HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 02 86 PC MinutesDecember 2, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 2, 1986, 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; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were:
Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr.
Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. Minutes of the November 18, 1986 meeting were
aDDroved as submitted.
SP-86-82 Caleb Stowe, Village Office Limited Partnership - Petitions the
Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a Commercial
Kennel - Indoor Only (24.2.2.11) on 1.041 acre of land zoned HC, Highway
Commercial. The property is located on the northeast side of Berkmar
Drive, approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the U.S. 29 south bound lane.
Tax Map 61U-02, Parcel 4, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that "staff has reviewed
this petition for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1 and recommends that
the kennel would not be of substantial detriment to other properties in
the area. However, due to the number of runs proposed, staff recommends
that the building official review the proposed building construction
methods and soundproofing measures.... Staff is also concerned with the total
number of runs proposed for the kennel (102)." Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Section 5.1.11 (Commercial kennel, veterinary, animal
hospital) was in effect at the time a previous application for a commercial
kennel was approved (SP-83-30, July 6, 1983). (Note: This is a supplementary
regulation of the Zoning Ordinance which states that commercial kennels located
closer than 500 feet to residentially zoned property must have all animals
confined in a soundproof, air-conditioned building, and noise
measured at the nearest residential property shall not exceed 40 decibels.)
Mr. Payne replied that it was in effect at that time and the same standards
were applied to that kennel.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Andrew Benetti was present to represent Caleb Stowe Associates. He
introduced Mr. Michael Cronk, who will be operating the kennel and
Mr. Stan Benstead, who runs the building company for Caleb Stowe. He
indicated he felt it would be possible to install whatever amount of
insulation might be required.
Mr. Benstead explained the design of the building. He stated it would
be a masonary structure and one wall would be below grade "up to the E
pipe." He felt this would aid in the soundproofing of the building.
It was determined there would be windows in the retail and grooming
areas only and skylights in the kennel area.
December 2, 1986
Page 2
Mr. Cronk addressed the Commission. His comments included the following:
--He originally opened his business on Berkmar Drive in 1975 and
his operation was controversial because the building was not designed
to be a kennel in relation to soundproofing.
--After the problems with the original business, he did much research
on the enclosed -type of facility, including visiting many such facilities
across the country.
--As a result of his research, he designed the existing Pet Motel on
Fifth Street (within city limits) which has been in use for the past
6-7 years. This is a completely enclosed facility.
--An enclosed facility must provide proper exercise runs and
adequate ventilation.
--Indoor facilities have been in existence for a long time. Indoor -
outdoor facilities must go indoors during certain periods of the year.
--He presented graphs showing the seasonal aspect of the business.
--He has never had complaints from surrounding neighbors in the
Fifth Street location.
--He has a highly -trained staff.
--He did not feel 102 runs was excessive.
--Regarding noise, he stated that a dog's pitch is "constant" and
that ten dogs barking are no louder than one dog barking.
--In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Cronk stated that the
approximate maximum capacity would be 150 dogs, if everyone
were to bring in 2 animals. However, that is very unlikely.
He indicated 100 would be more realistic.
--Regarding waste removal, he stated that solid waste is bagged,
taken to the landfill and buried. The remaining is washed into
a 3-inch drain.
--Regarding noise insulation around the air -exchange devices, he
stated there is no current plan for such insulation but it
could be provided if necessary.
--It was determined the outside of the building would be either cedar
or brick.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Barry Dofflemoyer, owner of the Pampered Pet on Berkmar Drive and
Wakefield Kennels, addressed the Commission. His concerns were as
follows:
--He attempted to expand Wakefield (Earlysville) in 1976 and felt he
was the test case for the newly adopted zoning ordinance. Prior to
that no precedent had been set for commercial kennels. That ap-
plication was subjected to the requirements of Section 5.1.11.
--In 1983 the property on which the Pampered Pet sits was rezoned
from C-1 to HC and the application for that business (SP-83-30)
was subjected to the requirements of Section 5.1.11.
--The current application lies within 250 feet of the nearest
residential property and therefore the issue of noise must
be carefully considered.
