plan
that shows where the trees are for a tree top tower. He would really ask that they please place the interest of county
residents above the interest of billion dollar corporations.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
10
Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said he wanted to take a few moments tonight to voice
some reservations that they have about the proposed change that would exempt cell towers and base station
equipment from the critical slopes regulations. One of the justifications the staff report offers for this change is that the
county routinely approves and has never denied a request to disturb critical slopes for wireless facilities. However,
that justification overlooks that many applicants have likely intentionally designed their proposals to avoid slopes
precisely because the critical slopes protections are in place. In other words, the ordinance may be encouraging cell
tower applicants to steer clear of critical slopes in the first place, and that is generally a positive thing. It also does
not follow the waiver review process and provides little benefit or value to the county in those cases in which waivers
are ultimately approved. In any case in which a waiver has been approved the app licant has had to convince the
decision maker that the disturbance to critical slopes was justified under the particular circumstances on that site and
the location of the disturbance may even have been changed or adjusted as a result. Also, the process o f review
allowed site specific protections to be attached to the approval to address particular concerns where that was
necessary. Those both provide value to the county as well. Allowing a critical slope to be disturbed and accepting
the risks and damage that come along with that disturbance may well be warranted in some and perhaps even many
cases involving cell towers. But, that does not mean there aren’t good reasons to keep the special exemption
requirement in place. Finally, one last point is the justification was offered tonight that the county recently made cell
towers a by right use on preserved slopes in the development areas. What they would be doing here is just making it
consistent in the rural area. From his reading of the recent changes in volving critical slopes they exempt
communications distribution facilities. The definition of that term specifically excludes personal wireless service
facilities. So he does not think that is a compelling or even a legitimate reason to justify this prop osed change
regarding critical slopes either.
Amy Eichenberger, Senior Project Manager at the University of Virginia said she works on large scale building
projects at the University. She did not have all of the detailed language that a lot of these fol k have or the knowledge
of the history of the detailed information given. However, in the construction world they all know that everybody does
not always get what they want. There are all kinds of constraints including budget constraints and they have to
balance those out. She asked if the Commission has been informed of all the other options that AT&T has in their
back pocket, which she is sure they have many aside from the Key West facility. Typically this is their first preferred
option. She is just talking about process here. Everybody wants this one option, but that option is not feasible. So
what are the other options that might cost a little bit more for AT&T? They can look across where they want to install
this tower and see the new development on Rio Road. They know about Belvedere and Dunlora. She asked how
many feet of additional height do they have in this location versus across the river. What she is hearing is those are
the communities really being served. She has a question about the lo cations because she is guessing there are
several options. However, she does not know if they have been given other options for locations. The other question
is about the equipment options. What she has been told is that these cell towers will be obsole te in a matter of time.
She asked: are there smaller installations and could they do several other smaller installations to provide the kind of
service that they are intending to provide, which they all do benefit from?
Valerie Long said she represents several wireless telecommunications providers and tower company owners. She
wants to acknowledge the robust participation by the representatives and residents of the Key West neighborhood
and pointed out the industry certainly take their comments into consideration. She wanted to remind the Commission,
however, that this zoning text amendment is not about the AT&T proposal in the Key West neighborhood. This is
about proposed revisions to update the zoning ordinance to address all wireless facilities. Certa inly input on how
individual applications from the past have been handled and reviewed are relevant, but she does not want them to
lose focus on the big picture. These proposals have all been brought forth at the direction of the County Board of
Supervisors after literally three years of work sessions, public input and discussion by the Planning Commission, the
Board, representatives of the public industry and the planning staff. These proposals have been recommended by the
planning staff, and supported by the Board in concept subject to the Commission’s review. Representatives of the
industry do support them. Several of them were not even brought forth at our suggestion. They were suggestions
and proposals that staff identified that were logical and reasonable and reduced unnecessary provisions that did not
necessarily benefit the public interest.
Ms. Long asked to clarify a couple of issues on the setback proposal. There is no change to allow ground equipment
to be closer than it is already allowed to be. The setback requirements have always been focused on a one to one
setback requirement for the pole. That is how it has always been intended and interpreted. It was brought to the
county attorney’s attention that technically it said facility, which technically does include the ground equipment. When
it was first brought to our attention, the staff intermediately said this was not how they have intended it to be applied,
it is not how they have applied it in the past, and they intend to fix it and re quest the Board to fix it. So it is really a
technical change that would just restore the original intent of the setback and will continue to require the poles to be
setback on a one to one basis from property lines. Industry is not asking for anything o ther than that. It is just
restoring it to what it has always been the intent.
Ms. Long said with regard to the critical slopes waiver provision the Board has consistently said in many cases some
of the very best towers are due to the visibility perspective. The overall goal of the entire county ordinance and policy
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
11
regarding towers is to minimize visibility. In many cases the towers that you see the least are those that have a
wooded backdrop behind them with either a side of a hill or mountain. In o rder for those sites to work they were
fortunate enough to find those locations. Often times it results in a very small disturbance of critical slopes. So they
would ask the Commission to consider that. She would be happy to answer any specific question they might have
about those issues.
Lori Schweller, with LeClair Ryan representing Verizon Wireless, said she also would like to place this conversation in
the context that most of the Commissioners are familiar with, which is the county has been working o n ordinance
changes for several years. The ones they are considering tonight are not the industry’s wish list. They are just a few
modest changes that put into the ordinance some of the processes that they are already following or policies the
county has always abided by. She wanted to mention specifically concerns about staff and their interpretation of our
applications. She did not think anyone here would ever claim the staff is in the pocket of the industry. They are very
fortunate in Albemarle County to have a staff that are knowledgeable about wireless and keep up to date. They
attend various meetings and really understand the industry. She thinks they are protecting the citizens. She was one
of them and was happy to say they are doing a good job in terpreting the ordinance. These changes are very minor.
When they are talking about the setback change, they are not talking about the monopole or pole. They are only
talking about the ground equipment, which is typically a small brown equipment shed or cabinet that looks similar to a
garden tool shed or an electric cabinet. Those are things that are permitted all over the county without any type of
permit, whereas, in our installations they need to put fencing and landscaping all around the compound. So there is a
significant buffer that would buffer anything within that compound whether it is brown, large or small. She also
wanted to mention, which Ms. Long brought up, the critical slopes issue is a concern only in that often times citing a
monopole to serve an area is best done on the side of a mountain or hill so that they don’t have sky lighting. They
want to have the treed background so they don’t see the brown pole amidst the tree s. So if they can’t build a road to
it, they certainly can’t build a site there. That is going to prevent them from doing some of the common type of
installations that they have seen in the past. Again, thank you very much for considering these. She thinks they are
very modest changes. They do hope the Commission considers them, although they are not in favor of the extra
restriction on the critical slopes in terms of access.
Christopher Welte, a member of Key West, said his point is simple and his concern is more of a holistic view put
before the planning committee. Despite design and whether it is a cell tower, his concern is more why do we feel it is
okay to allow a corporation to put a commercial structure inside of a residentially zoned area regardless of the
residents’ request. If a corporation is allowed to put s omething in a residential area the people of that residential area
should be allowed to act and speak for it.
Preston Lloyd, attorney with Williams Mullen, said he like Ms. Long represents a number of wireless facility providers.
He offered some context to Albemarle County’s experience. They do work with carriers in other jurisdictions. One of
the gentlemen that spoke earlier this evening tried to make some comparisons with other jurisdictions. One of the
things that are unique about Albemarle County’s approach to wireless facilities was the way they codified the policy
that was adopted in 2000. As it has been mentioned, it really focuses on visibility, but specifically it created a carrot
and stick kind of program recognizing that carriers and the count y can work together to find a collaborative solution to
provide this technology.
Mr. Lloyd pointed out it is really important and Congress recognized that in the 1996 Telecommunication Act when it
said localities have all responsibility for siting the facilities for land use because they do that best and it is much better
than the federal government attempting to do that. The federal government will handle the health and safety stuff, but
the locality would deal with the zoning. So Albemarle County, taking that and running with it, said they will work with
the carriers with a carrot and a stick to say if they can give the kind of design that will mitigate visibility, then they wi ll
try to make it as easy as possible to get those approved because that is in the best interest of the community. Then
they came up with the Tier I, Tier II and Tier III division. Currently, Tier II towers can be approved by staff. A lot of
scrutiny goes into that. However, the way they get into the Tier II classification is t hey have to meet certain design
specifications. Those have been discussed at length this evening. The policy that underlies that is visibility. The
reason he goes into this deep background is to talk about the aspect of the critical slopes ordinance that can
somehow run counter to that visibility aspect. As has been mentioned, there are aspects of sky lighting that will
enhance visibility. If they put it on an area that has topographical change, it will enhance what the comprehensive
plan wireless policy describes as camouflage. It gives greater concealment opportunities for the facility. Staff has
really worked to try to bring the critical slopes ordinance more consistently under what the policy describes in the
2000 Wireless Policy that is part of the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Lloyd said just to reference other communities that take a different approach, why does this happen in residential
communities? That is because Albemarle County is unique in that it said they only want treetop towers. They will
only let them build approximately 10’ above the reference tree as it is defined in the ordinance. A lot of the other
jurisdictions that they saw in the slider earlier this evening will allow a 200’ tower. In fact, he just had one approved in
Chesterfield last month that was in a residential zone in their comprehensive plan. That allows a wide coverage of an
extensive amount of residential areas and prevents other smaller towers from being put in greater proximity.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
12
Albemarle County in its wisdom took a different approach, saying they will allow more towers to proliferate but they
really don’t want to see them anywhere. That has been part of what has taken place in some of the towers the
Commission has seen before them. He thanked the Commission for their consideration. He just wanted to offer that
Mr. Randolph asked in Chesterfield was that an existing community or a community in the process of being
developed.
Mr. Lloyd replied it was a community that had been there for over 20 years. They walked door to door with the cell
phone carrier’s representatives alerting them about the tower and at their community meetings. The planning
commission and board never had a single person show up to speak. It is a different circumstance and community.
He just wanted to offer that context since it was brought up earlier this evening.
Mr. Randolph asked topographically is that fairly level land. He asked what the height of the tower proposed was.
Mr. Lloyd replied the land was flat as a pancake. The tower was 198’.
