HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 15 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
June 15,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, June 15, 1999
in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr.
Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Rodney Thomas.
Other officials present were: Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Ms. Margaret
Pickart, Design Planner. Absent: Mr. William Finley, Chairman.
Approval of Minutes — May 11,1999; May 18,1999; Ma_y 25,1999
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved all three minutes, with minor amendments to
the minutes of May 18`".
Commissioners indicated they had not received the minutes of June 1st in their packets. Mr. Cilimberg
agreed to have staff send them to Commissioners.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — June 9,1999.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a review of the June 91h Board of Supervisors meeting.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
SDP 99-055 Hollymead Townhouses Preliminary Site Plan Critical Slopes Waiver Request — Request
for waiver for construction on critical slopes in association with a preliminary site plan for construction of
66 townhouses on 6.5 acres zoned R-6, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor.
Addition to Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District — Proposal to add 13.5 acres to the Buck
Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 17 Parcel 32, is located to the
south of Davis Shop road, Route 671. The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan
and is zoned as Rural Areas district.
Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District — Proposal to add 154.638 acres to the Lanark
Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 90, Parcels 12 and 14A, is located northwest
of Scottsville Road, Route 20 South. The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan
and is zoned Rural Areas District.
Creation of the Nortonsville Local Agricultural/Forestal District — Proposal to create the Nortonsville
Local Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 8, Parcel 26, is located northwest of
Nortonsville and south of Boonesville road, Route 810. The parcel comprises 92.575 acres. It is designated
as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, zoned Rural Areas District.
Creation of the South Garden Agricultural/Forestal District — Proposal to create the south Garden
Agricultural Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 70 and Tax Map 110, Parcels 08,
18 and 18E, is located south of Cove Garden Road, Route 633. Cumulatively, the parcels comprise 1265.13
acres. The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Rural Areas
District.
1998 Planning Commission Annual Report
Mr. Loewenstein had a question on the 1998 Annual Report regarding the date of 1988 given for Consent
Agenda implementation. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that Consent Agendas did begin in 1988 as a procedural
element of the Planning Commission's agenda. Mr. Loewenstein noted that in 1998, the Rules &
256
Procedures were revised by the Planning Commission, and suggested adding that in the annual report. Mr.
Cilimberg noted the change.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda
SP 99-22 Triton (Bellair)
Request for special use permit for a personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section
10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for radio -wave transmission and relay towers. The
property, zoned RI, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor, and described as Tax Map 76C Section
2 Parcel 1, contains approximately 1.5 acres and is located on the west side of the Route 29 By -Pass
(Monacan Trail), approximately one-half mile south of the intersection of Routes 29 and 250 West
(Ivy Road) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District, at 14 Deer Path. The site is located in
Neighborhood Six, and is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential in the
Comprehensive Plan. Applicant requests indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the indefinite deferral of SP
99-22. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-27 Rug Depot
Request for special use permit to allow outdoor display of merchandise in accordance with Section
30.6.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for outdoor display in the entrance Corridors. The
property, described as Tax Map 45bl, Section 5, block A, Parcel 14, contains less than 1 acre, and is
located in the Rio Magisterial District on the east side of Seminole Trail [Route 29N] just south of
Hilton Heights Road. The property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for Community Service in
Neighborhood 2.
Mr. Thomas announced that although he owns property adjacent to the Rug Depot property on Route
29, he can participate in the discussion and vote fairly and objectively, and in the best interest of the
public.
Ms. Pickart presented the staff report, noting that the applicant proposes to display rugs for sale in
two ways: on two wooden frame structures in the front yard of the property; and to hang rugs from
the front wall of the building. She noted the copies of photographs of the display frames in the staff
report, and additional pictures displayed in the meeting room. Ms. Pickart said a special use permit
is required because Route 29 is an Entrance Corridor.
She reported that the ARB reviewed the application for display of rugs on the wooden frames in
March of 1999; despite Planning staff s negative recommendation, the ARB voted 3 to 1 to
recommend approval of the proposal with conditions, as listed in the staff report. Ms. Pickart
explained that one of the conditions was that the frames should be removed from view of the
Entrance Corridor [Route 29] when the rugs are not being displayed. Subsequent to the ARB's
recommendation of approval, they noticed that the display was occurring without the special use
permit, and noticed that the ARB conditions of approval were not being followed during the
violation. Their particular concern was that the display frames were not being removed from view
of the Entrance Corridor. There were other concerns related to approval of the sign, but they are not
a part of this application review.
