HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 29 85 PC MinutesOctober 29, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, October 29, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard
Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Mary Joy
Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
WORK SESSION
Proposed Mobile Home Amendments - Ms. Scala presented a report
on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which were
based on a study of mobile home parks. She explained that the
purpose of the amendments is to correct errors and deficiencies
in the existing mobile home regulations; to provide for mobile
home parks in additional zoning districts; and, to expand and
make more specific the regulations for establishing a new mobile
home park. She explained that the two most important recommen-
dations are (1) That the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit
mobile home parks by special use permit in the higher density
zones, R-4, R-6, R-10, and R-15 zones, in addition to the
VR and RA zones; and (2) Mobile home parks and subdivisions
should be encouraged to locate in the urban area and communities
where public utilities are available.
Ms. Scala emphasized that two main policy decisions should be
addressed by the Commission before the amendments can be finalized,
i.e. (1) Maximum permitted density in the rural area district;
and (2) Internal street standards. Ms. Scala explained that
staff is of the opinion that the density for mobile homes should
be the same as that permitted for conventional dwellings, unless
the Commission finds that there are special characteristics of
mobile home parks which warrant their special treatment. She
pointed out that if the Commission finds that mobile home parks
should be distinguished from conventional developments, then
the reason for their special treatment must be clearly stated in
the Comprehensive Plan and in the Zoning Ordinance. In relation
to this question, she quoted from a letter from Mr. Jack Collins
of the Thomas Jefferson Health District:
"The health department considers mobile homes the same
as single-family homes in determining the septic tank
system size and location. Unfortunately, this means that a
mobile home lot should have the same area requirements as a
single-family home lot because the water usage for homes
would be the same."
323
October 29, 1985
Page 2
Regarding the possibility of permitting mobile home parks in
the "fringe areas" (just outside the urban areas) and extending
utilities to these areas to allow for this, Ms. Scala stated
the Deputy County Attorney feels it would be very difficult, legally,
to limit the use of the utility lines to just the mobile home
park.
Ms. Scala also stated that "parks in fringe areas should be reviewed
like other developments of comparable density." She added that
"since the fringe area is not well defined, staff is requesting
that the Commission discuss the intent of this section and
provide direction to the staff."
Mr. Bowerman stated a basic problem has always been the "fringe"
areas. He stated that permitting them at conventional densities
in the R-4, R-6, etc. zones is acceptable; however, if they are
only allowed at a density of one/1.5 acres in the rural areas,
that "might not really be allowing anything" because it will be
economically unfeasible. He stated that if the utilities exist,
it will be necessary to reduce the density in the rural area,
or else rezone the area. He could foresee problems in dealing
with the fringe areas.
Ms. Scala pointed out that the Commission had at one time
discussed not permitting mobile home parks in the rural areas
at all because utilities were not available. Mr. Bowerman
stated,"That might be the way to deal with it."
Mr. Skove stated that a mobile home park with a density of
1 unit/2 acres is nothing more than a mobile home subdivision.
Ms. Scala explained that in a mobile home park the lots are
not for sale.
Mr. Horne pointed out that a density is not necessarily a lot
size measure. He suggested it might be possible to "do one
unit/4,500 square foot area and cluster them on a corner of
a large rural area, and the rest would remain open," but still
maintain the density of one unit/2 acres. He stated the
utility question is more one of economics.
Mr. Skove stated that suggested some sort of package treatment
plant. Mr. Horne stated he felt it was possible to put
2 units on a common septic and "go to about 4 units/acre."
Regarding the Health Department's position on mass drain fields,
Ms. Scala recalled that they were notin favor of mass drain
fields though they continue to permit them.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman, i.e.
if the density is the same as for conventional dwellings, then
we will not see any more than we do now because of the economics.
He added that if this type of development is to occur, some type
of incentive must be provided.
91
sz tf
October 29, 1985 Page 3
M
Mr. Cogan indicated he felt nothing would be gained by amending
the Ordinance if no incentive is given to encourage this type
of development.
Ms. Scala stated she was in favor of seeing the Ordinance
amended allowing the parks in the higher density zones to see
if any applications come forward. She said she had heard from
several people in the urban area who are interested in expanding.