Jessie Wilmer, with Ntelos Wireless in Waynesboro, Virginia, asked to speak on something that has not been brought
up this evening. She appreciates the comments from fellow colleagues in the industry and agreed with them. She
appreciates the zoning text amendment that is before the Commission tonight. She wanted to touch on the topic of
temporary facilities. In cases where they need to install a temporary facility, it is not always the case of an event or
emergency and sometimes it exceeds the limit of the 7 day time limit that was discussed. They are located on
several Rivanna Water Authority tanks. Occasionally the tank has to have maintenance on it where they have to pull
the antennas off and sand blast the tank. Several of those have happened over th e years and had to be off the tank
for several months at a time. On occasions that time period exceeds that 7 day limit to have a temporary site. She
just wanted the opportunity to speak to staff further about that situation which may come up.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the
Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Randolph referred to page 4, #2 in setbacks. He proposed the Planning Commission eliminate the term “or a
letter of consent” because it is not a legal or recordable document. One of the things they talked about this evening is
the certainty that a document go with the land that would apply to future owners and to the financial institutions that
may support the current owner’s ownership of the property so that they are aware there has been an agreement
regarding this setback. He thinks that needs to be something that is recordable that is in there. Second, the
Commission needs to look at using the tree standard versus photographs. Third, he is very uncomfortable with the
by right aspect of critical slopes. Knowing how this body has operated in good faith with the cellular tower industry in
reviewing sensitively and carefully the applications before them he sees no reason for it. He noted that 99% of the
cell tower applications they see that have a critical slope dimension he thinks would be pretty pro forma for us in
approval. However, he would hate to see our ability to provide oversight and protection of critical slopes to be
completely waived by right for the user. Those are things he remains concerned about and he cannot support this
going forward unless those changes are incorporated.
Mr. Fritz suggested the Commission go through staff’s recommendation one by one and state any modifications.
Mr. Morris agreed they would do that, but right now he wanted general discussion.
Mr. Lafferty suggested the Commission go through the discussion points on the front page and if they had a problem
they could discuss them in more detail. If they did not have any problem with it, then they could go ahead and pass
it.
Mr. Fritz replied that each of the eight topics was broken out individually on the slide in the presentation.
Mr. Loach asked Ms. Joseph to come forward for a question regarding the tree information. He had asked the
question at the beginning of the meeting that they used the reference tree for the height of the tower. In the past they
used 50’ around the reference tree and did a survey. But, h e was never quite sure what the survey was for and what
they would be looking at and who would review this on the staff. Would it be someone like Dan Mahone who is a
landscape architect? What is the criterion for the other 50’ that they need to be concerned about.
Ms. Joseph replied that on the Architectural Review Board she looks at the height of the trees and where they are
located so she can visualize how this will sit with the other trees around it. If they have a bunch of 12’ trees and an
80’ reference tree that means there are one pole and one tree standing up there. If they get an idea that these are
various heights and maturities, then they can get an idea of how this is going to sit in that area. They asked for that
initially so they could see that it was in a wooded area, there were more mature trees there, and they could get an
idea of how this tower would relate to its surrounding.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
13
Mr. Loach asked if that has to be as specific a survey as they have done by having additional steps to have all of
those trees codified; or, could someone on the county staff do that job with the level of detail that they have been
doing in the past.
Ms. Joseph replied that it takes trigonometry to figure out how tall those trees are. The surveyor actually goes o ut to
find out the height of those trees. Yesterday at the ARB meeting this item came to the ARB and it took three to four
minutes to look at it. The package is so complete with the information they require at this point in time that it just
goes through. Staff has worked with the applicant to conform to ordinance requirements and they are good to go.
Mr. Loach asked about the issue of biodiversity of the overall site. He asked if what they have been doing is enough
and if that is part and parcel of the survey they have been talking about. The issue has been raised by the public
about the damage to the biodiversity in the site itself.
Ms. Joseph asked if was in the site itself as far as disturbing it.
Mr. Loach replied yes.
Ms. Joseph said one of the things that she thinks they have to remember is in our rural areas they can remove all
kinds of trees and do all kinds of plowing. So she does not know. She was sure it does upset the balance when
these things go out there. But, she thinks they do a pretty good job of requiring protection, which is another critical
slopes issue.
Mr. Keller said that he would like to discuss more of the global piece before they go through all of the specifics. It
seems that there is a bigger issue. He realized the county has a committee that is looking at the digital connectivity.
But, it seems we need to undertake a comprehensive digital connectivity plan for the county. There are areas that we
could connect with hard wire, copper or fiber optic that would mean tha t could preclude some of the towers that they
are in such a hurry to approve. He does not know if the Commission needs to make a recommendation to staff and to
the Supervisors. He knows that the School Board is undertaking a look right now. He knows a nu mber of the
Supervisors are interested in this topic right now.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that is actually going to be the subject of a work session that is being set up. Staff is working to
set up a joint work session between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. That was part of the
conversation that they had back in April. There is a much larger conversation. Some of the comments that were
made about not allowing facilities in residential districts are one of the things to talk about with the Board of
Supervisors. They have set that aside. The broad band issue is a wider ranging conversation and wireless is a
component of that conversation. He is absolutely right and staff is working to bring that to the Commission. He thinks
the County Executive Office is trying to set that up potentially in August.
Mr. Keller suggested that they hold all of this and not forfeit any of the controls that are potentially lost through some
decisions here. They should hold until that more comprehensive d iscussion has occurred.
Mr. Morris said what he heard was to defer or deny the whole thing at this particular time
Mr. Keller suggested deferring until there is this comprehensive discussion and it be put in that larger framework.
Mr. Morris asked if there was support for that notion.
Mr. Loach replied he did not agree. He supported a recommendation for approval of the first one and would go along
with the change. The only thing he would add to the first one is he thinks staff needs to look to see if they might need
to add an additional person to review the site for the trees. It may be the landscape architect on staff.
Mr. Fritz noted that they have a couple architects on staff.
Mr. Loach said he thinks that would suffice as opposed to what they a re doing now, which is an extra step of
documenting all the trees.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Kamptner if they need to take a vote on each one of the eight items.
Mr. Kamptner suggested they could take a consensus vote and then ultimately there would be a vote on the
Commission’s recommendation as a whole identifying what the Commission wants to pass on with its
recommendation of approval or not or to defer.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
14
Mr. Lafferty said looking at the temporary facilities and the need to define it for emergencies that if they do it for 7
days it would be in violation of current practice.
Mr. Morris said he thinks that really needs to be looked at. He would go down each item and ask for a vote from each
Commissioner starting at the modification of substantial requirements of how tree information is submitted.
Mr. Loach replied yes with the change he recommended for review.
Mr. Randolph replied yes with the recommended change consistent with what Ms. Joseph has brought up.
Mr. Keller replied yes.
Mr. Morris said they have consensus on #1. Next, he asked about #2, approve or deny the provision to allow the
requirements of photo simulations.
Mr. Keller said he was still thinking about it.
Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Randolph replied yes
Mr. Morris noted they have 4 yes votes and one maybe. Therefore, #2 would be recommended.
Mr. Morris asked about #3 recommended denial or approval of modification of critical slope regulations to allow the
tower and base station without a special exception.
Mr. Lafferty replied yes.
Mr. Loach said this is a hard one because as was pointed out a lot of the times in order to decrease the visibility they
are dealing with areas where they need a critical slope modification. They have also spent a lot of time over the last
year or so going over the critical modifications and how things are looked at. He thinks the work they have done is
sufficient enough for staff to use that with the performance perimeters to make a decision. Therefore, he would say
yes.
Mr. Morris said he was going to move for denial.
Mr. Randolph voted yes, and Mr. Morris noted it was the same as for denial.
Mr. Keller pointed out he agreed with the industry representative as a landscape architect who has done a lot of
visual evaluations that there are definitely times wh en the tower will show up less if it is placed in the critical slopes.
However, he does not have a problem with there being a need for a special exemption. So he was sort of split both
ways with this.
Mr. Morris pointed out it was for a recommendation of denial since there were 2 for and 2 against and 1 kind of in
between. The next one is approval or denial of critical slope regulation to require access road to require a special
exception.
Mr. Keller replied he would stay with the special exception.
Mr. Randolph and Mr. Morris voted yes.
Mr. Loach replied yes.
Mr. Morris noted that the majority says it stays. The next one he recommends denial of the modifications of the
method of reducing setbacks to include a letter of authorization from the abutt ing owner.
Mr. Lafferty voted yes.
Mr. Loach said he had a bad feeling about this. He had a problem with the language in the staff report. He thought it
almost seemed to circumvent for the reason they stated: the person who might have a mortgage. He wondered if
they are causing a problem legally for that owner by just taking a letter.
Mr. Kamptner said what they found, not necessarily in this context, but even with minor drainage easements when
the county needs a drainage easement and the land is subject to a deed of trust that the deeds of trust often have a
provision that accelerates the obligation of the borrower to pay without getting the lender to subordinate their lien. It is
time consuming and sometimes very difficult to obtain. That is the ge nesis for this. Letters of consent is an idea they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
15
have used for farm stands and also for family day homes. It was used more for farm stands where the abutting
property owner is notified of the application and if they submit a letter of consent, then the application is processed
differently if there is a letter of objection. It is not completely unique to the zoning ordinance. It is a step in a diffe rent
direction.
Mr. Loach said he needs more time to think about it.
Mr. Randolph asked that they go through the others and come back to this one.
Mr. Morris said he was for approval on this one.
Mr. Randolph said he would vote nay.
Mr. Keller said since this is visibility and visual quality he would like them to think more broadly about what are t he
visually abutting neighbors and include more. He realized that is opening a can of worms that would have to be
defined in a smaller way, such as 5 or 10. From issues he has heard discussed both in this county and around the
country often the issues are for visibility where someone is on an adjacent bluff that might be several parcels
removed.
Mr. Randolph asked to add some remarks. The reason he voted nay is really important. His colleague brought out
there is a need for some process of community consultation if located contiguous to an existing residential
community. There is no provision for that in here and there should be some kind of provision for that kind of
community input. It was not a veto necessarily, but to get some input. As residents ar e here tonight that should be
formalized in the process. It is not subject to review, and it should be. That is why he is voting nay in this situation.
Mr. Morris said they have lots of may be, one nay and one yea.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out as a reminder that in the Tier II and Tier III there are notification of all abutting owners. Tier
III’s go through special use permits in addition. So there is notification. This particular provision is for the fall of a
tower onto an adjacent property that is closer than the property line to that tower. So he thinks they are talking about
two different things here. But, they do have the abutting owner requirements for Tier II and Tier III.