257
The ARB indicated at their May 3rd meeting they wanted to show support of the business, but were
"extremely disappointed" in the applicant's display of rugs and his "violating the spirit of their
recommended approval." Ms. Pickart noted that the ARB's review in March did not address rugs
hung from the walls of the building, and it was subsequent to their review that rugs were being
displayed in that manner. She added that the staff report distributed indicated that it was unlikely the
ARB would recommend approval of the display; subsequent to the completion of the staff report,
staff confirmed that the ARB would not approve rugs hung from the front wall of the building.
Ms. Pickart summarized that the ARB completed their review, and recommended approval with
conditions; staff has identified a number of factors that are unfavorable to the request, relating
primarily to the character and appearance of the display, and the nature of the ongoing violation.
She said if the Commission approves the request, staff recommends conditions as listed in the staff
report.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the applicant was currently in violation of zoning. Ms. Pickart confirmed
that there is an ongoing violation, noting the attachments in the staff report that indicate that. In
response to Mr. Rooker's question, Ms. Pickart said that there is an ongoing violation, and the notice
of violation was served in March. She explained that zoning does not count every day as a violation
if there is an application in process to try to remedy the situation. Ms. Pickart explained that the
nature of the violation is that the rugs are being displayed on the frames in the front yard, and
intermittently rugs are being displayed from the walls of the building. She added that there are ARB
conditions of approval for the sign that have not been completely met either, but this violation
related specifically to the display on the frames and the walls of the building.
Mr. Thomas asked if the racks outside the store are part of the violation. Ms. Pickart said that the
racks do not follow the condition of approval of the ARB, but the whole display is in violation
because the special use permit has not been approved. She explained that the ARB does not
recommend approval of display from the walls, and their recommended conditions only include
display from the frames. Mr. Thomas asked what the difference is between a 9'x12' sign and a
9'x12' rug as far as an advertisement. Ms. Pickart said that a rug would be considered a display.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if a sign shop put signs out in their yard for display, would it be considered a
sign or a display.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a limit to the number of signs allowed, and if you put a number
of signs out, you would be in violation of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that you can display the wares you sell with a special use permit, citing
automobile dealerships as an example.
Mr. Kamptner said that he definition of "sign" in the Zoning Ordinance really "blurs the two,"
because an object out for display purposes can be considered a sign, but practical application views
signs and the items being sold in a store as separate.
Mr. Rooker asked if car display and garden display (i.e. Wal Mart) at nearby stores were permitted
by special use permit. Ms. Pickart confirmed that they are, and confirmed that the ARB would not
likely approve the wall display. Mr. Rooker noted Ms. Pickart's comment that the ARB review
`- assumed that the display would occur primarily on weekends, not seven days a week. Ms. Pickart
explained that when the ARB reviewed the application, the hours of display discussed were
258
primarily on weekends; the report for the SP was completed after that, and additional information
was provided by the applicant indicating his intent to not limit his display hours.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a condition on the number of days. Ms. Pickart said there is no
condition for the number of days allowed for display, but display is limited to daylight business
hours. She said she was unsure as to ARB was concerned about the number of days allowed for
display.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that despite the fact that the ARB has assumed most of the sales
activity would be on the weekends, there is nothing in the conditions that specifically limits that.
Mr. Rieley asked Ms. Pickart to clarify the overlapping authority between this Special Use Permit
and the ARB approval. Ms. Pickart responded that the SP is required because the shop is in the
Entrance Corridor. Mr. Rieley asked if the Commission approves the permit, if there is additional
limitation that the ARB could impose on the site. Ms. Pickart replied that he ARB has already
conducted their review, and their conditions have been set forth as described.
Ms. Washington commented that any other limits would have to be imposed by the Commission.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Commission can impose additional conditions, but can't eliminate ARB
conditions.
The applicant, Mahmood Pashazedeh addressed the Commission, stating that doing business as a
small businessman in Charlottesville is a "disaster." He stated that his business is his survival. Mr.
Pashazedeh said that the display structures are very large and heavy wood to keep them secure, and
wy,,,, are difficult to move.