--There have been previous problems with commercial kennels on Berkmar
Drive in relation to adjacent residential property.
--He has worked very hard in relation to noise abatement at his
present kennel on Berkmar Drive and as a result there have been
no further complaints from the Berkeley residents.
--The same requirements must be enacted on all kennels on Berkmar Drive.
The Zoning Ordinance must be enforced uniformly with all requests.
1,'
December 2, 1986
Page 3
--If a precedent was set in 1976 (with the Wakefield application), it
must be followed with each subsequent applicant.
--His concerns with this application included: (1) There have been
no calculations of actual noise that will be generated by a 102-run
kennel -(He pointed out that he had been required to submit a study
done by acoustical experts along with his 1983 application);
(2) Inadequate space for number of runs proposed - (He compared
Pampered Pet space = 1 run/ 135 sq. ft; Village Animal Hospital =
1 run/ 260 sq. ft; applicant's proposal = 1 run/43 sq. ft.).
Mr. Pat Killy, a resident of Berkeley, addressed the Commission. He stated
that he could still hear the dogs from Mr. Dofflemyer's business at certain
times. He questioned whether or not it would be possible to provide
sufficient insulation to completely abate the noise. He was also concerned
about the waste disposal procedures. He felt this could possibly devalue
surrounding properties if the noise question is not properly addressed.
Ms. Joan Graves, a resident of Berkeley, addressed the Commission. She
stated that there had been problems with the existing kennel on Berkmar
but the measures which were taken seem to have worked because she no
longer is disturbed by noise from Mr. Dofflemyer's business. She
was concerned about who would address problems if they do occur, i.e.
the lessee, Mr. Cronk, or the owner, Mr. Stowe. This had been a problem
with Mr. Cronk's original business on Berkmar Drive.
Addressing Ms. Graves' concern, Mr. Benish stated that condition No. 5
(This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder is issued
for a commercial kennel operated by Michael Cronk and is not transfer-
able.) infers that Mr. Cronk will be responsible for addressing any
problems which may arise.
Mr. Keeler recalled that when the problems had occurred with Mr. Cronk's
original business on Berkmar Drive (1975-1978) there had been a lack
of cooperation between Mr. Cronk, the lessee of the property, and Mr.
McDonald, the owner of the property. He stressed that there had been
problems with that operation spaning a period of more than two years.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cronk acknowledged that there had been problems with the original
facility. He felt that the reputation he has built with the existing
facility on Fifth Street, for the past 6-7 years,shows that the previous
problems were not his fault. Mr. Cronk confirmed that he would be leasing
the facility.
Mr. Cogan asked for a breakdown of the square footage between the
grooming and the kennel area. It was determined the kennel area would
be 3,100 square feet.
It was determined the specifics for the soundproofing plans were
undeveloped as of this time.
December 2, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Benish explained that he had conferred with the County building
official, Mr. Jesse Hurt, regarding the noise question. Mr.
Hurt stated that it is possible to construct a building in such a
way so as to contain the noise from 75-100 dogs.
It was determined the SPCA had a copy of the applicant's plan when they
made their comments. Mr. Benish stated Mrs. Mead (SPCA) felt the operation
of the kennel was more important than the internal design of the facilities.
Since this type of request is very infrequent, Ms. Diehl was concerned
about whether or not there was a member of the County staff who was
qualified in the area of acoustical engineering.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the Commission needs advice from the County
Engineer,or possibly Mr. Hurt, as to how to address the soundproofing
issue. Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned not only about the noise but
also about the very high density of the proposal. In connection to this
he was concerned about the health of the animals.
Mr. Cogan stated he did not feel there was enough information to act on
the proposal at this time. He suggested deferring the application
to allow time for the County Engineer or Mr. Hurt to report on the
exact type of structure that is needed.
Mr. Keeler stated that the County officials would be aided in their review
if the applicant were required to submit a Certified Acoustical Engineer's
Report, along with the building plans. He pointed out that that requirement
had been placed on Mr. Dofflemyer.
Mr. Stark expressed some confusion about the 500-foot restriction from
residential property. Mr. Payne explained that if a kennel is located
closer than 500 feet to residential property, soundproofing is required,
but the absolute limit for proximity to residential property is 200 feet.