Mr. Loach asked if they are the same as developments where the neighbors can call it up to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg replied they cannot call up any site plans to the Planning Commission. Tier II applications are
essentially like site plans.
Mr. Loach said he just wanted to make it clear to everybody that they h ave not had that.
Mr. Lafferty clarified that in no case would a monopole be put up where it could fall on a dwelling.
Mr. Fritz replied it could fall on a dwelling and it can be located on the property within less than the distance of the
height of the structure to the dwelling on the property it is located.
Mr. Loach said they could make a submittal to allow it.
Mr. Fritz agreed, but he would have to get a waiver in order to allow that to occur.
Mr. Morris pointed out the Commission had not reached a decision on that one. He noted the next one was the
approval or denial of specification of allowing base station equipment to be closer to the property line.
Mr. Kamptner noted to put it in context the base station would still be subject to the normal s etbacks that apply within
the zoning district. So in the RA district it would be 6’ for an accessory structure.
Mr. Fritz referred to the photograph that was shown to the Commission by a member of the public. If they say that
tower is 150’ and the base station equipment is located on the opposite side of that tower , then they are talking about
being able to take that base station equipment and flip it around on the other side so it is less than the 150’. That is
what they are talking about with this provision.
Mr. Lafferty said given the information that the base station needs to be as close to the antenna as possible because
of the loss of signal he would say yes.
Mr. Loach said he would say yes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
16
Mr. Morris asked who would move for denial.
Mr. Randolph and Mr. Keller agreed with the denial.
Mr. Morris noted the vast majority say yes. The next question is whether to recommend approval of denial of the
provisions of the temporary facilities.
Mr. Lafferty said they have the problem of the seven days.
Mr. Morris said that really needs to be looked at.
Mr. Fritz replied that staff can look at it.
Mr. Randolph noted he appreciates the representative from Ntelos that let us know what is currently going on
because that enables the Commission make a sounder decision.
Mr. Keller, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Loach and Mr. Randolph all agreed with the recommendation for denial of the provisions
of the temporary facilities.
Mr. Morris pointed out it was 100% to recommend denial of the provisions of the temporary facilities.
Mr. Morris asked if they recommend approval or denial for the removal of the requirement for a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Mr. Keller, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Loach, and Mr. Lafferty agreed with the recommendation for denial for the removal o f
the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Morris noted the consensus was to recommend denial of the removal of the Certificate of Appropriateness. He
said they would get that written up and see what they have.
Mr. Fritz noted he was working on the Commission’s recommended motion.
Mr. Keller asked if they can come up with some terminology for something that could be a consensus on suggesting
that the county staff and Planning Commission be involved in the discussions of some sort of comprehensive review.
Mr. Morris noted it was for the whole digital area. He suggested they add a recommendation under new business
and forward that with the staff report.
Mr. Keller agreed.
Mr. Fritz summarized the Commission’s request. The Commission wanted to have more conversations about the
exemption of the base station equipment from the critical slopes regulations and the method of reduction of approving
a reduction in setback. He asked the Commission to review the recommendations for accuracy.
Mr. Morris invited questions from the Commission.
Mr. Keller asked staff to read through the list.
Mr. Fritz read the list of recommendations, noting staff would link it back to the actual text.
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner had any changes.
Mr. Lafferty said he did not have any changes, but would like to say that although most of the members of the
audience did not get everything they wanted the Commission appreciates them coming here and providing their
interpretations of it. It is really important for it to have community involvement, and he thanks them for it.
Mr. Morris noted it was extremely valuable input across the board. He asked for a motion to accept.
Mr. Fritz noted the Commission can forward with split recommendations on the two they don’t yet have comments on.
Staff will do our best to faithfully present that or they can have further conversations on those two, whichever they
want to do.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
17
Mr. Kamptner said if they send everything on with a motion they will lose the ability to consider the two i ssues that
they still have not resolved. So they may want to think about it some more or defer taking an action until they have
had an opportunity to make a recommendation one way or the other on those two items.
Mr. Keller made a motion to defer action for further consideration.
Mr. Randolph seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Loach said he would rather send what they have with the two or three changes where there was discussion. He
asked can they send them on to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Lafferty asked Mr. Kamptner if he understood correctly if they did that they would not have a chance to discuss
the two.
Mr. Kamptner replied the Planning Commission needs to make a single recommendation. It may be that these two
items that they have not resolved yet may have no recommendation or they can’t make a recommendation for
approval. The Board may end up referring it back to the Commission for further discussion. However, if the
Commission is not ready those are two significant parts of the ordinance and they may want to work through those
before they decide to recommend the whole thing going together.
Mr. Fritz asked Mr. Kamptner if he simply changed it to say on those two to recommend deferral of action on
modifications.
Mr. Kamptner replied that is fine if they want to take those off the table and if they ever come back it would be as a
separate zoning text amendment. That would be another way.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the question would be : do you want to in the deferral recommend the whole packet be deferred
or only those items for which they did not reach a conclusion, which are the two just mentioned? He suggested that
should be specified as part of the deferral.
Mr. Morris pointed out personally he would like to see as much of this go forward to the Board as possible so these
folks are not hanging around all summer waiting for the Board of Supervisors meeting so they can attend that.
However, he would like to pull or defer these two items for future action by the Commission.
Mr. Randolph commented it was not a question necessarily of action, but just further work that needs to be done on
what has surfaced from the input from the speakers this evening and our discussion as Planning Commissioners.
Therefore, he suggests having additional time for staff to rethink some of these, flush them out, and provide more
details and a means by which public participation can be formalized. He thinks it is in the interest of the industry that
be done as well as for the people of the community. However, he has no difficulty voting to move the rest of this
forward with the consideration the Planning Commission has an opportunity to look at those items that they did not
approve for further discussion. He hopes in the process that the representatives from AT&T can meet with the people
in Key West and help fashion a policy that is going to be effective for the community and also in terms of
communication.
Mr. Fritz said additional evaluation is what he has written here. He asked if that is a fair way of saying that.
Mr. Morris replied yes.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out they should just understand that when they take an action and send it on to the Board, the
Board may decide in their discretion to take up those two issues.
Mr. Morris replied that was fine.
Mr. Cilimberg noted right now they have a motion for deferral of something.
Mr. Morris replied that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the Commission needs to specify what they want to defer.
Mr. Keller said he did not want to make that motion. Therefore, he asked to withdraw that motion. The reason for
withdrawal is because they are in late June and are going to have a meeting in August, which is less than two
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 24, 2014
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZTA-2014-00004 WIRELESS PHASE 2
18
months. It does not seem that it is a significant deferral to not be able to talk more globally and put the other
providers in this greater discussion.
Motion: Mr. Loach made a motion to recommend approval of the motions on ZTA-2014-00004 Personal Wireless
Service Phase II made by the Planning Commission as stated by staff with the two deferral items noted.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out those will not be treated as deferral items, but as additional evaluation items that the Board
may decide to act on.
Mr. Loach agreed.
Mr. Kamptner clarified for the record that each of the motion subparts are as reflected on the screen.
Mr. Loach revised the motion to be as reflected by staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they are just saying that they can’t make up their minds so the Board should do it.
Mr. Morris agreed that was absolutely correct.
Mr. Fritz pointed out the way staff would explain it is the Commission thinks that these are deeper conversations and
should be part of a broader context of conversation to come back at a later time. That is the way staff will present it
to the Board.
Mr. Keller agreed that was the way he would like to see it. They have the Comp Plan discussions going on at the
Board of Supervisors’ meetings and there are a lot of things that relate to these issues.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motions passed by a vote of 3:2. (Morris, Lafferty, Loach aye) (Randolph and Keller nay)
Mr. Morris noted that ZTA-2014-00004 Personal Wireless Service Phase II will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with the following recommendation.
Recommend approval of the modification of submittal requirements and how tree information is submitted.
Recommend approval of provision to allow the requirement of photo simulations.
Recommend additional evaluation of modification of the critical slope regulations to allo w the tower and base
station without a special exception.
Recommend approval of modification of the critical slope regulations to require the access road to require a
special exception.
Recommend additional evaluation of modification of method of red ucing setback to include a letter of
authorization from the abutting owner.
Recommend approval of modification of allowing base station equipment to be closer to the property line.
Recommend approval of provisions for temporary facilities with modifications to the time limit.
Recommend denial of removal of requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Fritz noted tentatively ZTA-2014-00004 Personal Wireless Service Phase II was scheduled for the afternoon of
August 6. He has an email distribution list that he has used to let people know, which he would use as soon as the
meeting date is confirmed. If anyone wants to send their email to him at bfritz@albemarle.org he would add them to
the list.
The meeting recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:04 p.m.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 2, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Bruce
Dotson, Tim Keller, and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects; Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner;
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:53 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:01 pm.
ZTA-2014-00004 Wireless Phase 2 –
This work session is to further discuss proposed amendment of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the
requirement that Personal Wireless Service Facilities obtain a Certificate of Appropriatenes s from the
Architectural Review Board. The Board of Supervisors has asked for clarification of the Planning
Commission’s previous recommendation to retain the requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
(Bill Fritz)
Bill Fritz presented a PowerPoint Presentation on ZTA 2014-04, Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Phase 2 to summarize and explain the changes in the proposed ordinance, as follows .
Modification of submittal requirements and how tree information is submitted.
- The Planning Commission recommended approval of the tree information and the Board of
Supervisors requested that staff provide alternative standards and bring them back to the B oard.
The Board was not comfortable with staff later developing the standard.
Provision to allow the requirement of photo simulations.
- The Planning Commission recommended approval of photo sim ulations and the Board of
Supervisors supported this change.
Modification of the applicability of critical slope regulations: Allow the tower to be on
critical slopes without needing a waiver or modification , and applying critical slopes
provisions to the access road.
- The Planning Commission recommended evaluation of the critical slopes provisions for the tower.
The Board of Supervisors discussed it and declined to pursue this amendment.
- The Planning Commission recommended approval of applying critical slopes provisions to the
access road. Currently the road is exempt. The Board of Supervisors supported this change.
Modification of the methods of determining setback.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – DECEMBER 2, 2014
Partial Minutes ZTA-2014-00004 Wireless Phase II – Submit to BOS
2
- The Planning Commission recommended more evaluation of the methods to reduce the setback
for the tower. There was some discussion about getting a letter of authorization. The Board of
Supervisors will not pursue this amendment.