He emphasized that the car dealers, Sam's, Wal-Mart near his shop have extensive displays, and
claimed that as a small businessman, he gets little respect. Mr. Pashazedeh said that the Persian
Rugs are the pride of his nation, stating, "I am going to survive." He explained that he tried to paint
his stands to blend in with the grass. Mr. Pashazedeh said that David Sumner, Professor of Art
History at U.Va., has admired his display.
Mr. Thomas asked how many days a week he planned to display rugs. Mr. Pashazedeh answered
that he plans to display seven days a week, adding, "Respect me like you respect the Wal-Mart, sir."
Mr. Nitchmann asked why Mr. Pashazedeh did not respond to the notice of violation. Mr.
Pashazedeh answered that he has only one small sign, and complained that because he "is a
foreigner," he is treated unfairly.
Ms. Washington said, "Everybody has to get a special use permit."
Mr. Rooker mentioned that Wal-Mart was cited for violation of their special use permit, and had to
comply.
Mr. Pashazedeh said he applied for a special use permit, and explained that he has left the display
frames for the rugs outside because they are too heavy to move.
Mr. Rooker said, "I think the violation was for having the display at all without a special use permit,
not whether he moved it in or out."
259
Ms. Washington told the applicant that the issue is the items are being displayed before the special
1400, use permit goes into effect.
Mr. Pashazedeh said that the ARB said it was acceptable to display as long as he had made
application. "This is no danger to nobody... in the place in the middle of the grass that nobody walks
over."
Ms. Washington said that the Commission understands his concern, and they will discuss the issue
and make a decision on it.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said that he was not interested in discussing the violation and what previously
occurred. "The important thing is that he's here with a special use permit today and he's trying to do
it right ... I put a lot of confidence in the ARB to protect the Entrance Corridor, and I believe they
probably went over this in a lot of detail, and have virtually... passed this permitting the display of
the signs [rugs] on the frame."
Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. Pickart about the favorable and unfavorable factors listed in the
summary part of the staff report. "Are those coming from the ARB as well as you?"
Ms. Pickart responded, "The ARB's conditions of approval are incorporated into that."
Mr. Loewenstein said that in looking at the list of unfavorable factors in the staff report, "I'm
wondering whether or not some of those were expressed by the ARB at the time that this gentleman
first came before them, and... even if subsequently they entertained some of these — number one and
number two for example, then it seems to be in conflict with the action they took, subsequently. Did
these particular factors — and maybe some others like them — come partly at least as a result of the
ARB discussions, or were they things that you came to subsequently?"
Ms. Pickart responded that the unfavorable factors would be consistent with her review beginning
with the ARB through today. "I think that these issues about the temporary appearance and the
disorderly appearance were discussed at the ARB." She added that the primary focus of the
conversation was the type of display in comparison to other outdoor display in the area, and the
temporary character and disorderly appearance — which were discussed after the ARB realized the
display was occurring.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Ms. Pickart confirmed that she recommended that the ARB
not approve this; the basis for that recommendation was the factors also listed in the staff report to
the Commission. The ARB considered those factors in their deliberations.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was something in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the temporary nature
of the signs, and wondered if there was something requiring signs to be attached in a permanent
manner.
Ms. Pickart emphasized that the temporary appearance pertains to the rugs, not the signs.
260
Mr. Cilimberg said the signs are handled by the ARB and are not before the Commission; the
outdoor rug display is the item to be considered.
Ms. Washington asked if the idea was to display the rugs year-round.
Ms. Pickart said seasonal display was not discussed.
Mr. Rooker added that there is nothing in the ARB's approval that would limit the number of days
allowed for display.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the certificate of appropriateness was for the wall sign, and the
merchandise display is a recommendation, not an ARB action. "What they're doing essentially is
recommending to [the Commission] and the Board of Supervisors the conditions that should be
applied to the outdoor display aspect. They have already acted on the wall sign... it's with to the
Board of Supervisors to decide the conditions that will be applicable to their display. [The ARB] has
made their recommendation."
Mr. Thomas asked about the racks not being able to be removed.
Ms. Pickart said that the fact the display frames can't be moved is "new information" that was not
known to the ARB.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the determination of whether that condition be included is up to the
Commission and the Board.
