HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 27 1998 PC Minutescm
1-27-98
JAN UARY 27, 1998
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 27,
1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -
Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner; Mr.Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Mr.
David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering
Department; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioner
Nitchmann.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of
January 13, 1998 were unanimously approved as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
Addition to Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District - Request to add 11.971 acres zoned RA
Rural Areas to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. The property, described as Tax
Map 88, Parcel 29, is located on the west side of Route 29 South (Monacan Trail Road)
N*AWI approximately 2 miles north of Route 708 (Red Hill Road). The site is located in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
09
and
Withdrawal from the IMCreek Agricultural/Forestal District - Request to withdraw 2.017
acres zoned RA Rural Areas from the Ivy Creek Agricultural/Forestal District. The property,
described as Tax Map 44, Parcel 21, part thereof, is located on the south side of Route 676
(Woodlands Road) approximately 1 mile west of Route 743 (Earlysville Road). The site is
located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District and is designated Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission was being asked to accept the applications.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the applications be accepted for the
two ag/forestal districts. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Fritz gave a general introduction to four public hearing items, all of which were proposals
from Central Virginia Electric Cooperative for communications poles at four substations. He
distributed photographs which showed lighted poles, but stressed that there are no lights
proposed for any of the poles under review.
17-5—
1-27-98
E
Mr. Finley asked if the service provided by the towers are linked or is the service provided by
each independent from the others. Mr. Fritz said three of the proposed sites link back to
Wintergreen and the other links back to Palmyra. He said the applicant could give a more
specific answer.
SP 97-62 Midway Substation - Proposal to install a communications tower inside the fenced
area at an existing electrical substation. [10.2.2.6]. The property, zoned RA, Rural Areas,
and described as Tax Map 72 Parcel 6, is located on the west side of Route 635 (Miller
School Road) at the intersection of Route 635 and 688 (Midway Road) in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a development area and is located in Rural
Area 3.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the proposal as
submitted. The report concluded:
Staff opinion is that this request would create visual impacts that are
unmitigable, and detrimental to adjacent properties and the character of the
Rural Areas district. Staff cannot support installation of a tower of this height in
this location, when other options for connection with the larger network exist.
Therefore, staff is unable to support this application.
Should the Commission approve the request, approval of a modification of Section
4.10.3.1 (to allow a reduction in setback) and approval of a waiver of Sec. 32.2 (a site
plan waiver) are also requested.
Mr. Finley asked how staffs recommendation would be effected if a shorter tower
were requested. Ms. Thomas replied: " I hate to make a blanket comment, but
equipment that closely matches what is there already would have much less of a
visual impact than something that is twice as tall. Being shorter would be a positive
factor." She estimated the existing structures to be 50 feet.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bruce Maurhoff and Mr. Gary Wood. They
offered the following additional information:
--This equipment is being installed in 30 substations in nine counties. "It is an
effort to give us communication to the equipment that is inside the substation --to
control and monitor that equipment. The benefits will be increased service reliability,
quicker outage restoration time and better planning tools in terms of loading
capabilities and capacities at the substation.
--Two of the most critical substations for this system are in Albemarle County --
Midway and Cash's Corner. "Both have our own transmission lines that feed other
substations of ours."
--These four substations (under review) serve 9,500 customers.
--For the Midway location, studies done in this past week show that it may be
feasible to get a signal from a Whitehall substation back to Midway using different type
of radio technology. The required height of the pole would be much less than
originally requested. "We feel we may be able to get communications with a 75 foot
height." If that is possible, a wood pole could be used. "We would like to propose an
7(,1
OR
1-27-98 3
amendment to this request, if possible, and instead of the 130-foot metal lattice
structure, to install a 75-foot wood pole structure." He later explained the 130-foot
tower was the highest requirement for any substation in the entire system and was
due to the elevations in the Wintergreen area.
--To address neighbors' concerns, "the Co-op would propose that we would put
some type of screening along the road, some low -growing shrubbery." He said trees
do not mix well with transmission lines, "but we would be willing to install some
screening there to try to be a better neighbor to our consumers there."