She suggested that it would be possible to allow 6 units/acre
in the urban area, with bonuses.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the greatest demand would be in and
around the urban area.
Ms. Scala stated she felt the proposed regulations were not
excessive. She added that the existing parks are very old
and had not been approved under current zoning.
Mr. Cogan stated more rigid regulations would possibly make
the parks more acceptable; however, he added he felt it was
futile to entertain mobile home parks in the rural areas.
Regarding the "fringe" area question, Mr. Michel stated the only
way to deal with this would be through a rezoning or a proffer
for that use. He agreed that mobile home parks should not be
encouraged in the rural areas.
Mr. Horne stated another issue the staff needs direction on is
whether a mobile home park is to be considered a temporary
measure or is it just another commercial establishment.
He felt it was a permanent use.
Mr. Skove stated he "would have trouble with making an exception
for the rural areas," i.e. allowing situations that would not
be allowed for conventional dwellings. This was the consensus
of the Commission.
It was suggested that the RA zone be dropped from the
recommendation.
Mr. Keeler stated he thought there might be some applications
for small mobile home parks (3-5 lots) in the rural areas.
Mr. Bowerman stated this could be covered under the current
regulations, for up to five lots.
Mr. Cogan stated that is contrary to what the Commission is
trying to achieve, i.e. we do not want small mobile home parks
all over the county.
It was determined the Commission was in favor of dropping the
RA,and the VR zones from the recommendation, thus limiting mobile
home parks to the R-4 through R-15 zones. Mr. Bowerman added
that, as a practical matter, R-10 and R-15 will develop at
lesser densities because it is not possible to get that many
mobile homes on an acre.
A2J-
October 29, 1985 Page 4
Mr. Horne asked for some clarification of the "fringe" areas.
He explained that though these areas are referred to in the
Comp Plan, there is no definition as to what they actually are.
He said he felt the "fringe" areas do not exist, i.e. "you are
either in the urban zone or outside the urban zone."
Mr. Cogan stated when the fringe area was first discussed it
referred to an area which was outside the urban area but within
reasonable proximity to public utilities.
It was determined that it was difficult to define this term.
Mr. Payne explained that as time has gone by with the land use
maps "these lines have gotten sharper" making it more and more
difficult to define these areas. He added that "a fringe is
something that is geographically and otherwise related to the
urban area in such a way as to constitute a reasonable extension
of the urban area without significantly expanding it." He
added that he felt these would have to be dealt with on a
case -by -case basis.
Mr. Michel stated if there are no fringe areas, then "all we
have are rezonings." Mr. Payne responded, "That is exactly
what you have."
Following Mr. Horne's suggestion, it was determined that
applications for these "fringe" areas would be treated like any other
rezoning in the RA district, and the legislative judgment on the
rezoning would substitute for the word fringe. It was also determined
that references to the "fringe" would be removed from the Comp
Plan when it is revised.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission must be prepared to
"bite the bullet" to allow for these parks.
In relation to the road issue, Mr. Cogan stated he felt paved
roads should be required since this is one of the key elements
to making these developments more attractive and acceptable,
particularly since they are going to be excluded from the rural
areas.
It was determined that any proposal for more than 3 mobile homes
will be considered a park and will require paved roads.
Ms. Scala stated that Mr. Elrod would have to revise the
private road standards somewhat to make them fit mobile home
requirements. She confirmed that the revision will deal
only with mobile home parks.
The two policy questions having been decided, Ms. Scala continued
with the staff report and began to explain the actual revisions to
the ordinance. Due to time restrictions, she was unable to go
through all the proposed amendments. Since it was determined
that the changes (due to the omission of the RA and VR districts)
would be minor, it was decided the Commissioners would go over
-1121-
October 29, 1985
Page 5
the remaining amendments individually and make their comments
known to the staff. Staff is then to schedule a short session
at the end of an upcoming meeting in order to finalize the
issue before it is scheduled for public hearing.
The meeting recessed for dinner at 6:00: reconvened at 7:00.