Mr. Rieley said he has a large concern regarding the entire outdoor display issue, and said the
Commission needs to consider the issue as a whole. Regarding this particular application, he said
that the recommendations for conditions of approval that the ARB has laid out are reasonable, and if
the display is considered within its commercial context, it is one of the better outdoor displays in the
entire area. "It's the kind of thing that actually enriches a commercial scene." He suggested that the
permit be approved with the conditions as laid out by the ARB.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that he is concerned that a letter of violation was sent and disregarded
during the application period. "I see this as being less of a visual blight than a lot of the things that
are displayed on other properties nearby." Mr. Rooker commented that when he viewed the racks
without the rugs it looked like a miniature swing -set. "I don't know that it's detrimental to have that
there without the rugs on it .... given that particular construction and coloring, I don't think it's
inappropriate to leave the stand up when the rugs aren't on it." Mr. Rooker said that the applicant
has indicated it is difficult to move the stand, and recommended approving the permit with removal
of the condition recommended by the ARB that the display rack be removed when rugs are not being
displayed.
Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of SP 99-27 with staff conditions modified as
follows:
(1) Display shall only occur during daylight business hours. Rugs shall be removed from view of
Route 29 traffic after business hours.
(2) Display shall be limited to two frames.
°* (3) Remove Condition 3
(4) Display frames shall be no larger than the current size — 6'x8'.
261
(5) Display shall not occur within the US 29 right-of-way, and shall not restrict sight distance at site
entrances along Route 29. The frames shall be located no closer than 60' to the Route 29 Right -of -
Way.
(6) The display shall not be illuminated.
SP 99-28 Boat Dock at Hickory Hill
Request for special use permit to allow a boat dock on the Rivanna Reservoir for a residential use in
accordance with Section [ 10.2.2.29] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for boat landings and canoe
liveries in the Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 45 Parcel 40E, contains 4.93 acres, and is
located in the Rio Magisterial District on Balbion Drive, which is a private road, approximately 0.25 miles
from the intersection of Balbion Road and State Route 743. The property is zoned RA Rural Areas. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, noting that her dates at the top of the report were incorrect, and
made the change from 1997 to 1999.
She explained that when the applicants, James and Kay Ogg installed their deck, it did not have an
approved building permit, and it ended up in the stream buffer... Ms. Echols said that one request
before the Commission is for the dock, because special use permits are required for docks in the
floodplain in rural areas. The other request is for a waiver of requirements of Section 4.2.1 and
Section 4.2.3.1 for construction in the 200-foot setback adjacent to a drinking water supply reservoir.
Ms. Echols continued that the Rivanna Water and Sewer authority has criteria for docks; this dock
meets the requirements. She added that the watershed manager has stated that the deck could be
approved if a mitigation plan is provided for the stream buffer, and a mitigation plan has been
provided to the watershed manager. The watershed manager has also recommended that the dock be
approved, and staff is recommending that the dock be approved based on the fact that the dock is in
keeping with the Rivanna specifications and is considered an incidental residential use. Mitigation
can be done to repair the stream buffer, and no flooding is expected to result from the floating dock.
Regarding the deck, Ms. Echols said that the Commission has been asked to waive the 200-foot
requirement, and staff has recommended approval with a mitigation plan. She added that one of the
primary issues raised by adjoining property owners is the issue of lighting, because neighbors have
noted that he Oggs have lights that are left on all night. Ms. Echols said that staff looked into the
issue of what lighting the dock and the deck would do to the reservoir, and mentioned that Steven
Boller, the Watershed Manager, was available to speak to the issues. Ms. Echols stated that the
"bottom line" of lights in the stream buffer is: within 25 feet of the reservoir, lights are damaging to
the aquatic life in the reservoir, and the reservoir's primary function is as a drinking water supply.
The health of the reservoir is dependent on the stream buffer remaining undisturbed. She added that
Mr. Boller has said that within 25 feet from the reservoir, there should not be any lights at all. Ms.
Echols said that in the area between the 25 feet from the reservoir and the 200 foot setback, lights
can be put in provided they are downward lit and low intensity.
Ms. Echols said that staff has not recommended through this particular application for the waiver of
lights that there be lights restricted, but the watershed manager is recommending in his mitigation
plan that lighting be restricted.
262
Ms. Echols concluded by reading staff recommendations for approval of the dock as outlined in her
report, modifying one condition to state that there be no lighting of the dock or path down to the
,. dock within 25 horizontal feet of the reservoir. She added that staff also recommends approval of
the waivers for the already constructed deck and to allow construction of the boat dock within the
200-foot setback with conditions as outlined in her report.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. Echols to explain what she meant by "within 25 horizontal feet of the
reservoir."