It was the consensus of the Commission that there was insufficient information
to act on the application.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-86-82 for Caleb Stowe, Village Office Limited
Partnership, be indefinitely deferred to allow time for more information
to be gathered in relation to soundproofing, including a report from
a Certified Acoustical Engineer,and kennel size and runs in relation
to the number of dogs.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Berkmar Park Site Plan - Proposal to locate two (2), one-story buildings
for office use (and commercial kennel). The total square footage of 86
parking spaces are to be provided. The total area of the site is 2.49
acres. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the east
side of Berkmar Drive (Route 1403) adjacent to the Village Offices Limited
Partnership property. Tax Map 61U-02, Parcels 2, 3 and 4. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
After conferring with the applicant, it was decided this review would
be postponed and rescheduled on the same agenda as SP-86-82.
J/7
December 2, 1986 Page 5
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Berkmar Park Site Plan
be deferred indefinitely.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-86-80 ERB Transportation Inc. - Gemini Transit (contract purchaser)
petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a
Warehouse Facility (27.2.2.5) on 3.93 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial.
Property, described as Tax map 56, parcel 87, is located on the south side
of Route 240 in Crozet in the White Hall Magisterial District.
It was determined the applicant had requested indefinite deferral.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-86-80 for ERB
Transportation, Inc. be indefinitely deferred at the request of the
applicant.
The motion passed unanimously.
Hunter's Hall Subdivision - ZMA-844 09 - Hunter's Hall owners petition the
Board of Supervisors to rezone 46.12 acres from HC Highway Commercial to LI
Light Industrial with Proffer. Hunter's Hall Subdivision consisting of
20 lots (17 proposed for rezoning) surrounds Lowe's building supply on
U.S. Route 250 East near Shadwell in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report included the following:
"Hunter's Hall subdivision is in a rural area and therefore, the
existing HC zoning does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Commercial
zoning districts are to be restricted to designated growth areas. The
Comprehensive Plan states that industrial sites "need not be restricted
to growth areas" but should be served by public utilities. A policy
determination to be made by the Commission and Board in this case is
whether or not it is appropriate to substitute one 'non -conforming
zoning for another."'
Mr. Keeler added that some rural properties have been rezoned to
either Commercial or Industrial designation based, in large part, on the
argument that the property owner had made a sizeable financial investment
in the property before the current ordinance went into effect. He stated,
"Thus, this would not be any type of hallmark precedent (that would be set)
by rezoning this from HC to LI." He added that, because of the road,
staff feels that this property is suitable only to industrial or
commercial development because of the investment that has already been made.
Mr. Keeler read the following Highway Department comments:
"The Department has already approved road plans for Hunter's Hall
Subdivision. A Category 5 pavement design was required for the
first 1,000 feet or so, from Rt. 250,(Mr. Keeler explained that he
was paraphrasing the comments.), and from that point to the cul-de-sac
a Category 4 pavement design was required. The Highway Commercial
December 2, 1986
Page 6
zone is the most intensive zoning district and normally generates
a high volume of traffic. The Light Industrial zone usually
generates less traffic than Highway Commercial zoning, however, there
may be more heavier weight trucks or vehicles associated with this
zoning. Overall, this request will probably generate less traffic
than existing zoning and as long as the approved road plans are not
invalidated by the rezoning, the Department has no problems with this
request."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roudabush. His comments included the
following:
--The staff report contains an error, i.e. lot 13 should have been a part
of the request for 17 lots and should not be "cross -hatched" on
the map.
--He stressed that this is an existing development and not a request
for rezoning so that a development can be created.
--The project was begun in early 1979, when the property was zoned Bl,
and was almost completed before the adoption of the current ordinance.
The B1 designation allowed a broader range of uses than does the HC
designation.
--All of the improvements have been completed, including a decel lane, and
extensive stormwater drainage improvements to Rt. 250 in front of
the property. The road was constructed to a very high category,
which would permit up to 3,000 vehicles per day.
--The property has convenient access to a major highway and also to
164.