ZMA-85-17 Dr. Charles Hurt - Request to rezone a total of 19.309
acres from R-6, Residential to HC Highway Commercial, comprised
of part of parcels 109, 109A, 109B and 93A on Tax Map 45,
Charlottesville Magisterial District. Property, located on the
west side of Rt. 29N, southbound lane, adjacent to Rivanna
Amoco Service Station.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He stated this application
had been before the Commission before, but this time it is
being presented with a proffer meant to (1) limit traffic
generation; and (2) limit access to Rt. 29N to three entrances.
Mr. Keeler also presented clarifications, prepared by staff,
which staff felt would make the proffer more understandable.
Mr. Keeler reported that the Highway Department has stated
that "the Department cannot support a rezoning request that
is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and a proffer
submitted limiting the traffic generation to what the land is
currently zoned would be hard to enforce." Mr. Keeler stated
that staff is of the opinion that, with the suggested
clarifications, the applicant's proffered rezoning would be an
improvement over current zoning in regard to traffic concerns
on U.S. Rt. 29N. He added that the Commission and Board
should determine if this rezoning would better serve the
general public welfare than a strict reading of the current
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
In response to Mr. Gould's question, Mr. Keeler stated it would
be very difficult to limit the number of entrances to less
than 5 without the proffer.
It was determined the applicant had not seen a copy of
staff's "clarification". Mr. Keeler gave a copy to Dr. Hurt.
Mr. Keeler explained the clarifications as follows:
1. The rezoning includes four parcels, but only two
parcels are subject to rezoning (109 and 109A). The other
two parcels are included solely for the purposes of the proffer
related to limitation of access.
2. Translates the applicant's proffer that traffic
generation under the rezoning would not exceed what it would
be under current zoning into figures, i.e. 4,430 vehicle trips/day.
This is based on 450 trips/acre for Highway Commercial which
has been used since the Hilton Hotel.
!2_9!/
October 29, 1985
Page 6
3. Suggests that the three access points be maped and a
note placed on the map that the Amoco crossover is proposed for
closing with improvements to Rt. 29N.
4. Suggests that a new rezoning petition be signed by
the applicant which lists all the properties.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on the status of the
proffer in relation to the clarification presented by staff.
Mr. Payne stated it was his understanding that staff is attempting
to clarify the proffer, i.e, that staff feels these things were
contained in Dr. Hurt's proffer but were not specifically identified.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler how it would be possible to enforce
the limitation on the vehicle trips per day and would the Commission
be in a position to deny a site plan for one of these parcels
if the use proposed would generate more traffic than this proffer
would permit. He also asked how future owners of these parcels
(as they are divided in the future) would be notifed of the
existence of such a restriction.
Mr. Keeler replied that it is up to a buyer to check the zoning
on a piece of property and the zoning map will have a note on
it stating that the property has a proffer attached to it.
He further stated that he felt the traffic generation could
be controlled in terms of site plan approvals. He also stated
that once a proffer is accepted, it becomes a part of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Dr. Hurt addressed the Commission. He asked for an explanation
fo staff's clarification No. 3. He was concerned about the
proposed closing of the Amoco crossover. He asked if it meant
he was proposing to close the crossover or if some restrictions
were being placed on him.
It was determined that this would simply be an acknowledgement
by Dr. Hurt that the Highway Department was planning to close
the crossover at some future time; it was not giving any
permission to the Highway Department that they did not already
have. Dr. Hurt stated he was leery of putting something on
a plat that is already known.
Mr. Payne confirmed that it is an acknowledgement of the
Highway Department's intent so that a subsequent owner could
not say they were not aware of the proposed closing. He
stated that Dr. Hurt is not waiving his right to object to
the closing of the crossover if he so desires.
Dr. Hurt explained he was requesting this rezoning in an effort
to make parcel 93A (which is peculiarly shaped) more developable.
He explained that 93A is already zoned for business usage and
could be joined with one of these parcels.
t -7 4'
October 29, 1985 Page 7
Cm
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms.Geneva Anderson asked what plans the applicant had for the
back of the property since her property is adjacent. Dr.
Hurt explained that he has no plans at this time but that
he tries to "do things" which will not diminish the value
of surrounding property.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Keeler pointed out
the surrounding zoning on the map.
Ms. Diehl stated that if the proffer is only a traffic average
it does nctpreclude placing heavier volume traffic in one
particular area. Mr. Keeler confirmed this to be correct.