--Presently, the highest tower at the Midway substation is 64 feet above the
concrete pillar foundation, to the top of a lightning rod.
--A 75 foot wood pole would be exactly as is requested at the other three sites
under review. There should be very little difference in the siting of a shorter pole on
the site. The main difference is the shorter pole will be delivered by truck, will be lifted
off with a crane and will have to be set with a truck. The position may change a few
feet inside the fence in order to clear distribution and transmission lines for the safety
of the installation.
--Going to a shorter pole at Midway would mean the request for the Whitehall
substation would have be changed to two Yagi antennas instead of just one.
Mr. Rooker asked for the applicant to explain the difference in cost associated with
using existing phone lines or wireless service. Mr. Maurhoff said with the proposed
system it will be possible to determine, in a few seconds, what has happened when
there is a problem. Wireless methods would require a modem to call the substation
and then information would have to be downloaded, "which negates the benefit of
knowing what happens almost instantly." He estimated the delay time, using wireless
service, could be 15-20 minutes. (Mr. Wood later said the delay time is about the
same for both leased lines and cellular.) There would have to be time to have
received enough calls so that the area the calls are coming from could be pinned
down. With the proposed system, someone will have already been dispatched to the
site of the problem. " The reliability of the communications system is very important to
the success of the project. The project is most beneficial during extreme weather
conditions and emergency situations and that tends to be the exact time the land lines
and leased lines that provide service to the substation would also be out. It makes
the system useless at that point." Mr. Rooker said there are two different purposes
being served by this network --one is an emergency response factor, and the other is
on -going management of the system, and the on -going management of the system
would seem to occur in much the same way with leased land lines as with the
proposed network. Mr. Maurhoff acknowledged the accuracy of Mr. Rooker's
statements, but said in the past, when using leased lines to communicate with the
Lovingston headquarters office, the cost has been $400-$500/month per substation.
An existing cellular modem presently exists at the Midway and Cash's Corner sites
and is used to get minimal load information. Problems occur, a couple of times a
month, when the download does not work. It then takes a day of troubleshooting and
there are been problems with the phones, with antennas, with weather, etc. (Mr.
Wood related problems which have occurred with the cellular modem.)
97
1-27-98 4
Mr. Finley asked if the Co-op receives any type of priority treatment in the restoration
of service when phone lines are down during storms. Mr. Wood recalled a situation
last year when Bell Atlantic had offered to send someone to work on a problem within
24 hours. The Co-op had been able to get Bell Atlantic to respond within a hour, "but
an hour is a long time when power is out." Mr. Wood concluded: "So we don't get
special priority though every once in a while we try to."
On the issue of screening, Mr. Tice asked if the applicant feels there could be
problems caused by trees which might grow to a height above the top of the 75-foot
poles. Mr. Maurhoff replied: "Yes, at this frequency, you need pretty much line of
site. The height of the towers has been dictated by past studies and the results of
those studies show that 75 feet will get us over trees that were within the substation
vicinity and get us a line of sight to the master radio pole." Mr. Rooker asked if the
applicant would be willing to install some heavy evergreen screening that would not
directly interfere with the lines. Mr. Maurhoff said there would probably be no problem
with a low -growing vegetation, something that does not get taller than 20-25 feet. He
confirmed that anything above 25 feet starts to interfere with the lines. Mr. Rooker
asked what mechanism staff uses to ensure that the landscaping plan is acceptable.
Mr. Cilimberg said a condition could be added to the approval for the waiver of the site
plan, in accordance with whatever condition might be placed on the special permit.
(Later in the meeting Ms. Thomas said if the Commission were to grant approval with
a condition requiring a landscaping plan as part of the special permit approval, it would
give staff more flexibility to work with a plan that would satisfy the concerns of the
neighbors. Mr. Cilimberg said: "What you would really need is the condition in the
special use permit and then a site plan waiver that reflected that, because there
wouldn't be a full site plan. We would need that site plan waiver to condition the
landscaping plan, as well as having that condition spelled out in the special use
permit.)