- The Planning Commission recommended approval of the modification for location of the base
station equipment to allow it to be closer than the height of the tower . The Board of Supervisors
will not pursue this amendment.
Inclusion of provisions for temporary facilities.
- The Planning Commission recommended approval of temporary facilities and the Board of
Supervisors supported this change.
Removal of the requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
- The Planning Commission recommended denial. The Board of Supervisors has requested
additional comment from the Planning Commission. There was not a lot of discussion and the
Board wanted some more understanding of where the Planning Commission is coming from.
- The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the ARB to establish criteria for a County Wide
Certificate of Appropriateness.
- On November 17 the ARB endorsed amending the proposed amendment to eliminate the need
for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
With the direction of the Board of Supervisors staff went back to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to
basically start over again. Staff brought this issue before the ARB for their comments and is now bringing
this to the Planning Commission. During the ARB’s review they were concerned about how that tree
information would be provided on the application. That was important to them in their determination of
whether or not a certificate of appropriateness should be required. Staff developed language that
satisfied the ARB’s concern, which staff think s will also address the Board’s concern. The ARB
supported the proposed amendment to eliminate the need for a certificate of appropriateness. It is
important to clarify that removal of the need for a certificate of appropriateness does not mean the ARB
staff will be removed from the review process. The ARB will continue to be part of the review process and
impacts on the entrance corridor will still be evaluated by staff.
In essence what this does is the applicant only has to provide height informatio n for those trees that the
height is relevant for the ones used for the reference tree and the ones to provide screening. Otherwise,
they just have to provide the location and caliper.
Proposed submittal requirement:
(f) Trees. The height, caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located within fifty (50)
feet of the facility. The height, caliper and species of any tree that the applicant is relying on to
provide that are relied upon to establish the proposed height or screening, or both, o f the
monopole or tower. The height, caliper and species of the reference tree. The caliper and
species of aAll trees that will be adversely impacted or removed during installation or
maintenance of the facility shall be noted, regardless of their distanc es to the facility.
Discussion:
With the additional ordinance language and recommendation by the ARB can the Commission
support the proposed amendment to eliminate the need for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
If the Commission cannot support the proposed amendment to eliminate the need for a Certificate
of Appropriateness they should provide comments on why they do not.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – DECEMBER 2, 2014
Partial Minutes ZTA-2014-00004 Wireless Phase II – Submit to BOS
3
Mr. Randolph commended staff for going back to the ARB and letting them do their due diligence on this
issue. He thinks it is a stronger recommendation now as a result of that. Certainly what the ARB has
recommended in terms of changes on the tree section seems to be appropriate. Therefore, he does not
have any difficulty now going along with the certificate of appropriateness as indicated here.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the work session for public comment.
Valerie Long, representative for several clients in the wireless industry, asked staff to put the new text
back up on the screen. Having discussed this language with Mr. Fritz previously she had one comment.
She thought generally the concept is helpful as discussed during the Board of Supervisors work session
about what the county should require in terms of submittal from the applicants. She thinks staff originally
proposed saying they don’t need to show any tree other than the reference tree. Some Board members
were nervous about that to mean that more was necessary. Afterwards she talked to Mr. Fr itz who was
very receptive to our input in terms of their comment that actually they don’t mind showing additional tree
locations and heights. They do not want to have to show the height of every single tree because the
surveying process is time consuming and expensive. However, it does help them to identify the heights
of certain trees which will be relied on for screening. Therefore, she thought this language was very
helpful since it helps both staff and the applicants to have the zoning drawings showing where the trees
are and the heights of the most important trees. However, her only hesitation and concern is with the last
sentence which requires the caliper and species of all trees that are being removed to be shown
regardless of how far away they are from the facility. She did not think that was the intent. However, what
she thinks that would ultimately mean is, for example, that in some circumstances if there is not an
existing access road they have to create an access road. They have to clear trees to create an access
road and some of the best sites are those that are located within dense woods. Sometimes they get the
benefit of an old logging road that makes an access road. Sometimes they have to make a new access
road, which requires tree removal. What they don’t want to have to do is pay a surveyor to go out and
identify the caliper and species of every single tree along a one-half mile access road that they might
have to build. What they would like to be able to do is just identify the boundaries of the access road,
which is already a requirement, and just note trees within this area to be removed. Sometimes the tree
removal goes a little bit beyond it. They might have a 12’ access road, but a 20’ easement. So they are
saying they will show the area where the trees are coming out, but they would ask that it be clear that
they don’t have to specifically identify the location of each and every tree that are within that new access
road. She did not think that was the intent. If it was, they would have concerns about it. However, she
thinks that just some clarifying language would be helpful. Otherwise, they support this and would be
happy to talk about the ARB issues specifically if they are interested.
Mr. Morris invited questions for Ms. Long.
Ms. Firehock pointed out since she was not involved with the original conversations she could not reflect
on what the Commission thought before or why this is the way that it is. She sympathized with Ms. Long’s
desire not to survey every single tree’s height and caliper along the roadway and suggested just
specifying the area of canopy to be removed. They could do percent canopy. Since they have one meter
resolution imagery available for the county it is fairly easy to say the amount of canopy that will be
removed within the disturbance area is 30 percent. So they would not be identifying trees, but just
identifying the area of canopy to be removed.
Ms. Long agreed that might work. She pointed out right now on all our zoning plans they have a survey
and what essentially is a site plan showing the lease area with the location of the tower, reference tree
and access road. She proposed they could have a little note saying any trees within the proposed access
road to be removed. That way it is clear in disclosing.
Ms. Firehock said it was 100 percent of the trees within this zone are removed.
Ms. Long pointed out for an access road they must have clearance to get through. She noted a lot of it is
for the initial construction. The maintenance vehicles come on average about once a month. They
usually use a small vehicle like a pickup truck. However, the initial construction of the site does require
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – DECEMBER 2, 2014
Partial Minutes ZTA-2014-00004 Wireless Phase II – Submit to BOS
4
heavy equipment and that is why it has got to be almost a road to get in there in order to actually
construct the site. If there are trees in the way it makes it hard. If those trees are far away from the
facility they are not being relied upon for screening of the facility. The reason to identify the species,
caliper and in some cases height of the trees is so that in the future people can look at the plan and say
okay there was suppose to be four trees right here that were going to help screen this pole and now there
are only two and somebody has done something wrong. That was essentially the context of the Board.
Ms. Firehock said she understands the intent. They want to know the species because some trees are
short lived, some trees get diseases and die and some trees are not good for screening. She would be
supportive of Ms. Long’s request to not have to identify all of the trees that would be within the road. The
language is somewhat broad in terms of saying adversely impacted. Therefore, she was not sure to what
area was for that. She understands the road, but she does not know what else would be impacted.
Ms. Long pointed out she was going to say something like you only have to identify the trees that are to
be removed if they are within 50 feet of the facility. She thought that would probably be okay.
Mr. Randolph asked to provide some language to try to address this problem . He suggested saying that
the caliper and species of all trees immediately adjacent to the proposed tower, power shed and its
intermediate surroundings which will be adversely impacted or removed during installation or
maintenance of the facility should be noted regardless of their distances to the facility. He was concerned
that once they put a distance on there they are going to have a situation where because of the slope or
something that the distance is not going to be easy to implement. He was trying to keep it broad.
However, in the spirit of understanding Ms. Long’s point he does not think the ARB meant that this would
be so broadly applied that it would also govern from the road going in. As was pointed out they
recognize that in some cases it could be a very lengthy windy road. He thinks what Ms. Long is getting at
is they should only identify those trees intermediately where the construction will be done for the
operating facility, the tower, the power shed and any other ancillary structures that goes in. He asked if
that was her intent.
Ms. Long replied that it is, although she should clarify one other thing that maybe would even take this
broader. There is also a provision in the ordinance that in essence says landowners nor wireless carriers
restrict the ability to remove any trees within 200’ of the facility.
Mr. Fritz pointed out there were some important things that he thinks are being missed here, and to touch
on this it is 200’ from the tower. The facility is an important distinction because when they started
developing the Wireless Policy they view these as facilities from the entrance off the public street to the
top of the lightning rod. That is how staff reviews them. The tower may be perfectly sited, but if the
access road is going to be adverse that is part of the facility and staff reviews that. It is important to note
that the last sentence currently reads, “All towers that will be adversely impacted or removed during
installation or maintenance of the facility shall be noted regardless of their distance to the facility.” The
only new language there was intended to say how you show those and it is the caliper and species. Right
now you have to show them all. That is not new language. The only part that is new is the method by
which you show them, which is the caliper and species. He suggested what they could do is simply say
remove the caliper and species and simply leave it the way it is where it says all. The Board did not
express any interest in lowering the level of information that is received about the trees that are going to
be removed. The Board was more concerned about how the information was going to be shown as to
what trees were actually on the site. There was no conversation about that last sentence. That was
something staff added to try to clarify. Staff would not have a problem and he did not think it affects the
ARB either if that last addition the caliper and species of all is removed. They could simply keep the last
sentence the way it currently reads.
Mr. Loach said he thought Mr. Fritz clarified it. However, when they identify a road and if that is a
negative it is usually not because of the trees they are removing . It is usually because of the topography
and other reasons that the road becomes problematic.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – DECEMBER 2, 2014
Partial Minutes ZTA-2014-00004 Wireless Phase II – Submit to BOS
5
Mr. Fritz pointed out they have had someone in particular many years ago where one of the factors that
they cited for denial was the visual impact created by the access road. It was going to have to b e a
winding road with switchbacks going up a mountain, and because of the clearing it was going to be highly
visible along with the tower itself.
Mr. Loach noted that it was not because of the caliper or the species.
Mr. Fritz agreed because it was just the area that was being cleared.
Ms. Firehock pointed out that was a helpful question. She was wondering at what point the caliper and
species would lead to the denial of something.
Mr. Fritz replied that staff could find that out just by visiting the site. Removing that last sentence was
simply trying to clarify how the information is submitted. By removing it and leaving it to say all trees does
not add or remove any problems with this.
Ms. Firehock said, for example, if there was a champion Beech tree they would still look at that or they
would not know now.
Mr. Fritz pointed out staff goes out and field visits every single site. Staff still is of the opinion that this
information is more than what staff needs to adequately review the site.
Mr. Dotson asked Ms. Long if her concerns have been satisfied if the existing language was used.