The Chairman asked for comment from Mr. Echols of the Highway
Department.
Mr. Echols stated the Highway Department's concern in setting
a limit on vehicle trips per day is how to control this
limitation and who determines at what point the limitation
has been exceeded.
Mr. Bowerman stated that conceptually he could go along with
the proposal, but he was concerned about a lack of having a
handle on trip generation, particularly if businesses change.
Mr. Cogan indicated he shared this concern, but he felt the
advantages of the proposal outweighed the disadvantages.
Mr. Skove stated the fact that three parcels were being combined
gives some sort of unified development.
Mr. Payne stated that, in view of the traffic limitation, the
property will be developed, in terms of the floor area, less
densely.
To address the concern that one developer might use up all
the allowable traffic generation, thus making the rest of the
property unusable, Mr. Keeler suggested that staff's clarification
No. 3 could be changed to read: Traffic generation shall not
exceed 160 vehicle trips/acre/day. He gave the following as
an example: "If Mr. Smith wants to buy a piece of property
and put an ice cream store on it, then he needs to buy enough
acreage to accommodate that, or another way that could work
would be if Dr. Hurt had some people who were interested in
fairly high traffic generation, I suppose he could dedicate
open space along the ... dedicate portions of the property
as undevelopable along the residential boundaries."
I -4
October 29, 1985 Page 8
It was determined these were estimated traffic figures and
actual traffic counts would not be taken. Mr. Keeler stated
here are some commercial uses for which generation figures
will not be available. He said consistently, for many years,
the figure 20 trips/1,000 square feet has been used for
commercial office uses and that figure will continue to be used
for similar uses.
Mr. Michel indicated he was concerned about a future problem
being created.
Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Hurt how he felt about the proposed
change to the traffic generation figure, i.e. to 160 vehicle
trips/day/acre rather than 4,430 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Hurt stated he felt that "would be very awkward." Dr.
Hurt pointed out that if the zoning is left as it currently
exists, there is no guarantee that the traffic count will not
exceed 4,400. So the control is the same as it is now. He
added that he did not think the property would generate
even half as much traffic as referred to by the figures within
the next ten years.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-17 for Dr. Charles W. Hurt be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the proffer of the applicant and the clarifications stated
by staff.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Keeler informed the Commission he did not feel this was
an acceptable motion since the Commission can only act on
what the applicant has proposed.
The Chairman stated the motion was amended as follows, i.e.
that ZMA-85-17 for Dr. Charles W. Hurt be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
proffer of the applicant as follows:
1. To restrict development of parcels 109 and 109A so that
traffic generation under proposed zoning would not
exceed generation under current zoning;
2. To limit access to Rt. 29N to three (3) entrances to
serve parcels 109, 109A, 109B, and 93A.
The motion was unanimously approved and scheduled to be heard
by the Board of Supervisors on November 6, 1985.
The meeting adjourned to reconvene in the auditorium at 8:00.
F-1
RV)
October 29, 1985 Page 9
SP-85-37 WPED Radio Tower (Now WJLT-FM) - Request in accordance
with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to allow for an FM Radio Transmission Tower (WPED). Acreage
of site is 2.202 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. Property described as Tax Map 58, parcel
54, is located on the southwest edge of Turner Mountain, North
of Rt. 250 at its intersection with Rt. 676.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. It was determined that
staff is of the opinion that the application does not meet
the criteria of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
and particularly that the site and location of the tower
are inappropriate. Staff recommended denial of the special
use permit. However, the report stated that the Commission
and Board could approve the request upon a finding that the public
welfare to be served would overwhelm negative aspects of the
proposal. Concerns of the staff were as follows:
a) Population density of the area;
b) Proximity to existing dwellings;
c) Size of the site;
d) Precedent for future requests;
e) Affect of tower location on property values;
f) Visibility and aesthetics;
g) Radio signal interference;
h) Radio frequency (RF) radiation;
i) Precedent for future requests (individual location).
Mr. Keeler also presented maps showing the location of existing
towers in the area. He pointed out that most previous petitions
have been on larger tracts of land and were surrounded by larger
tracts of land. He added that in the last ten years no tower
has been approved which is located as close to residential
dwellings as the current application. Mr. Keeler stated that
the proposal is in conflict with two sections of the Zoning
Ordinance in the following respects: (1) Does not meet the
required setback (the guy wires and tower are to be considered
one structure and are subject to setback requirements); and
(2) Towers are to be set back from the property line no less
than the height of the tower. He stated there is the potential
for the tower to fall on someone else's land.