--There are no adjacent residential areas.
--There is a need for LI land in this area of the county.
--The existing zoning, HC, does not allow uses which are suited to
the arrangement and access to this property. Of the 34 uses permitted
by right in the HC district, the applicant found 18 to be inappropriate
for this type of development.
--There is no problem with obtaining sufficient ground water. Most of
the uses envisioned would required low volumes of water.
--Septic tank testing has produced excellent results.
--If the property remains HC, a lot of marginal uses will "creep" in
which will negate the positive aspects of the property.
--The property is well -screened from Rt. 250 by the topography.
--The proffer should address all questions regarding waste disposal
and the lack of public utilities.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. David Painter, representing Forest Hill Associates, owners of lots
1 and 2, addressed the Commission. He asked if Forest Hill's approval
was needed for this proposal. Mr. Payne responded, "No." He asked that
the Commission base it's action on a determination that this revision
is in accord with public necessity, convenience and general welfare
and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. He felt that to rezone the
property based solely on private interest would be spot zoning. He
also expressed concern about the possibility of tractor trailers
using the road.
December 2, 1986
Page 7
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
It was determined the road has been built to state standards but
probably has not been accepted into the state system because it currently
does not have three users.
There was some confusion on the part of the Commission and the staff
as to how to interpret the Highway Department comments. Mr. Keeler
felt the comments were probably speaking to pavement strength. Mr.
Keeler did clarify that no lot within the development is permitted
access to Rt. 250; access is restricted to Hunter's Way.
It was determined the Highway Department comments had not addressed the
issue of the steepness of the road in relation to tractor trailer usage.
Mr. Keeler stated he did not know that the standard would change for
truck traffic.
Regarding the decel lane, Mr. Keeler quoted the following from
the Highway Department's comments at the time of the preliminary plat
in 1979: "Adequate sight distance exists for a commercial entrance.
A deceleration lane tying in with the existing Lowe's entrance
should be constructed with curb and gutter. Adequate pavement
exists for painting a left -turn lane into the site .... If state roads
are intended the plan should be developed indicating geometrics,
grades and drainage easements necessary." He added that the
Highway Department comments at the time of the final plat were
basically that "the plat reflected their previous comments" and
that before signing the plat staff should make sure that the
Highway Department had approved the road plans.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roudabush if there had been any recent discussions
with the Highway Department. Mr. Roudabush responded that there had
been no recent discussions and none since the road was completed and
the final inspection made.
Regarding the policy issue in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr.
Cogan stated that neither the existing zoning, nor the proposed zoning,
are in compliance with the Plan. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission
felt that a rezoning from Highway Commercial to Light Industrial would
be "consistent with the inconsistency" that already exists.
Mr. Wilkerson responded, "I'm not sure; two wrongs don't make a right."
Ms. Diehl agreed.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the application.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was concerned about the traffic flow on Rt. 250
since this development could add "slower moving vehicles" entering 250
at this point.
Mr. Cogan felt the LI uses would generate less traffic count than would
the HC uses, though the type of traffic might be different.
December 2, 1986
Page 8
Mr. Cogan felt it would be difficult for any use to evolve which
might use tractor trailers because of the steepness of the road
and the topography of the lots.
Mr. Cogan stated he did not have a real problem with the application
since he felt it was a less intense use than could be potentially
reached with Highway Commercial. He felt it was a higher and better
use of the land.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he agreed with Mr. Cogan and added he did
not feel the change was inconsistent with what is already there.
He added, however, that he did have concerns about "the turn lane
and taper with the access to Lowe's and the physical construction
of the road that's there."
Mr. Bowerman asked if re -zoning would correct any of the existing
problems. Ms. Diehl stated that it would not address any of the
road issues.
Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about the heavy truck traffic
exiting the Lowe's site in relation to tying up traffic on Rt. 250.
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that Lowe's will be moving from this
location in the "foreseeable future" so there will be a conversion
of that site which may or may not help the traffic problems.
Mr. Cogan stated he did have some concern about the Comprehensive Plan
issue, but he did not consider this spot zoning because the existing
zoning is already non -compliant.