Ms. Long replied that first she would apologize because Mr. Fritz was exactly right. That last sentence is
in the existing ordinance and she was not thinking about that. She was just thinking about the fact that
they have had this in several cases where they have had to spend an inordinate amount of money on 5 to
10 extra hours of surveyor time to identify trees to be removed from a road. As Mr. Fritz said it was not
really necessary for the review. So they were hoping they could avoid that. However, he is correct in that
request is beyond the scope of what the Board really was getting into. Therefore, she would retract that
request. However, she would ask that they keep that in mind in terms of maybe they could provide
comment to the Board about whether they think a change like that would be appropriate for them to
consider. That would be helpful. However, Mr. Fritz is absolutely correct that the context of the issue was
about how much information really needs to be included on these plans. Staff’s point was they don’t rely
only on what is on the picture to know whether this a good site or not since staff goes out and looks at it.
Sometimes there is a tree that maybe on paper does not look that important, but when they go out to the
site they realize that one tree is critical. Sometimes it is the opposite. They m ight have a big tree, but
they realize because of vantage points, relative location of tree to roads and other things that it isn’t as
important. There is never any substitute for viewing it in person. However, what is important was the
ability for identification purposes almost more as a record of knowing what did the applicant tell us was
going to be there at the end of the day after the site was built. They said there was going to be five trees
at X height and X species and zoning inspectors and others want to know when they go out there later
that those five trees are still there if they were promised. If they are not, then there is a problem. That
was our same point, too, that they actually rely on that same information for the same reasons. They
want to be able to hold contractors accountable. When they tell them not touch these protecte d trees
they use these plans with contractors as well. So it was not a burden on us to show that information.
However, it just made her realize that trees in the road were another issue. Again, she would pull back
on that issue because she thinks that does get beyond the scope of tonight’s meeting. She apologized
for the confusion, but appreciates the opportunity to have the discussion.
Mr. Fritz asked what the consensus of the Planning Commission was for the proposal. The question is
does the Commission support the proposed amendment to eliminate the need for a certificate of
appropriateness.
The Commission’s consensus was to support the proposed amendment to eliminate the need for a
certificate of appropriateness as recommended by staff .
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – DECEMBER 2, 2014
Partial Minutes ZTA-2014-00004 Wireless Phase II – Submit to BOS
6
Mr. Fritz noted that staff would so inform the Board of Supervisors.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Work Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board direction on priorities for the FY 16
Community Development Department Work Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
McCulley, Brooks
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
Feb 11, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Community Development Department (CDD) annually reviews its past year’s work accomplishments and seeks Board
direction on priorities for its upcoming annual work program. This was last done in February 2014 when the CY 2013 CDD
work program was reviewed and the CY 2014 work program discussed. A copy of that executive summary is provided as
Attachment A. The work program review assures CDD’s efforts are consistent with the Board’s priorities. The program
includes a four year schedule to accommodate initiatives that will require more than one year to complete or that must be
delayed, usually due to resource limitations. Unlike prior years, staff is not requesting Board endorsement of a work
program at this tim e, but is requesting Board direction on the prioritization of efforts outside of the Comprehensive Plan.
Those priorities will then be combined with priorities established as part of the Board’s review of the Comprehensive Plan
over the next couple of months. The goal is to combine direction provided by the Board at this meeting with the
Comprehensive Plan priorities and return to the Board in May for endorsement of the FY16 work program.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Development Areas: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development areas by
providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting the quality of
neighborhoods.
Rural Areas: Preserve the character of rural life with thriving farms and forests, traditional crossroads communities, and
protected scenic areas, historic sites, and biodiversity.
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both the
rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.
DISCUSSION:
Staff is following the same process to develop this work program as used in prior years. This starts with a review of
development trends and 2014 work program progress, and is followed by outlining possible priorities for the FY16 thru
FY19 period. Development trends are used to determine how much staff time will likely be available for the work program,
recognizing that most development applications are given priority in order to maintain compliance with mandates. That is
followed by looking at the progress made on the prior year’s work program and items that m ay need to be carried forward.
Finally, this information is combined with newly identified issues, and the work program is drafted based on the projected
available resources.
2014 Development Activity
Staff has expanded the development activity review to include the period of 2005-2014 at the request of the Planning
Commission in order to compare pre-recession workload with current trends. While the workload in some areas continues
to be much lower than the pre-recession levels, staff cautions that CDD had 22 more positions in 2007, and the workload
for site plans and subdivisions was so high from 2004 to 2007 that CDD was experiencing a 25% - 30% annual turnover in
the positions responsible for reviewing those applications. Generally, the workload for immediate development continues
to be strong and the workload for future development appears relatively weak by comparison. The market appears to be
continuing to focus on using existing inventory rather than creating new inventory. Based on this, CDD anticipates being
able to dedicate the staff time of 2 to 3 FTEs for the work program in FY16.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program
February 11, 2015
Page 2
2014 Work Program
A copy of the 2014 Work Program is provided as Attachment C. Among the items successfully completed are the VSMP
(stormwater) program, a steep slopes ordinance, and a flood hazard overlay ordinance. Zoning text amendments for farm
breweries, events and activities at agricultural operations, and offsite signs were also adopted, but outside of the work
program. It is also noted that Phase 2a of the changes to the wireless regulations will be presented to the Board for
adoption at the February 11, 2015 public hearing, and that the cash proffer policy has been reviewed by the Board and is
now under consideration by the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC).
As often happens, the priorities changed in 2014 as the Board identified emerging issues of higher importance. These new
priorities included the state mandated farm brewery legislation, as well as Board initiatives for solid waste and the Route
29 Solutions, all of which diverted staff resources. The Board also expanded the review of the Comprehensive Plan
beyond what was anticipated in the 2014 work program , which was offset by delaying work on Comprehensive Plan
strategies. To accommodate the emerging priorities, staff diverted resources from other work program initiatives. These
included the Pantops Master Plan update and application fee updates for the Building, Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances, which are included in the following FY16 work program recommendations.
FY16 Work Program
Staff has identified the following initiatives to consider in carrying forward with the work program.
Cash Proffer Policy – The Board has assigned this task to the FIAC, and staff is providing support. At this time, it is
not possible to estimate the magnitude of this effort, but it has been approximated at one-quarter FTE for FY 16.
Wireless Policy and Standards – The FCC recently issued its final rules pertaining to collocations and timely review,
and this will require an extensive staff effort to address. This has been estimated at one-quarter FTE for FY 16.
Artist’s Communities – This was a new 2014 initiative, and staff is currently reviewing this with the Planning
Commission, as directed by the Board. Staff believes this can be completed prior to the start of FY16 and not affect
this work program , but that depends on the Comprehensive Plan direction by the Board.
Application Fees (Building, Subdivision, Zoning) – Staff anticipates presenting an approach to the Board for its
consideration in March. If acceptable, staff believes this can also be completed prior to the start of FY16 and avoid
impacting this work program.
Next, staff notes initiatives that have been discussed but remain resource constrained.
Natural Heritage Committee Support - The committee has requested one-quarter FTE for FY16, and this request is
anticipated to continue into future years. The primary focus is to complete data layers to allow a better understanding
of impacts occurring in the Rural Areas from land disturbances. If this is funded as a new position for FY16, it does
not compete with other initiatives. Otherwise, it would need to be prioritized against other efforts.
Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines - The Architectural Review Board has expressed interest in updating the design
guidelines to better mesh with the Neighborhood Model and corridor specific standards. This effort is desired by both
applicants and staff as a way to clarify guidelines and could be done as part of a master plan update or small area
plan. This is estimated to require one-quarter to one-half FTE for a year with one corridor.
Zoning Ordinance Updates – This includes a number of smaller initiatives, including Neighborhood Model setback
standards, outdoor display standards, parking garage standards, and drive-thru standards. If completed, these
changes will save both applicants and staff time in the long-term by clarifying standards, but would likely require one-
quarter FTE over the next two years.
Zoning Ordinance Re-Codification – This effort will reorganize the ordinance, update and standardize terminology,
and improve overall consistency in style. While a “housekeeping” type of effort, it is a major effort that will greatly
improve the ordinance, making it much easier for applicants and the public to use and for staff to administer. It is
estimated this would likely require one-quarter FTE for a year.
Added to the above, staff has noted the following Comprehensive Plan initiatives that have already been discussed Staff
is not asking for a prioritization of these initiatives at this time, but anticipates them as part of the larger Comprehensive
Plan decisions by the Board regarding implementation strategies.
Pantops Master Plan update - As elements of the Comprehensive Plan, master plans should be reviewed every five
years. As identified in the 2014 work program, the Pantops plan was due its five year review in 2013. This work is
estimated to require one FTE for a minimum of one year if this includes a Rivanna River Corridor Plan, which has
been a recommended priority of the Planning Commission. More time and resources will be needed if an expanded
community engagement plan is used.
Rivanna Master Plan update – Similar to the Pantops Plan, this master plan is due for its five year review starting in
2015. This work is anticipated to require one-half FTE for a minimum of nine months.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program
February 11, 2015
Page 3
Crozet Master Plan update – The second update for this plan is due in 2016. This could possibly include a small area
plan for downtown Crozet. This work is anticipated to require one-half FTE for a minimum of nine months.
Places 29 Master Plan update – This master plan is due for its five year review starting in 2016. A small area plan,
which is a strategy in Places 29, could be combined with this update. This work is estimated to require one-half FTE
for a minimum of one year, but could see efficiencies if combined with the small area plan discussed below.
Rio Road / Route 29 Small Area Plan – This is a strategy in Places 29 in which the Board has expressed an interest,
given that VDOT’s Route 29 Solutions is currently being implemented. This effort is anticipated to require $120,000
for consultant support and one FTE for two years. This cost estimate assumes no additional traffic analysis will be
required and a typical community engagement plan will be used.