Mr. Keeler presented a survey which had been taken of Crozet
residents in relation to the proposal.
Mr. Keeler presented maps showing the strength of the current
tower signals and the effect the new tower would have on these
signals.
The Chairman invited applicant comment and stated the
applicant was limited to a 40 minute presentation.
Mr. John Zunka, attorney for WPED/WJLT, addressed the Commission.
His comments included the following:
Wj
October 29, 1985
Page 10
--Regarding the size of the site, the station now
exists on a one -acre site and is moving to a larger site.
--The WQMC tower approved in 1974 was a 300-foot tower.
The applicant's request is for a 199-foot tower.
--The density of the surrounding area for the WQMC Tower
(in the area of the intersection of Rio Road and
Hydraulic Road, near the Rock Store) in 1974 was 2.6 times
the density of the surrounding area for the proposed
WPED tower. There were 192 dwellings near the WQMC
site; there are currently 85 dwellings near the proposed
WPED site.
--The WQMC site was approved by the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors, but was disapproved by
the FAA so it was never erected.
Mr. John Elting, President of Elting Enterprises, Inc., the
applicant, addressed the Commission. He made the following
comments:
--The radio stations are not a "money -making machine."
The owner, as of yet, has received no profit from the
stations.
--It is very difficult to find a suitable tower site
because of the "horrendous" requirements which must be
met. Those conditions include:
• Site must give a city -grade signal over Crozet and
Charlottesville which limits the tower to a very
small area;
• Site must not interfere or infringe upon adjacent
radio channels (FCC);
• Terrain features must be right so as not to distort
or preclude people from receiving the signal;
• Site must clear FAA regulations (It has.);
• Site must by-pass military flight training
corridors (It does.);
• Site must be approved by the National Radio
Observatory (It has.);
s Site must be approved by the Naval Research Facility
in Sugar Grove, West Virginia (It has.);
• FCC must give its final approval (Pending);
• Site must be approved by the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors.
--The applicant has proposed a smaller tower (199 feet) than
is allowable for the station's power and classification
(250 feet) so that the tower would not have to be lighted
or painted, thus minimizing the visual presence and lessen
the environmental impact.
--Regarding "unsightliness," the proposed tower is considerably
smaller than the current tower and will not be lighted or
painted.
--Regarding radiation, (to be addressed by Dr. Braun later
in the presentation).
--Regarding the possibility of the tower falling, the tower
is designed to collapse within its guy radius and the
chances of it falling are "extremely slim." It is
designed to withstand winds of up to 110 mph.
M
October 29, 1985 Page 11
--Regarding interference, there are no current problems
with interference and none are anticipated with the new
tower. The FCC mandates that any problems which should
arise be corrected within a .42 mile radius of the
transmission site.
Mr. Elting concluded his presentation by stating that the station
provides not only entertainment, but also world and national
news and, most importantly, community service. He stated that
in 1984 over $105,000 worth of public service announcements
(i.e. "dollar -time" given up to public service) were made. Also in
this regard, he stated that, subject to obtaining adequate
antennae site, he has agreed to provide an FM sub -carrier for
24 hour a day programming, free of charge, to all handicapped
residents of Albemarle County, or to anyone else desiring this
service. He explained this is a reading service with programs
originating from New York or from Virginia Voice in Richmond.
He stated there are approximately 1,800 residents in the area
who would benefit from this service. Mr. Elting emphasized that
the proposal is for a structure, 18 inches across, and 90 feet
above tree level, not a large shopping center or apartment
complex.
Mr. Jeff Scott, engineer for the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He presented photographs which showed the size
of the antennae and also explained why there are signal problems
with the current tower. He also presented diagrams which
further explained the signal problems and other diagrams
showing why the tower cannot be located in certain other areas
due to interference with existing radio stations (which is
prohibited by the FCC).