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-89-09 for Hunter's Hall Subdivision be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion (just to get it on the floor).
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the motion because of the Comprehensive
Plan issue, because of the lack of public utilities to serve Light
Industrial uses, and because of the inadequacy of the roads and entrances
for industrial traffic.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he could not support the motion.
Mr. Cogan stated he was supporting the application based solely on the
belief that it would be a less intense use than is currently possible.
The motion for approval was defeated (3:2:1) with Commissioners Bowerman
and Cogan voting in favor; Commissioners Diehl, Wilkerson and Gould voting
against; and Commissioner Stark abstaining.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-89-09 for Hunter's Hall Subdivision be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (3:2:1) with Commissioners
Diehl, Wilkerson and Gould voting for denial; Commissioners Bowerman and
Cogan voting against denial; and Commissioner Stark abstaining.
.3.2 /
December 2, 1986 Page 9
The meeting recessed from 9:23 to 9:33
SP-86-76 Chesapeake and Potomac Company (Property owned by Larry and Deborah
Clayton) - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(6) of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
for the installation of a microwave tower and passive repeater on a 17.160
acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map 70,
Parcel 8 is located on the north side of Route 250 West approximately 450
feet west of intersection with Route 691. White Hall Magisterial District.
and
SP-86-77 Chesapeake and Potomac Company - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(6) of theAlbemarle County Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a
special use permit to allow for the installation of a microwave transmission/
receiving dish on the west side of an existing building on a .192 acre
parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map 70, Parcel 9A is
located on the north side of Route 250 West approximately 400 feet west
of intersection with Route 691. White Hall Magisterial District.
and
SP-86-78 Chesapeake and Potomac Company - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(6) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a
special use permit to allow for the installation of a microwave tower and
transmitting/receiving dish on a 10,000 square foot parcel zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 39, Parcel lE is located on Bucks
Elbow Mountain near existing radio tower, accessible by State Route 611.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bill Perkins, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He introduced the following persons who were also in attendance:
Mr. Carroll Fitz, Manager of C & P Radio Engineering Center for Virginia;
Mr. Harold Barnett, Planning Engineer for C & P; Mr. Ed Johnson, C & P
Engineer in Charge of Construction; Mr. Ron Esavido, C & P Engineer for
Telephonic Microwave Installation; and Dr. Herbert Pollock, Independent
Authority on Microwave Radiation. Mr. Perkins' comments included the
following:
--The existing cable carrier system currently used for the Greenwood -
Staunton system has become inadequate.
--The Highway Department has reconstructed a part of the road on the
west side of Staunton which will cause a total relocation of the
line at that point.
--C & P was unaware of Albemarle County's zoning requirements and
thus did not apply for the special use permit 7-8 months ago
when they first became aware of the Highway Department relocation project.
--When the matter was before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the public
had wanted the matter deferred because they did not have an attorney
present at the meeting. The public had also indicated opposition to the
"possible tower installation at the station itself." As a result of
this opposition C & P offered to "hang the dish on the side of the
building away from their property where visually it would not
impede them" and thus there would be no need to get approval
December 2, 1986 Page 10
from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
--A 100-foot tower was originally proposed on the building site itself,
but because of public opposition, C & P acquired leased land on which
to locate the tower.
--He disagreed with the staff report, page 4, which stated that the
"proposed site would be inadequate to accommodate proposed improvement;
the reflector has to be located on adjoining property." He explained
"it is only because the applicant desired not to put up a 100-foot
structure on site that we had not to be on our property itself."
He stressed that the originally proposed 100-foot tower could have
been totally on the applicant's property.
--The impact on traffic will be minimal, approximately 1 vehicle trip/week.
--The capacity of this installation will provide very long range
service (for many, many years to come).
--He felt the dish, at most, would only be visible very briefly from Rt.
250 and the repeater tower should not be visible at all.
--The lease area on Buck's Elbow is within a large tract. A number
of towers and microwave dishes already exist on Buck's Elbow.
--Dr. Pollock will demonstrate that the proposal poses no health hazards.
(The Chairman acknowledged that Dr. Pollock's credentials show him to
be qualified to address this issue.)