Staff recommends carrying forward the cash proffer policy and wireless policy as priorities in FY16. Among the other
initiatives, staff believes the entrance corridor guidelines and zoning ordinance recodification will greatly benefit the County.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This work program will be based on available resources, with the exception of priorities established for implementing
the Comprehensive Plan. Those Comprehensive Plan strategies are anticipated to be prioritized by the Board over the
next couple of months. For example, staff has already prepared a CIP request for $120,000 to fund a Rio Road/
Route 29 small area plan that will be considered with other Comprehensive Plan strategies.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This matter is being presented for discussion during the work session portion of the meeting. Following the discussion,
staff will be seeking guidance from the Board and so requests that the Board review the information provided, identify any
other initiatives the Board wishes to be included in the work program, and prioritize its interest in the initiatives. Staff
anticipates the same will occur with the strategies in the Comprehensive Plan. The two lists of priorities will then be
combined and presented to the Board later this Spring for consideration and adoption of a FY16 work program.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – 2014 Community Development Work Program Executive Summary
B – 2014 Development Activity
C – 2014 Work Program
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Work Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Annual review of Community Development Department’s
priorities with Board of Supervisors
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
McCulley, Brooks, and Fritz
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 5, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Each year, the Community Development Department provides the Board and public with a summary of major projects,
progress on initiatives and achievements, as well as an overview of workload measures and a synopsis of proposed
projects to be undertaken by the Department over the following 12 to 18 months. The purpose of this agenda item is
to review the Community Development Department’s activities of the past year and request the Board’s direction on
priorities for 2014. On February 6, 2013, the Board approved the priorities for the 2013 work program. A copy of the
2013 work program is provided as Attachment A.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 7: Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service.
DISCUSSION:
2013 Development Activity
Staff typically provides a five year history of the department workload as part of this report. This year, staff has
extended this history to six years, as this allows the new Board members to compare current workloads to 2008, which
was the last year before the recession. The departmental workload measures provided as Attachment B illustrate the
degree to which development activity has increased over the time period relative to staffing resources available. It is
notable that during this period of increased activity, the Community Development Department has continued to
improve in reaching established goals with key performance measures while maintaining staffing levels. This trend
suggests several important contributing factors including staff’s focus on providing excellent customer service, an
overall attention to process improvements and efficiency, and extensive relevant work experience among staff
members. Clearly, the County’s ability to recruit and retain highly qualified staff has been critical to the department’s
productivity success. Nevertheless, it must be noted that as development activity continues its upward trend, the
corresponding increased workload will continue to limit staff time available for work program priorities going forward.
2013 Work Program
The 2013 Community Development work program was established in February 2013 with the following priorities:
1. Comprehensive Plan Update – The Planning Commission completed its work in August 2013 and a
draft was presented to the Board in September 2013.
2. Stormwater Management – State mandated program changes were endorsed by the Board in January
2014. Staff anticipates adoption of these changes in the second quarter of 2014, with implementation
on July 1, 2014.
3. Economic Vitality Action Plan –
a. Industrial Uses Phase 3 – The Zoning Text Amendment was approved by the Board in April
2013.
b. Industrial Uses Phase 4 – Potential land use changes will be based on the updated
Comprehensive Plan,
c. Ministerial Process Changes – The Subdivision Text Amendment was approved by the Board
in December 2013.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program
February 5, 2014
Page 2
d. Legislative Process Changes – The Zoning Text Amendment was adopted by the Board in
2012 and became effective April 1, 2013.
4. Steep Slopes – The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Zoning and Subdivision Text
Amendments on January 28, 2014 and anticipates the Board will hold a public hearing in March 2014.
5. Wireless Policy and Ordinance Changes – The study has been completed. Phase 1 of the changes
was adopted by the Board in May 2013. Phase 2 has been delayed and is being proposed as part of
the 2014 work program with some modifications.
6. Inoperable Motor Vehicles – The Zoning Text Amendment and Amendment to Chapter 9 of the
County Code were approved by the Board in November 2013.
7. Noise Regulations – The Zoning Text Amendment and Amendment to Chapter 7 of the County Code
were adopted by the Board in September 2013.
8. Rural Areas Churches / Rural Area Uses – The priority and schedule for this Zoning Text Amendment
has been deferred for consideration as part of the Comprehensive Plan implementation.
9. Zoning Ordinance Recodification – This was a major task which was recommended for 2013. It has
been deferred due to limited staff availability.
10. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Design Guidelines Update – This was deferred due to limited staff
availability.
11. Natural Heritage Committee Modeling – The Committee requested modeling; however, there is limited
staff and funding available.
12. Neighborhood Model Amendments – The implementation of Neighborhood Model into the Zoning
Ordinance has been deferred due to limited staff availability.
Three additional ordinance amendments were considered by the Board:
1. Dam Break Inundation Zones – State-mandated Zoning and Subdivision Text Amendments establishing
procedures and standards for proposed development dam break inundation zones were adopted by the Board
in December 2013.
2. Family Day Homes – A Zoning Text Amendment to have County regulations more closely match State
licensing for family day homes, while simplifying application processes, was adopted by the Board in
September 2013.
3. Downtown Crozet District – A Zoning Text Amendment to expand residential development opportunities in
downtown Crozet was adopted by the Board in December 2013.
2014 Work Program
Community Development’s work program for policy-related matters is typically driven by two factors. First, staff
resources are allocated to code enforcement and other mandated requirements. Once the resource needs of those
core functions are met, work program priorities are staffed and addressed based on remaining resources. Second, the
amount of public participation affects resource demands and capacity to undertake projects and initiatives. Public
participation is essential for quality products and public trust, but it is also time consuming and resource intensive.
Staff attempts to designate the amount of public participation based on the nature of the initiative, with a more
extensive process used for potentially controversial decisions.
Staff’s recommended 2014 Work Program is provided as Attachment C. In drafting the proposed work program, staff
has prioritized initiatives based on: 1) mandates, 2) existing County policy, 3) ongoing efforts, and 4) Board direction
on new initiatives. Staff’s prioritization reflects previous Board input and ongoing priorities that it had previously
established and is more fully described below:
1. Comprehensive Plan Update – Staff anticipates the Board will act on the update by July 2014.
Recognizing the large number of strategies in the Comprehensive Plan and anticipating that the Board
will be interested in immediately starting work on implementing some of the strategies, staff has set a
placeholder for half of the anticipated resources for these strategies in the second half of 2014. This
is in addition to staff resources that will be required in the first half of 2014 as part of the Board’s
consideration. Previous year priorities for Economic Vitality and Rural Area uses are anticipated to be
prioritized with the other strategies.
2. Stormwater Management – Staff anticipates the updated Water Protection Ordinance will be
presented to the Board to consider for adoption in April or May. Additional staff work for public
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program
February 5, 2014
Page 3
engagement in advance of this is included. Implementation will require significant engineering
management time as new staff are hired and trained.
3. Steep Slopes – This is a carryover from 2013. Staff anticipates these text amendments will be
presented to the Board to consider for adoption in March 2014.
4. Wireless Policy and Ordinance Changes – Part 2 is a carryover from 2013. Staff is recommending
dividing the remaining work into two parts (2A and 2B) and deferring proceeding with Part 2B until a
pending FCC rulemaking regarding the deployment of wireless facilities is completed. Staff
recommends moving forward with Part 2A for certain issues not expected to be affected by the FCC
action. Part 2B, for the remaining issues, would then proceed when the FCC’s regulatory changes are
known.
5. Flood Hazard Overlay District – Mandated update to the County’s regulations in order for property to
be able to continue to be covered under the National Flood Insurance Program.
6. Cash Proffer Policy – The Cash Proffer Policy is part of the Comprehensive Plan. In fall 2013, the
Board indicated its preference for separating this issue from the rest of the Comprehensive Plan
update and accelerating its review as a separate priority. If the Board wishes to consider the cash
proffer policy as a separate priority, staff anticipates it will not be completed before the Board acts on
the Comprehensive Plan update and may require diverting resources from other efforts. As a
separate process, the Board would adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan and
refer the matter to the Commission. Regardless, a public input process (through the Commission
and/or roundtables) is considered important to the results of the process and will necessarily require
additional time to finalize the policy. Alternatively, if the Board prefers to keep the cash proffer policy
consideration as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, staff recommends that we focus resources
in the near term on initiating and completing three relatively minor text amendments making relatively
small and simple process improvements that could be enacted by the Board prior to July 1st. These
process improvements are related to drive-thru windows, parking garages, and outdoor display
regulations. It should be noted that these uses have a well established set of conditions which can be
codified, and the uses would still be subject to review by the ARB along Entrance Corridors, assuring
design issues can be considered by the ARB.
Resource Limited Initiatives – The following are proposed initiatives to be added to the work program as time is
available.
1. Zoning Ordinance Recodification
2. ARB Design Guidelines Update
3. Natural Heritage Committee Modeling
4. Neighborhood Model Amendments
5. Building and Subdivision Fees – Biennial review of fees was established by policy with prior fee changes and a
review of these fees is overdue under that policy. A separate review of the Cash Proffer Policy will delay this
review.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The work program is intended to rely on available staff resources. With the exception of additional public hearing
costs, no budget impact is anticipated. This analysis does not consider any “soft” costs (e.g., public confidence in
County processes). .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board review the proposed 2014 Work Program (Attachment C) and concur with its
prioritization or identify desired changes. Staff also requests the Board indicate whether there is interest in a separate
priority for the Cash Proffer Policy at this time or prefer to consider this as part of the Comprehensive Plan update.
ATTACHMENTS
A-2013 Work Program
B-2013 Community Development Workload Measures
C-Proposed 2014 Work Program Priorities
2014 Development Activity Attachment B
In 2014, CDD added 3 ½ FTEs in response to new VSMP mandate and 1 FTE Building Inspector in response to increased
workload. The Board added a Transportation Planner position in January 2015.
In 2014, staff saw the number of permits slightly decrease, but still at a pre-recession levels. While the 4th quarter construction costs
is not yet confirmed, the total from the prior three quarters and estimate of 4 th quarter indicates a significant uptick in the value of
construction. Combined the need for the additional building inspector has been justified.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Number of FTEs Year
Community Development Staffing
Administration
GDS
Intake
Zoning
Building
Planning
Engineering
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2900
3100
3300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Extimated Construction Costs $ Millions # of Applications Received Calendar Year
Building Permit Applications
Construction $
Millions
# Building Permits
2014 Development Activity Attachment B
Workload did not actually decrease in 2014, but workload forced a new direction that quickly eliminates those complaints that are
not enforcement issues. With respect to staff, it is not ed the workload continues to trend up. Addressing this need is CDD’s highest
staffing priority.
Staff saw a decrease in the number of applications received in 2014, but the level is still near pre -recession levels. Workload
continues to challenge staff capacity.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*
0
50
100
150
200
250
300 Zoning Violations: Total and Per Compiance
Officer
Zoning Violations Zoning Vios - CCOs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # of Applications Received Calendar Year
ARB Applications
2014 Development Activity Attachment B
The number of site plan applications reversed a five year downward trend, but continues to provide some capacity for the work
program.