Mr. Steven Boller, Watershed Manager, said that the wording is included to distinguish between
another frequently -used term: the 5 foot vertical elevation from the reservoir. He explained that the
25-foot horizontal area is "from where your feet would get wet 25 feet back horizontally on the
property, where the county buffer is applied most intensely, although the buffer continues to 200 feet
from the hundred -year floodplain at a lower intensity.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are other docks and decks with lighting outside of the 25-foot area. Mr.
Boller responded that as the Water Protection Ordinance is relatively new, this is one of the first
times lighting has had to be addressed in a mitigation situation.
Ms. Echols noted that there may be people in the audience who live on the reservoir that can speak
to the lighting issue.
Mr. Boller emphasized that stream corridors include reservoir corridors, and the lighting issue falls
under protecting the ecological integrity of the reservoir corridor.
Mr. Rooker asked what would be included in a mitigation plan.
Mr. Boller said that usually, a 2:1 restoration relative to disturbance is done; in this case, it wasn't as
straightforward, and would include planting around the deck and to increase the buffering potential,
an agreement to put in stone to hold back some erosion, and the light restrictions as discussed. He
noted that the Oggs have already agreed to all three parts of the mitigation plan.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if Condition #1 incorporates the recommended changes that correspond to
changes in the letter from Mr. Ogg to Mr. Blankenship.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested referencing that in the conditions. He asked if the applicant is agreeable to
what the mitigation plan would be, specifically the lighting issue.
Ms. Echols responded that the applicant is in agreement with the plan, and is not recommended to be
a condition of the waiver but should instead be in the Watershed Manger's purview. "It's a stream
buffer issue, more than anything else, affecting the quality of the habitat of the reservoir." She
further noted that the Oggs have agreed with placing low -intensity landscaping lights in that
location.
The applicant, James Ogg, addressed the Commission. He thanked the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority and county officials for their assistance. Mr. Ogg mentioned that Mr. Boller has provided
guidance since January for their proposal. He said that the application involves installing the deck
within a mature, thick forest, and plans to install low-level, low -intensity "mushroom" lights —about
263
6 or 10 — to light the path from the back of the home to the pier. Mr. Ogg said they are avid fans of
canoeing, and believe in the ecological safety of water drinking supplies, and has done "innumerable
things" to make sure what they have built as a home gets replaced with other things to retain
potential runoff.
Mr. Ogg continued that the deck was built such that there are two mature trees in the center of it. He
said they are trying to retain the preservation of Rivanna District. He concluded by stating he hopes
they have satisfied all the requirements.
Mr. Thomas asked if any trees have been cleared. Mr. Ogg said the path they have created weaves
through the existing forest, and they have not removed any trees.
Mr. Thomas Jones, next -door neighbor to the Oggs, stated that the overall plan for the deck and dock
have worked out, and noted that if a dock is stuck out, he would hit it with his oar as he is a rower.
Mr. Jones said the dock only extends into the reservoir 12 feet. Mr. Jones said he does have a
concern about lighting, but learned that Mr. Ogg has stated his intention to have only low-level, low
lights pointed to the ground. Mr. Jones asked how that agreement gets incorporated into the permit,
concerned that in the future someone purchasing the home may not know about the agreement.
Mr. Kamptner said that the approval that the Board will ultimately make and the mitigation plan will
ultimately run with the land. He said that a prudent buyer will look to see what the applicable
zoning is, and any other approvals the property is subject to.
Mr. Boller confirmed that the intent of mitigation plan is to specify low-level, low -intensity lighting.
M
Mr. Jones said he supports the application.
Mr. Bobby McCauley, an adjacent property owner, said that he also supports the application. He
said that the Oggs are an asset to the Community.
Mr. Thomas said he is thoroughly pleased with what the Oggs have done on their property, and with
the proposal for the deck and dock.
Mr. Thomas noted that he received a fax from the Jack Weber, a member of the Rivan Wood
Homeowners Association. Mr. Weber's letter said that the association has not been able to convene
a meeting to properly consider the request, and those in the Tuckahoe Farms and River's End
subdivisions are affected by the request, and asked the Commission to table the request to more fully
consider the impact on their neighborhoods.