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Larry Cohen, a Co-op member whose home is within 300 yards of the proposed
tower, addressed the Commission. He asked for a clarification of the height of the
proposed tower. (The Chairman explained the original proposal was for a 130-foot
tower, but the applicant is now offering to make the tower 75 feet.) Mr. Cohen said
his comments were based on the original proposal for a 130-foot tower. He stressed
that this is a rural area and the existing site is a "nightmare" which is completely
barren, and unscreened. He said the people in the area would like to see this corner
cleaned up. He asked the Commission to consider whether a new technology is really
needed "to improve already excellent service." He asked that the applicant be
required to landscape the site. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cohen if his comments apply to
the shorter tower. Mr. Cohen responded: "Yes, we would be willing to accept that, if
they will plant screening on those two sides, facing Miller School Road and Midway
Road, so people driving cars on those two streets will not see the substation as well
as they do now, or try to emulate some other substations where it is screened to get
the same effect, I think it would be a compromising, acceptable solution."
19
2"
1-27-98 5
Mr. Jack Curtain, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He said
he has no complaints about the existing emergency service provided by the Co-op.
He presented a petition signed by 36 people in the neighborhood who are opposed to
the proposal. He stressed the existing site is an eyesore. He said the proposal to
landscape the site does not change his belief that the tower is not needed.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Tice said it is the county's policy to look more favorably on towers when they are
located on a site with other existing towers, such as Carter's Mountain and Bear Den
Mountain. He asked if approval of any of these requests "will put us in a situation
where we might feel compelled by precedent to locate other towers in the future in this
same area?" Mr. Fritz said staff is very cautious in its review of tower applications,
"that the placement of a tower does not create the core of a tower farm.... We don't
view any of these sites as a future tower farm." He said it is also unlikely that these
substation sites could accommodate additional towers or that the owner, Central
Virginia Electric Co-op, would be likely to grant an easement if it used too much
ground.
Mr. Finley asked if the Telecommunications Act covers only service providers. Mr.
Fritz said the Act covers all types of communications, including the Co-op, but it
doesn't cover them to the point of restricting local government review.
Mr. Rooker referred to staffs summary which says the tower may provide "co -location
opportunities in an area which has been identified as not having substantial co -location
options presently." He asked if that statement still applies to a wooden pole. Mr.
Fritz said wooden poles have a limited carrying capacity and height is limited, but it is
still an area with limited co -location options, "and this wouldn't decrease that, it would
just be a 75-foot wooden pole." He said that it is highly unlikely, however, that a 75-
foot wooden pole would be able to accommodate any additional users, but that
possibility should not be rulled out.
Mr. Rooker asked about the typical height of cellular towers. Mr. Fritz said they have
been in the 120 feet+ range, but there are some proposals which the Commission will
review soon in the 80-90 feet range.
Mr. Rieley asked if the Co-op owns the entire 5.98 acres. Ms. Thomas responded
affirmatively.
Mr. Finley said the applicant has tentatively agreed to landscaping so he would be
willing to support the proposal at the 75-feet height.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP 97-62 for Central Virginia
Electric Cooperative (Midway Substation) be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions:
77
1-27-98
C.
1. The height of the tower shall not exceed 75 feet. Lightning suppression equipment
not exceeding three(3) inches in diameter may extend up to an additional twelve (12)
feet above the top of the tower.
2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted.
b. The tower shall have no lighting.
c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color.
3. Staff approval of a landscape plan meeting the requirements of Sec. 32.7.9.8 of
the Zoning Ordinance to provide buffering or screening on all sides of the site, with the
tree type to be of the maximum height feasible given the power line requirements.
4. The tower shall be located on the site generally as shown on the attached plan
entitled "Midway Substation" and initialed "SET 12/15/97."
5. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to a single Yagi antenna not to exceed two (2) feet
in length or seven (7) inches in diameter. The antenna type shall be as shown on an
untitled plan for a SCADA 900 Mhz Substation Structure which is initialed "SET
12/15/97."