Dr. Warren Braun addressed the Commission to speak to the
question of radiation. He explained he was an expert in the field
of industrial, scientific and medical control of radiation in
certain environments and that he was a licensed "certifier" and
registered professional engineer, being registered with the
FCC. He provided the Commission with copies of a report
entitled "Analysis and Statement, WPED, for Transmission Tower
Non -Ionizing Radiation Levels July 16, 1985." He explained
that non -harmful types of radiation should not be confused
with the destructive effects of nuclear radiation. He
explained that non -harmful, beneficial types of radiation
are electromagnetic radiation which provides visual light and
radio and television reception and infrared radiation which
provides warmth, as from a stove. He emphasized that
the different types of radiation are not the same, do
not have the same phenomena, and do not have the same effects.
The type of radiation involved with the radio antennae is
electromagnetic radiation. Dr. Braun quoted from the report
as follows:
_A A 3
October 29, 1985
Page 12
"In summary, the position of the IEEE (Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers) is that there is
no cause for public concern regarding the environmental
levels of RFEM (Radio Frequency ElectroMagnetic) fields
to which the general population is exposed. In addition,
based on our present knowledge, prolonged exposure to
levels lower than those recommended by the American
National Standards Institute Committee C95 is not likely
to be hazardous to human health."
He concluded by stating, "Putting common sense into place, it
says that the radiation issue is of no consequence when
compared to the rest of the environment and certainly is not
a factor."
Mr. Nicholas Morgan, Executive Director of Virginia Voice, a
radio reading service, addressed the Commission. He emphasized
the importance of the free service the applicant is offering to
the handicapped residents of the area. He pointed out that
there is currently no public radio station in the area which
could offer this type of service.
Mr. Joe Beal, station manager for WPED/WJLT, addressed the
Commission. He emphasized that Mr. Elting, though not a
community member, is very involved in the running of the
station and is very interested in offering community
service. Mr. Beal stressed the community service activities
of the station.
Mr. Bob Brood, a consulting engineer, addressed the Commission.
He explained that generally a tower for an AM station is
made of metal and, because of the frequency involved, it is
insulated from the ground and the tower itself is the radiator.
He stressed that is not so in this case since the tower
is a support for the antennae at its top. He emphasized that
the antennae (only a few feet across) is the only radiator
in the entire system. He also explained that the tower is
safe because it is grounded and it also provides a cone of
protection for7aNtance by serving as a lightening rod.
There being no further applicant comment, the Chairman opened
the public hearing and informed those who were opposed their
comments would be limited to 40 minutes.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed
their opposition to the special use permit: Mr. Richard
Carter (representing 6 neighboring property owners); Mrs.
Mary Tyler McCracken; Dr. Ted Batchman (Professor of Electrical
Engineering at UVA); Dr. Tom Hutchinson; Mrs. Ernest Bruce;
Mr. W. Chave McCracken; Ms. Peggy VanYahres (Albemarle -Charlottesville
Board of Piedmont Environmental Council); Mr. Mark Brandt (Citizens
for Albemarle); Mr. William Perkins; Mr. Richard Selden;
Ms. Gladys Blizzard (who read a letter from Mr. William Battle who
opposed the proposal because of its proximity to a scenic
highway); Mr. Walter Hauser; Ms. Helen C. Milius; Mr. Tom
Ward; Mr. Edgar McVoy; Ms. Victoria Dibbern; Mr. William Pollard;
Mr. Arthur Freedlander; Mr. Jason Worchel; Mr. Jim Busi. Their
!2-MLL
October 29, 1985
Page 13
reasons for opposition included the following:
--Interference problems created by the tower which might
not be covered by FCC regulations;
--Visual unsightliness;
--Devaluation of surrounding property;
--Possible health hazard since the long term effects of
non -ionizing radiation is not known;
--No compelling reason to expose residents to radiation;
--Does not meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance;
--Change the character and the beauty of the district;
--Proximity to scenic highway, Rt. 250;
--Safety hazard to small aircraft, particularly since
it will not be lighted;
--Is in opposition to the integrity of the planning
process;
--Detriment to quality of life;
--An overlay district is needed for this type of use.
The following persons addressed the Commission and stated they
were in favor of the special use permit: Mr. Alex Joyner and
Mr. Mark Garwood (disc jockeys for WPED and WJLT). Their
reasons were: (1) The public service provided by the stations;
and (2) Better community service could be provided with the
new tower.