Mr. Rooker said that he is not in favor of tabling the proposal, because the applicant has gone
through all the hoops they have been required to, and have done a very good job in working with the
county on developing the plan. "Certainly anyone who wanted to speak on this issue could come
before us tonight and present their case."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved approval of SP 99-28, subject to changes in conditions modified as follows:
_ (1) The dock shall be substantially in accord with the letter of James Ogg dated 5/15/99 and with
the plan entitled, "Hickory Hill Boat Dock" dated 5/15/99.
(2) The mulched area surrounding the platform to which the deck is attached shall be no wider than 4 feet
on any side of the platform to act as an access path.
264
(3) There shall be no lighting of the dock or path down to the dock.
Mr. Kamptner emphasized that the SP will address the lighting between the reservoir and 25 horizontal feet;
the mitigation plan will address the lighting between 25 feet and the deck.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how a buyer would know that the mitigation plan covers the low -intensity,
low -lighting.
Mr. Rooker suggested elaborating in Condition #3 to say "except as approved in the mitigation plan."
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the SP is for the boat dock, and can't address the deck lighting and lighting
beyond the boat dock as part of the special use permit. He suggested leaving it as it is.
Mr. Boller added that that because the dock and 5-foot vertical area are regulated for the city by the
RWSA, the plan for the dock has to be approved, and they will not approve a dock plan with lights.
Mr. Rooker said it bothered him that the language in the Condition #3 as it stands allows for lights
that are not on the path or the dock
Mr. Loewenstein said, "Wouldn't they, because of the mitigation plan, be in violation anyway?"
Mr. Boller read the language of the mitigation plan: "No lights will be installed within 25 horizontal
feet of the reservoir. Any lights installed within 200 feet of the hundred -year floodplain will be less
than four feet tall and no brighter than the equivalent of a 40-watt incandescent bulb, and shielded
such that the light is directed toward the ground." He said the Oggs have already signed the
mitigation plan.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested removing "of the dock or path down to the dock" from Condition #3, and
replacing it with the wording "within 25 horizontal feet of the reservoir."
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Rieley asked what the enforcement would be on the mitigation plan.
Mr. Kamptner responded that it would run with the land.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Water Resource Ordinance, which calls for a mitigation plan, is a
separate section of the county code, and has standing equivalence with a Zoning Ordinance as a
county code provision. He added that it is enforceable just as zoning is.
Mr. Kamptner said it is a misdemeanor, and any disturbance of a stream buffer not in accordance
with an approved mitigation plan would be a violation.
Mr. Boller added that normally in the mitigation plan, the site is inspected after the mitigation has
been installed, usually in the building process, and the owner can't get occupancy until all mitigation
plan has been inspected and approved. Mr. Boller said that because the deck was built without
permit, the Oggs have agreed that at the inspection point, if mitigation is not approved by
engineering, they will remove the deck, which will give closure to the mitigation process in this
case.
265
Mr. Kamptner said, `By virtue of sale, they would have no approved mitigation plan, and couldn't
do anything in the stream buffer."
Mr. Rooker asked if there is anything ongoing — such as monitoring - in a mitigation agreement.
Mr. Boller said there is not.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of waivers of the requirement of
Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.3.1 for the already constructed deck and to allow construction of a boat dock
within the 200-foot setback from a drinking water reservoir and a boat dock in an area that is not a building
site, with conditions as outlined by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
Mr. Kamptner reported that Mr. Cilimberg forwarded two letters to him from VDOT, seeking the
county's comments on proposals for four wireless towers in their right-of-way, one of which
identifies a height of 250 feet in the Boyd Tavern area. He said that there is a case pending in the
Virginia Supreme Court — involving Henrico, Stafford and Hanover counties — challenging VDOT's
authority.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there is an option to defer comment pending the outcome of the Fairfax
County suit.
Mr. Kamptner said the county could suggest that VDOT hold -off until the case is decided. He said
that VDOT is asking for comments on the 250-foot tower by June 21st, and the other three by June
28'.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the county is going to respond in the comment period, essentially to
indicate how the towers relate to the county's normal consideration of towers in terms of impact on
the Entrance Corridor, etc. He said that the county will probably also indicate that the towers should
be subject to the county's review as other towers are, under special use permit procedures. Mr.
Cilimberg said that the comment will be copied to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Rooker noted that the tower would clearly not be approved under the current guidelines for
tower approvals, and under the proposed Design Manual. He suggested having a strong statement to
VDOT that it is very unlikely that the county would approve this tower.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is part of what the county plans to say. He said that comments and questions
need to go to VDOT.