--He presented a substitute report for Attachment D which was included
with the staff report. He explained that incorrect data had been
used with the original report (prepared by Mr. Esavido), and the
report should have been based on an 11 gagohertz installation rather
than a 6 gagohertz installation.
--The installation will not interfere with radio or television transmission.
--Installing an alternative (a fiber optics line) to the microwave
proposal would increase the cost by $850,000, would require obtaining
additional right-of-way, and would entail a "clean cut swath down the
side of the mountain." (The staff report had stated the difference would
be approximately $250,000, for a fiber -digital system, Staunton to Greenwood.)
(Note: At this point Mr. Keeler expressed some confusion as to how the
proposal was presented to staff. He stated that two plans were studied,
one of which was a "fiber -digital system between Staunton and Greenwood."
Mr. Perkins stated there had been an error in the way it was stated, i.e.
it should have stated "between Staunton and Greenwood using the Buck's
Mt. microwave facility." Mr. Bowerman clarified the $250,000 figure
was to "build a fiber -optics from Buck's Elbow Mt., down to Greenwood"
with a microwave at Buck's Mt.)
--Elimination of tower on the lease area would require a clear-cut tree
right-of-way across the Fisher's property who are not amenable
to this approach.
Dr. Herbert Pollock addressed the Commission. Using the overhead projector
the gave a lengthy technical explanation of microwave radiation. He
concluded with the statement: "There is no evidence, experimental or
clinical, that the power densities to which people are exposed at ground
level from this type of transmission can in any way have any biological
effect."
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission:
December 2, 1986
Page 11
Mr. Glyde Gouldman, representing Dr. George Fisher and Dr. Lulie Fisher,
owners of the residence immediately adjacent to the C & P operational
center (where the 6-foot dish is proposed on the existing building).
He felt the proposal should require a variance because the
Ordinance prohibits any structure within the Scenic Overlay District.
He felt this public hearing was premature because such a variance
should first be sought from the Board of Zoning Appeals. He felt
the dish, whether on a "pole" or on the roof of the existing
building, is still a %tructure" as referred to in the Ordinance.
(Mr. Bowerman explained that there is no requirement that a Board of
Zoning Appeals decision be made before an application is heard by the
Commission, though the Commission usually prefers that the Board of
Zoning Appeals hearing take place first. He asked Mr. Payne to comment further
on the issue of whether or not the dish is located on a existing building
determines whether it falls within the scenic overlay criteria. Mr.
Payne stated Mr. Perkins had written a letter to Burgess (Zoning Administrator)
and he had discussed that letter with Mr. Burgess. He explained: "The
issue is not whether it falls within the Scenic Highway Overlay restrictions,
it obviously does; the question is whether it constitutes an expansion
of the non -conforming building. The building is non -conforming. Frankly,
I think it's a close question, whether it constitutes an expansion of the
building or not. I really don't think the fact that it is, or is not,
a fixture has anything to do with it. I think it is a question of whether
it's an expansion of the building. Mr. Burgess' opinion was that it does
not constitute an expansion of the building and therefore it is part of
the building and the building remains non -conforming. It's clear to me
Mr. Burgess' opinion is that no variance is required. To the extent
that a special use permit for this use is allowed and appropriate leave is
sought, whether that's a building permit or whatever it might be, to install
the facility physically, Mr. Gouldman's clients would have an opportunity
to appeal Mr. Burgess' decision at that point, whether or not you issue
the special use permit. ... If the special use permit is granted, then the
issue of the setback arises; but it would be possible, at least theoretically,
to have this use and have there be no setback issue because there could be
an underground line, or whatever. ... The use is one thing; the installation
of the facilities necessary for the use is something else.")
Dr. Lulie Fisher, owner of the residence immediately adjacent to the
C & P operational center, and a practicing radiologist, addressed
the Commission. She stated C & P's driveway backs up to her
property line. She stressed that C & P has at no time made
their plans known to her. She explained that she has always
cooperated with C & P even to the extent of supplying them
water and mowing their grass and sharing a common drive.