The number of plats and number of lots created continues a three year upward trend, noting the numb er of applications has
increased by almost 50% over the last three years with no increase in staff resources. This increase is being handled with c apacity
not used for site plans.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # of Applications Received Calendar Year
Site Plan Applications
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # of Applications Received Calendar Year
Subdivision Plat Applications
2014 Development Activity Attachment B
Rezoning applications appear to remain relatively low as the market continues to absorb inventory zoned prior to the recession or
utilized existing zoning. This continues to be one of the most difficult measures to predict but an uptick is expected in the next
couple of years as remaining inventory shrinks.
The number of special use permits continued to trend downward, but proves difficult to predict. Wireless facilities and churc hes are
the largest group of applicants. Recent streamlining of wireless applications appears to have resulted in less need for a special use
permit. (note: In January 2015, CDD received 10 applications, roughly ½ of 2014 application, suggesting 2015 will see a si gnificant
increase)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # of Applications Received Calendar Year
Rezoning Applications
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # of Applications Received Calendar Year
Special Use Permit Applications
2014 Development Activity Attachment B
The number of applications continues to be very strong, continuing to match pre -recession levels. The 2014 adoption of the VSMP
requirements has roughly double the work required per application, indicating the additional staff was critical to the launch of this
complex new program.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Applications Year
Water Protection Applications
2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM - Proposed February 2014 Attachment C
STATUS 2014 2015 2016 201&
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Comp Plan
Comp Plan Update Board Consideration
Placeholder for Implementation
Proffer Policy (if not w/ Comp Plan update) *
Master Plans
Places 29 5 year Update Adopted in 2011, update in 2016
Rivanna - 5 year Update Adopted in 2010, update in 2015
Crozet Update Updated in 2011, next in 2016
Pantops - 5year update Adopted in 2008, update in 2013
Southern Urban Schedule with Comp Plan Strategies
Advisory Councils ONGOING
Econ Vitality
LI Uses Original Schedule
PHASE 1 COMPLETE
PHASE 2, COMPLETE
PHASE 3, COMPLETE
PHASE 4, Schedule w/ Comp Plan Strategies
Review Process
Process Impvovements Minsterial- Site Plans COMPLETE
Ministerial - Subdivision COMPLETE
Legislative COMPLETE
Building Permit Fees
Subdivision Fees
Zoning Fees
Drive Thru SPs *
Outdoor Display SP *
Parking Garage SP *
Other
Other MPO, PACC, Etc ONGOING
Initiatives Flood Hazard Overlay Federally mandated changes
Stormwater Management Submitted
Wireless, Phase 2A Delayed
Wireless, Phase 2B ***TBD - FCC Notice of Rulemaking
Critical Slopes At Planning Commission
RA Uses - Churches Schedule w/ Comp Plan Strategies
RA Uses - Part 2 Schedule w/ Comp Plan Strategies
Noise Amendments COMPLETE
Inoperative Vehicles COMPLETE
Zoning Ord Recodification Resource Limited **
ARB - Updated Design Guide Resource Limited **
Natural Heritage Modeling Resource Limited **
Neighborhood Model Amendments Reource Limited **
LEGEND * Prior to Comp Plan adoption, staff offers an alternative of beginning work on updated proffer policy or three process improvements
Staff Work ** Resource limited indicates staff priorities as resources become available
Planning Commision Work *** FCC may limit County's ability to regulate towers beyond what is part of 2A
Board Work
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Small Area Plan for Route 29/Rio Road Intersection
Improvements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Background Information on Planning Process
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish
PRESENTER(S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 11, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In consideration of the Route 29/Rio Road interchange component of the 29 Solutions Projects on February 4,
2015, the Board received verbal information from staff regarding federal, state and local planning processes as they
relate to these projects and a timeline of activities and decisions since January, 2014 related to the development of
the projects’ package. After receiving extensive public comment regarding the interchange at that meeting, the
Board scheduled further consideration of a Small Area Plan for Route 29/Rio Road Intersection Improvements for
its February 11, 2015 meeting. The information provided herein is intended to provide background related to
planning processes and decisions as they relate to this consideration.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
1. Citizen Engagement: Successfully engage citizens so that local government reflects their values and aspirations.
2. Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes
and improves the capacity to serve community needs.
3. Development Areas: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development
areas by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while
protecting the quality of neighborhoods.
4. Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax
revenues that support community goals.
DISCUSSION:
As noted in staff’s presentation to the Board on February 4th, the 29 Solutions Projects are the result of a combination of
approved plans and subsequent decisions that date back a number of years, and processes that are grounded in the
requirements of federal and state law. As context, it is first worth noting how the myriad of planning processes fit together
in guiding transportation project development. Attachment A is a table of Key Statewide, Regional and Local
Transportation Planning Documents. Not all documents noted played into ultimate decisions regarding the 29 Solutions
Projects, but the table provides a good reference, as several are pertinent. In simple terms, Federal transportation policy
in urbanized areas, within which the 29 Solutions Projects are located, is implemented by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and Metropolitan Planning Or ganizations (MPOs). The U.S. Department of Transportation requires
VDOT and MPOs to develop long range transportation plans (LRTPs) and associated transportation improvement funding
programs (TIPs) in order to qualify for formula-allocated federal funds in urbanized areas. The LRTPs must address a
variety of policy factors such as environmental preservation, economic development, and community quality of li fe. In
light of the aforementioned, the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which incorporates by reference our Development Area
Master Plans such as Places 29, recognizes our MPO as the transportation planning body for our urbanized area. While
Development Area Master Plans contain “point in time” transportation project recommendations which, for those in the
urbanized area, are a primary basis for projects in the LRTP, the LRTP, and amendments thereto, serve as the
transportation planning document of final reference for ultimate project identification and funding.
There is history with the LRTP as it pertains to the Route 29/Rio Road interchange. An interchange at this intersection
was first included in the 2035 LRTP adopted in 2009 as a future Roadway Improvement Project without funding
commitment, but on the plan’s list of projects that could be funded within the fiscal constraints of the 20+ years of the
plan. Places 29 was then approved by the Board of Supervisors in February, 2011. When the 2035 LRTP was amended
in July, 2011 to include the Route 29 Bypass as a New Construction Project with comm itted funding, the Route 29/Rio
Road interchange was retained as a future Roadway Improvement Project without funding commitment. Likewise, the
AGENDA TITLE: Small Area Plan for Route 29/Rio Road Intersection Improvements
February 11, 2015
Page 2
fiscally-constrained 2040 LRTP adopted in May, 2014 included the Route 29/Rio Road interchange, this time as a future
New Construction Project without funding commitment.
Ultimately, the Route 29/Rio Road interchange component of the 29 Solutions Projects cam e about through a timeline of
activities and decisions last year, which were reviewed with the Board on February 4th and are provided in Attachment B.
A July, 2014 amendment to the LRTP incorporated the list of the 29 Solutions Projects, including the Ro ute 29/Rio Road
interchange, into the LRTP as New Construction Six Year Improvement Program Projects fully funded by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board. It also moved the Route 29 Bypass from a fully funded New Construction Six Year
Improvement Program Project to a project awaiting funding resolution for remaining allocations that need to be addressed
to facilitate the project’s transition, including the resale of right of way purchased for the project. In August of 2014, staff
responded to a set of questions posed by VDOT regarding the Route 29/Rio Road inter change (see Attachment C). In
several of the responses, staff noted recommendations of Places 29 regarding the intersection and the Small Area Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This is provided for information only. The 29 Solutions Project package is being funded through federal and state
sources, some of which replace costs the County had expected to incur through its Capital Improvements Program on
certain project package components.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This is provided for information only.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Key Statewide Documents
B – 29/Rio GSI Timeline
C – 29/Rio GSI Questions
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
Key Statewide, Regional and
Local Transportation Planning Documents
General Title Current Plan Title Who Develops/
Approves? Coverage Span/
Updated? Contains National National Surface
Transportation Program
MAP-21 FY 2013-14 U.S. DOT/ Congress
& President
Nationwide 2 years /As
needed
National surface transportation funding for
highways, transit, bike and ped. programs State State Transportation
Improvement Program
(STIP)
Virginia STIP FY 2012-15 VDOT / U.S. DOT Statewide 4 years / every 5
years
Statewide transportation investments
Long-Range Statewide
Transportation Plan (LRSTP)
VTRANS 2035 VDOT / CTB Statewide 20 years / every
5 years
Statewide future goals, strategies and
projects Regional Unified Planning Work
Program (UPWP)
Charlottesville-Albemarle
Metropolitan Planning
Organization UPWP
MPO/ MPO MPO Area 1 year / annually MPO Area Transportation Planning studies
and tasks
Rural Transportation
Planning Work Program
FY-2014 TJPDC Rural
Transportation Planning
Work Program
TJPDC/ TJPDC Rural areas
of TJPDC
region
1 year / annually Rural areas transportation Planning studies
and tasks
Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP)
Charlottesville- Albemarle
TIP FY 2012-15
MPO/ MPO MPO Area 4 years / every 4
years
Schedules spending on federal transportation
funds (with state and local funds as well)
Six Year Improvements
Program (SYIP)
Albemarle County FY 2014-
2019 SYIP
BOS/ VDOT VDOT
Culpeper
District
5 years/ annually Primary roads and Interstates, bike, ped. and
transit projects
Long Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP)
UnJAM 2035 MPO/ MPO MPO Area 20 years / every
5 years
MPO area’s future goals, strategies and
projects
Rural Long Range Plan
(RLRP)
TJPDC 2035 Rural Long-
Range Transportation Plan
TJPDC/ TJPDC Rural area
of the TJPDC
region
20 years / every
5 years
Rural areas future goals, strategies and
projects Local Secondary Six-Year Plan
(SSYP)
Albemarle County FY 2014-
2019 SSYP
BOS / VDOT Albemarle
County
5 years /
Annually
VDOT’s Secondary road and bridge
construction program based upon County’s
Priority List.