Mr. Rooker said there should be some public forum regarding the towers.
Mr. Cilimberg said that that is out of Planning's purview, and is really up to the board to decide. "I
think what we would have to do in the comment period is essentially say that we feel these should be
subject to the special use permit process, which then allows for all of that to happen. But if not, then
it certainly should be subject to advertisement and public comment."
266
Referencing a letter from VDOT, Mr. Kamptner confirmed that all four towers are 250 feet, and the
other locations are I-64 and Route 29, I-64 and Route 250, and I-64 and Route 730.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "The only way VDOT's going to listen to this thing is if they hear enough
outcry from the public."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "You can see a 250-foot tower a long way."
Mr. Rooker noted that there are a lot more towers along I-64 East.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the VDOT letters came from the residency, but originated in the Culpeper
District or Richmond.
Mr. Rooker said that our local legislators need to be contacted.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the county's priority is to turn around comments now, within the comment
period.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I hope there will be some weight given to the fact that we as a community
have really spent a lot of time, energy and money on trying to come up with better ways to address
this, unlike some of the other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth."
Mr. Thomas stated that someone in Hanover County has been in communication with him regarding
Albemarle County's wireless policy.
Mr. Rooker noted that if Judge Michael's decision became law, it basically says that if there is denial
of towers, the county has to establish an evidentiary record that there are other alternatives for
providing service than that particular tower. Mr. Rooker expressed concern that this would mean
that if a tower would possibly be denied, the county would have to find experts to find alternative
ways to provide coverage, and then testify to their findings. "It could be a complete nightmare."
Mr. Kamptner said the issue has not been thoroughly investigated because of the planned appeal. He
said that the list Bill Fritz provided him recently of pending applications are all tree -top.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "They [VDOT] have to remember it's our community, not their community,
that they're impacting."
Mr. Cilimberg said, "We just have to convince them of that."
There will be no Planning Commission meeting on June 22°d. Mr. Cilimberg stated that July would
be very busy. He said the Board would discuss Brass at their July day meeting, with a public
hearing possibly the week following.
Commissioners said they had not received the June I't minutes. Mr. Cilimberg said that he would
ensure Commissioners received the minutes very soon, and he stated that the Board would receive
the minutes regardless of whether the Commission had approved them.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
267
Referencing a letter from VDOT, Mr. Kamptner confirmed that all four towers are 250 feet, and the
N%ft*" other locations are I-64 and Route 29, I-64 and Route 250, and I-64 and Route 730.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "The only way VDOT's going to listen to this thing is if they hear enough
outcry from the public."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "You can see a 250-foot tower a long way."
Mr. Rooker noted that there are a lot more towers along I-64 East.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the VDOT letters came from the residency, but originated in the Culpeper
District or Richmond.
Mr. Rooker said that our local legislators need to be contacted.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the county's priority is to turn around comments now, within the comment
period.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I hope there will be some weight given to the fact that we as a community
have really spent a lot of time, energy and money on trying to come up with better ways to address
this, unlike some of the other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth."
Mr. Thomas stated that someone in Hanover County has been in communication with him regarding
Albemarle County's wireless policy.
Mr. Rooker noted that if Judge Michael's decision became law, it basically says that if there is denial
of towers, the county has to establish an evidentiary record that there are other alternatives for
providing service than that particular tower. Mr. Rooker expressed concern that this would mean
that if a tower would possibly be denied, the county would have to find experts to find alternative
ways to provide coverage, and then testify to their findings. "It could be a complete nightmare."
Mr. Kamptner said the issue has not been thoroughly investigated because of the planned appeal. He
said that the list Bill Fritz provided him recently of pending applications are all tree -top.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "They [VDOT] have to remember it's our community, not their community,
that they're impacting."
Mr. Cilimberg said, "We just have to convince them of that."
There will be no Planning Commission meeting on June 22' . Mr. Cilimberg stated that July would
be very busy. He said the Board would discuss Brass at their July day meeting, with a public
hearing possibly the week following.
Commissioners said they had not received the June I't minutes. Mr. Cilimberg said that he would
ensure Commissioners received the minutes very soon, and he stated that the Board would receive
the minutes regardless of whether the Commission had approved them.
267
cm
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
V,)OA4A,�
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Dire for of lanning
& Community Developme
268