She indicated the lack of communication from C & P may have
resulted from the recent change in ownership. She stated she
recently returned home from work one day to find a bulldozer
in her front yard and the front of the road had been
mowed up because C & P thought they had an easement. She
stated she had just been approached about the alternative
of topping the trees a couple of days before Thanksgiving.
She stressed that she and the community were willing to
meet with C & P representatives to find an acceptable
approach to the proposal. Dr. Fisher stated that though
she realized this radiation range has no possible "documented"
health hazards, she still felt there needs to be continuing
December 2, 1986
Page 12
research in long-term and chronic low dose exposure.
Dr. Fisher confirmed that she was opposed to the proposal
as it stands, though she was not opposed to working
with C & P on an acceptable alternative.
Mr. Bill Rodman, Senior Warden at Emmanuel Episcopal Church, addressed
the Commission. He felt the proposal would be a disruption to the
scenic highway and to the church's property. He stated the
congregation was opposed to the project.
Mr. Dan O'Neill, whose family owns a farm which runs along the top of
Buck's Elbow Mt., addressed the Commission. He stated he also
represented other property owners on Buck's Elbow, all of whom
are strongly opposed to the 75-foot tower that is proposed on
the C & P site. The reasons for opposition were the size of
the tower and its location. He explained that the existing
towers on Buck's Elbow are at least 1,200 feet from the C & P
site, over the rise of the hill, so they are effectively segregated
from the area in which this new, much larger tower is proposed.
He felt a tower of this size would drastically alter the
character of the area. The tower will effect the view from his
parents' home as well as four other property owners (Hunter Andrews,
Colin McClaren, Kline family, and Davis family). The leased
land used by C & P is surrounding by a large tract of land owned
by Mr. Robert Buford who is strongly opposed to the location of
the tower not only for aesthetic reasons, but also because there
would be no way to locate the tower any farther than 50 feet
from at least one of his property lines. He pointed out that
the ordinance requires that such a tower be at least 75 feet from
any property line. He asked that that requirement not be
"circumvented." In response to Mr. Keeler's question, Mr. O'Neill
stated he was specifically representing Mr. Buford.
Mr. Rick White, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission.
He stressed that C & P has been aware of this project since
August, 1985, yet they have made no attempt to meet with
surrounding property owners to work out acceptable alternatives.
Dr. Batchman, a Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of
Virginia, addressed the Commission. (He had been retained by
the Fishers as a technical consultant.) He felt the presentation
presented by the applicant differed in some aspects from the
report. E.g. (1) One drawing shows a fiber optic line coming
to Greenwood from Roanoke, yet another time they say the proposed microwave
link is to increase the capacity between Staunton and Roanoke; and (2)
Radiation fields appear to be higher behind the antennae than
in front in some places; (3) In one place it states that a line -of -
sight tower to Buck's Mt. would be 100 feet tall, yet in another it
states such a tower would be 350 feet tall.
Mr. Bob Osborne, representing the Greenwood Citizens' Council, addressed
the Commission. He was concerned about the effect on property
values and aesthetics. He pointed out the high cost of phone
service in the Greenwood area and asked if this project would
allow residents to call Crozet and Charlottesville at less cost.
2.5�
December 2, 1986
Page 13
Mr. Scott Peyton, a resident of Greenwood, addressed the Commission.
He referred to the "rush and hush" manner in which C & P has
dealt with the proposal. He stressed that the community is
very concerned about the proposal. He felt allowing a microwave
station would establish an unfortunate precedent. He stressed
that such an installation would be inconsistent with the historical
and scenic character of the area. He suggested that the County
authorize a study of criteria to establish a comprehensive and
uniform guideline for the installation of microwave facilities
throughout the County.
Ms. Tamera Vance, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,
addressed the Commission and expressed her opposition to the
proposal.
Mr. Gouldman again addressed the Commission and asked that the
Commission not rush its decision on this application simply because
C & P had been unaware of the County's special permit procedures.
The Chairman allowed tie zpplicant to respond to some of the public
comments. Comments were as follows
--The tree cut necessary would be a "30-foot circle that is totally
free of growth."