County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Section of
Future Land Use Plan
Planning Commission/
BOS
Albemarle
County
20 years / every
5 years
Local (countywide) transportation goals,
objectives and strategies
Development Area (DA)
Master Plans
Transportation section of
Individual Master Plans
Planning Commission/
BOS
Each DA in
the County
20 years / every
5 years
Individual DA transportation goals, objectives
and strategies
Rt29 Solutions Package Development and Review Timeline
February 19, 2014 – Upon review of the Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Route
29 Bypass, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) advises “VDOT to update the purpose
and need and reopen the consideration of Alternatives.” It stated that based upon the EA
analysis, FHWA knowledge of the project and FHWA’s involvement in it going back to the late-
1980’s, “it is expected that a reassessment of the purpose and need will find that it is no longer
adequate to support the investment in the corridor.”
February 2014 – VDOT advises localities that construction funding allocated to Western Bypass
($200 million) may be used for other projects within the corridor if consensus is reached on
those projects.
o (From VDOT website) VDOT will provide recommendations for improvements that can
be built or substantially under way within four years, can be accomplished within the
approximately $200 million already dedicated to Route 29 improvements in that area,
and to bring the recommended solutions to the Commonwealth Transportation Board
this spring [2014].
March 2014 – Advisory panel consisting of representatives/stakeholder along the Route 29
corridor from Lynchburg to Culpeper convened by Transportation Secretary to provide input to
help the Commonwealth identify reasonable solutions to the congestion on the Route 29
corridor in the Charlottesville area.
o Panel conducted meetings open to public, podcasts provided
May 13, 2014 – Route 29 Corridor Improvements recommended by Advisory Panel presented to
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) during Charlottesville workshop.
May 27, 2014 - Board of Supervisors holds Public Hearing to receive comments regarding the
Advisory Panel’s Route 29 Solutions Package.
June 4, 2014 – Board of Supervisors Chairman sends letter to CTB indicating the Board’s
endorsement of the Route 29 Solutions Package.
June 2014 – CTB approves Route 29 Solutions Package.
July 23, 2014 – Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) amends Long Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to reflect Route 29 Solutions
Package of projects.
July 2014 – Local review committee convenes to review Route 29 Solutions package project
designs – has met every other week since (ongoing).
ATTACHMENT C
GENERAL QUESTIONS: 0029-002-901 UPC: 106136 US-29 RIO ROAD GRADE SEPARATED INTERSECTION
1. Do you anticipate or are you aware of any organized opposition to the proposed project?
Business owners in the vicinity have expressed concerns that businesses will be impacted in the
short term during construction of the project and in the long term with the potential loss of
existing access and visibility from Route 29.
2. Will the project disrupt a community or its planned development?
No.
3. Will the project affect any neighborhood programs under Redevelopment and Housing
Authority jurisdictions?
No.
4. Are you aware of any disproportionately high and adverse effects to minorities or low income
populations that could result from this project?
Not that we are aware of.
5. Is the project consistent with community goals, such as proposed land use?
Proposed land use for the project area is a mixture of Urban Mixed Use and
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial. The proposed intersection construction should not impact
these future land uses but connections through and between the four quadrants of this
intersection are important. Areas around this intersection are designated in the land use plan as
“centers” which are defined as clusters of compatible and complementary uses in a walkable,
pedestrian-oriented urban environment. Designing this intersection to incorporate sidewalks
and bikeways on Rio Road and sidewalks on US 29, and opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian
crossings of US 29 north of the intersection at Myers Drive and south of the intersection at
Berkmar Drive are important to making walkable centers.
6. What is the existing and proposed zoning for this area?
The existing zoning in this area is a mix of commercial zoning districts. Zoning consists of C1
Commercial, Commercial Office, Planned Development Shopping Center and Highway
Commercial. No new zoning is proposed at this time, but future zoning would be expected to
follow the land use recommendations of the Places 29 Master Plan (see #5 above).
7. Will the proposed project be compatible with your county planning?
More details are needed to make this evaluation. The Places 29 Master Plan, which is part of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan, recognizes the need for transportation improvements at the
Rio/US 29 intersection. The concept of a potential grade separated intersection is also
mentioned and the Plan calls for further evaluation of the need for grade separation.
ATTACHMENT C
The Plan recommends sidewalks, bicycle lanes and shared paths to be integrated throughout
the corridor and calls for provisions for bicycle and pedestrian crossings including an
overcrossing at the Rio/US 29 intersection as well as at the intersection between Berkmar Drive
and Fashion Square Mall. It is unclear from the rendering provided if bicycle facilities will be
included and is unclear if pedestrian facilities shown are consistent with these
recommendations.
The Places 29 Master Plan also calls for a Small Area Plan centered around this intersection in
which adjacent and nearby property owners and key stakeholders are expected to participate.
This Small Area Plan will feature more detailed future land use, a more detailed neighborhood
street network, preliminary design and right-of-way for transit and pedestrian improvements,
measures to minimize impacts of transportation improvements and opportunities for business
development. It is unclear if there will be an opportunity for this level of community input into
the design of the intersection.
8. Are there any agricultural/forestal districts within the proposed project boundaries?
No.
9. Has the project area been included in any county historical research?
Not that we are aware of.
10. Is the proposed project endorsed by the Board of Supervisors and in the County
Comprehensive plan?
The Board of Supervisors has endorsed the Route 29 Conceptual Solutions Package (see
attached letter dated June 4, 2014). The Board has also endorsed Rio Rd/US 29 intersection
improvements through the adoption of the Places 29 Master Plan which is part of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is unclear if the proposed design is consistent with the Plan goals (see #7
above).
11. Does the proposed project appear to be compatible with county planning, including
transportation plans and proposed highway development in the area?
See # 7 above. The project has also been included by CTB in the amended FY15 to FY20 Six Year
Improvement Program and the MPO is in the process of amending its 2040 Long Range
Transportation Plan and the FY15 to FY18 Transportation Improvement Program to include this
project.
12. Where is the proposed project ranked in county transportation improvement needs?
The intersection design and construction projects are included within the Implementation
Projects of the Places 29 Master Plan (projects #18 and #37) and are listed as high priorities. The
Implementation Plan recommends Small Area Planning and intersection design to occur within
the second five years after Plan adoption between 2017 and 2022 (project #18) and the
intersection improvements are expected to occur within the second ten years between 2023
and 2032 (project #37).
ATTACHMENT C
The County’s Recommended Priorities for Transportation Improvements adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on May 7, 2014 does not include construction of an interchange at this location, so
this project is not ranked/prioritized. The County’s priority list was developed assuming
construction of the Western Bypass and focused its highest priorities on completing other Route
29 Corridor Improvements, including construction of the “Best Buy” ramp, widening of Route 29
from Polo Grounds Road to Hollymead Town Center, construction of Berkmar Drive extended,
and construction of the Hillsdale Drive extension.
13. Is the county developing any mass transit options for this corridor?
Charlottesville Area Transit bus service currently serves the US 29 corridor and Rio Road. The
Route 5 bus crosses US 29 at the Rio Road intersection. Routes 7, 9 and 11 have stops at Fashion
Square Mall which is located near the US 29/Rio Road Intersection, but do not currently pass
through the intersection.
The Places 29 Master Plan recommends Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service on US 29 to initially
connect the City to the US 29/Rio Road intersection area and to later extend to up to Airport
Road. The plan also calls for sidewalks, bicycle lanes and shared paths to be integrated
throughout the corridor and provisions for crossings including an overcrossing Rio/US 29
intersection and between Barracks Road and Fashion Square Mall.
14. Are there any existing or planned recreational sites within the project area?
The Parks and Green Systems Map within the Places 29 Master Plan shows a bike/pedestrian
bridge over US 29 at Berkmar Drive and a bike/pedestrian/vehicle bridge over US 29 at Rio Road.
The Plan also shows an at-grade crossing at Myers Drive.
15. Are there any historic sites in close proximity to the proposed project?
Both US 29 and Rio Road are designated Entrance Corridors in Albemarle County. By State Code,
Entrance Corridors lead to and through areas of important historic resources, and the
appearance of development along the corridors is intended to be compatible with the historic
character of the corridors. The aesthetics of the completed project, including the appearance of
all structures required for the grade separated intersection and landscaping along/around the
intersection, are of importance to the County. Compatibility of the structures with the historic
character of the area, and landscaping consistent with the County’s Entrance Corridor Design
Guidelines, would be appropriate. The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) is
appointed by the Board of Supervisors and is charged with the responsibility of regulating the
design of development within the County's Entrance Corridors
The Skirmish at Rio Hill Civil War site is located in this vicinity. There are historic markers
commemorating the Skirmish in Rio Hill Shopping Center.
16. Will the proposed project affect a public water supply?
No
ATTACHMENT C
17. Does the county have a preferred scheme of development for this project?
As mentioned above, the Places 29 Master Plan calls for the intersection to be designed
concurrently with the development of a Small Area Plan. Implementation Project #18 within the
Places 29 Master Plan recommends the design of intersection improvements be developed in
coordination with VDOT in a joint public planning process. The Places 29 Master Plan lists
important considerations to be evaluated with the design of this intersection including pursuing
design concepts that provide, to the extent feasible and practical, at-grade relationships of
roads to businesses; addressing short-term issues related to construction through strategic
construction phasing; and accommodating pedestrian, bicycle, and transit users in all road
improvements to the greatest extent possible.
Places 29 did not anticipate this initiative moving forward for some years. While the County
endorses the significantly shortened timeline for designing and constructing these intersection
improvements, it remains extremely important that key interests and stakeholders including
local businesses and citizens, and relevant County staff and elected and appointed officials be
involved in the project’s design and development process.
18. As required by 23 CFR 772.11(c)(2)(vii), for a proposed development to be considered eligible
for noise mitigation where warranted, a building permit must have been issued. Have any
building permits been issued for development of property along the proposed project
corridor? If so, please include the location, a brief description of proposed development, and
a copy of the development plan(s) (preferably in digital format).
Currently there are two active major construction projects for which building permits have been
issued within the corridor. Additional building permits for small up-fits to existing structures
have been also issued. Please specify as to what type of building permits and dates of permits
issued would qualify. Will this also apply to future permits?
The two permits issued for major construction are listed below. We do not currently have digital
plans for these projects, but plans can be scanned and sent upon request.
1. Northside Library, 705 Rio Road West, Parcel ID: 04500-00-00-094B0
Remodel existing steel building, with minor additions for primary use of public library,
with county storage facility in most of the basement level
2 stories
63,888 sq ft
ATTACHMENT C
2. Colonial Nissan Dealership, 100 Myers Drive, Parcel ID: 06100-00-00-120K0
Construction of new Nissan Dealership
2 stories
32,372 sq ft