Mr. Carter also asked for all those who were opposed to the
proposal to stand. The vast majority of those present stood,
indicating their opposition to the proposal. The chairman
then asked those in favor of the proposal to stand.
Very few people stood, approximately 10, most of those being
representatives of the applicant.
The Chairman invited the applicant to make a summarizing statement.
Mr. Jeff Scott addressed the Commission and made the following
comments:
--Interference will not be a
--There is no evidence that
is harmful.
--Electromagnetic radiation
nuclear radiation.
--This is the best site for
--The proposed tower will be
tower.
problem.
radiation from radio waves
should not be compared to
the tower.
smaller than the current
--The applicant is not opposed to lighting the tower
if that is preferable to the public.
Mr. Zunka addressed the Commission and made the following
comments:
--The applicant has gone to great lengths and expense
to present the facts.
--The FAA has approved this site and the Charlottesville
airport had the opportunity for input at that time.
--The advantage the tower will offer to handicapped
residents of the area.
4.35`
October 29, 1985
Page 14
The Chairman closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated her concerns were principally those previously
stated by staff, i.e. (1) Area around the site is too densely
populated; (2) It is too close to a number of buildings;
(3) The size of the lot is too small; (4) Visual impact on
the area; (5) The site does not meet the requirements of
the zoning ordinance for a special permit. She added that
the application was not without merit, but she felt the
negative factors outweighed the positive effects.
Mr. Bowerman stated he agreed with Ms. Diehl and the staff
report. He pointed out that the current ordinance was not
in effect 11 years ago (at the time the WQMC tower was approved).
He stated he could not support the proposed location for the
tower.
Mr. Skove stated he found this to be a difficult decision to
make but after weighing the pros and cons, he was opposed
to the special use permit.
Mr. Cogan asked the applicant why the FCC permit is still pending.
The applicant explained the reason was nothing out of the
ordinary, but is just a matter of bureaucratic time. Mr.
Cogan also asked how the FCC handles complaints about
interference. The applicant explained that the station has
never had a complaint about interference but if a person
should complain to the FCC, that person would be directed to
first call the station and if the station did not take
care of the problem, the person would be advised to re -contact
the FCC for further action.
Mr. Cogan continued and stated that while he thought the
staff report was an excellent one, there were parts which
were confusing and caused him concern; e.g.
(1) Why is a special use permit "listed" under the
Rural Agricultural area if we do not feel they
could be located there?
(2) We should have an overlay district, but currently
one does not exist.
(3) Of the three locations referred to in the staff
report (Ivy Farms, Ashcroft and Shadwell Mt.), the
towers pre-existed the residential development.
The towers have obviously not diminished their
real estate value.
He also stated that though the tower is tall, it will be only
18 inches wide and would not be too visible. He also stated
it was unusual for such a request to come before the Commission
without first having gone through the Board of Zoning Appeals
since it will not meet the setback requirement.
October 29, 1985
Page 15
Mr. Michel stated that a special permit must warrant "going
beyond the normal bounds." He stated the applicant should
have shown that the proposed location was not only the
"best" location for the tower but was also the "only" location,
and this had not been done. He stated that because the
applicant had not proven to him that he had been "forced"
to use this location, he could not support the request.
Though the applicant attempted to address Mr. Michel's concern,
the chairman informed him that Mr. Michel had been making
a statement which did not require a response by the applicant.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he had not been convinced by the applicant
that radiation was not a possible danger and he had not been
persuaded that the public welfare to be served would
overwhelm the negative aspects of the proposal, thus he could
not support the proposal.
Mr. Gould stated that he did not think staff's position was
persuasive. He stated that although he didn't like radio
towers either, they were a "fact we have to live with."
He added that he felt the public service did outweigh the
negative aspects in this case and, consequently, he could
support the proposal.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-37 for WPED (WJLT) Radio Tower be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion for denial which passed (5:2) with
Messrs. Skove, Bowerman, Wilkerson and Michel and Ms. Diehl
voting for denial and Messrs. Gould and Cogan voting against
denial.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of
Supervisors on November 20, 1985.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
DS
OR
�0 7
9