--Dr. Pollack, addressing the issue of further research being
necessary to determine the effect of long-range exposure to
low -dose microwave radiation: "Yes indeed, there's always need
for further research. We're all in favor of mother, love, and God,
and research is in one of those categories. Let me just quote
to you from The Biological Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation:
'The conclusion: The existing data base provides sufficient
evidence about the relation between RF radiation exposure and
biological effects. To permit development of exposure limits
to protect the health of the general public, it has been
concluded from this review that the biological effects occur
at a specific absorbed radiation of 1 watt/kilogram.' That
would amount to about 300 microwatts/cm2, and, as we pointed
out, we are dealing here with picowatts. The research, of
course is needed because there is still a large gray area
which is of importance to the industrial people rather than
the general public. We know that above 10 miliwatts--don't
confuse this with microwatts--we can expect certain health
hazards .... We know the upper level that can cause damage. We
do not know of any health hazard that exists below 100 micro -
watts. So the gray area between 100 microwatts and 10 miliwatts
is the large area which requires tremendous further research
because this is the area used by the industrial people....
However, as far as the general public is concerned, as EPA has
shown, the level is in the order of picowatts of exposure and
that area we know is absolutely safe."
--Mr. Johnson, addressing the issue of the suggested "rush and
hush"manner of C & P: He explained there is not always time
to'aelegate jobs in advance of it actually happening" and he was
not aware that a special permit was needed.
December 2, 1986 Page 14
-- Mr. Garnett, addressing the issue of the need for immediate action:
He explained the service will complete a vital route between Roanoke
and Staunton. The current facilities are totally exhausted.
--Mr. Fitz, addressing the issue of the number of existing towers on
Buck's Elbow: He stated there are no towers, per se, but rather some
microwave antennas mounted on tops of buildings. He stated these
were not tall enough to trarsmit to the Greenwood site. He also
stated he did not believe the tower would be visible from the highway.
He felt neither the Greenwood site, nor the Buck's Elbow site,
would be offensive.
(A member of the public, Ms. Louise Lorenze, disagreed with Mr. Fitz.
She stated she owned the property in front of C & P and the site
is totally devoid of trees. She added that C & P had also dug
up her property without permission.)
--Regarding the issue of Mr. Buford's property and the proximity to
his property line, Mr. Perkins pointed out that Mr. Buford leased
the property to C & P with the knowledge of what would be placed
on the property.
(Mr. Keeler took exception to this statement, pointing out that
the property has been leased for a number of years and C & P
only recently made known their intent to place a 75-foot tower
on the property.)
At this time, the Chairman closed the public portion of the hearing
and placed the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler expressed concern about the fact that much of the information
presented by the applicant was in conflict with the staff report. He
stressed that the report was before the Commission at the request of
the applicant, based on the urgency of the project, though they have
known about the project since August, 1985. He indicated staff had
not had sufficient time to explore alternatives, as had been the case
with previous similar applications (WPED and VEPCO).
Mr. Keeler felt the matter should be considered further to make sure
that the information submitted by the applicant was accurate and
also to determine if there are other alternatives.
It was determined that the proposed project would not enhance telephone
service to Greenwood residents.
It was the consensus of the Commission that not enough information was
presented to allow action to be taken at this time. The concerns
of the Commission were as follows:
--Both towers are in violation of Section 4.10.3.1 in that they
are too close to the property line.
--The applicant has not studied the alternatives available.
--The applicant must document that an attempt has been made to
locate the microwave on an existing tower on Buck's Elbow
or in the same vicinity, possibly Bear's Den Mt.
--The applicant has not made an effort to meet with community
residents in Greenwood, nor neighboring property owners
on Buck's Elbow Mt.
--The property in Greenwood is too small and will encroach on the
neighborhood.
_5 ;'21
December 2, 1986
Page 15
M
M
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-86-76, SP-86-77, and SP-86-78 for Chesapeake and
Potomac Company be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Regarding the conflict with Section 4.10.3.1, Mr. Payne stated that the
requirement is meant to be somewhat flexible.
It was determined the matter would be re -advertised for public hearing.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
DS
I - r • i �c
hn Horne, Secretary
3.?W