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
6. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of
other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions.
1. Prior to approval of a building permit, the permittee shall
execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith
effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with
such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the
site.
2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request,
verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow
such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes,
but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to
allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange
for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by
another provider within Albemarle County.
7. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected
below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the luminaire. For
purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp
or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect
the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
r?o
1-27-98 7
8. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, the permittee shall
obtain authorization form County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The
County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or
installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the
permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower.
9. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
10. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued.
11. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by
no later than July 1 of that year, identifying the users and purposes for which the
tower is be used.
After Mr. Finley made his motion, there was further discussion about amendments to
the conditions which were the result of the change in the height (reduced from 130
feet to 75 feet) and style of tower (changed from a metal lattice structure to a wood
pole). The conditions listed above reflect those changes.
There was discussion as to whether or not screening would be just from the two roads
or also from the dwellings in the area. Staff understood the intent was to buffer and
screen the entire area. Mr. Rooker said his support for the motion was dependent on
screening being required on all sides. Mr. Rieley said he it was his intent that the
screening be on all sides and as tall as possible. The applicant was uncertain how
screening could be provided on the side adjacent to an existing pasture, but said "we
would be glad to do plantings to meet the approval of the Planning and Zoning
Departments." A member of the public, Mr. Larry Lamb, suggested that screening
similar to what is in place at the Whitehall Substation would be acceptable.
Condition No. 3 above reflects the final wording.
Before taking a vote on the motion, Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the applicant's
changes in the Midway proposal presumes that the Whitehall substation will also be
approved in order for the shorter tower at Midway to be effective. It was decided the
Commission should delay taking a vote on the Midway application until after the
Whitehall application had been acted upon. Commissioners Finley and Tice agreed
to delay action on their motion.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that action on the Midway
application be deferred until later in the meeting, after the Whitehall application had
been acted upon. The motion passed unanimously.
The action on the Midway application is found on page 10 of these minutes.
SP 97-60 Central Virginia Electric Cooperative Whitehall - Proposal to construct a
communications facility on 0.194 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.6]. Property,
1-27-98 8
described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 213, is located on the west side of Route 680,
Browns Gap Turnpike, approximately 0.77 miles north of the Beaver Creek Reservoir
in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated
development area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request and
approval of a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 to allow a reduction in setback and
approval of a waiver of the drawing of a site plan in accord with Section 32.2.2.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about existing screening, Mr. Fritz said the site is
fairly well screened by existing vegetation.
The applicant offered no additional information.
Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is clear, once the screening is planted, that it must be
maintained. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Yes. That condition carries through the life of
the site." Mr. Fritz added: "I think if you place a condition for screening on the
Midway site it will have to be planted and then maintained. The Whitehall substation
was established so there is no condition about maintenance of the landscaping that
exists now. It's a rural area and could be cleared so you would need to specifically
include a condition that limited the removal of any existing vegetation around the
substation. You could word it that way --'No removal of vegetation on the site other
than necessary to promote the health of the vegetation."' [Note: A condition related
to screening was added to the approval, but it was not worded as suggested by Mr.
Fritz.]
Mr. Finley asked if the existing screening is on the applicant's property. Mr. Maurhoff
said the screening on the applicant's property is between the roadway and the
substation.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 97-60 for Central Virginia
Electric Cooperative (Whitehall) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The height of the tower shall not exceed 75 feet. Lightning suppression equipment
not exceeding three(3) inches in diameter may extend up to an additional twelve (12)
feet above the top of the tower.
2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted.
b. The tower shall have no lighting.
c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color.
cm
1-27-98
3. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled
"White Hall Substation" and initialed "WDF 12/15/97."
4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to two (2) Yagi antennas not to exceed two (2) feet
in length or seven (7) inches in diameter. The antenna type shall be as shown on an
untitled plan for a SCADA 900 Mhz Substation Structure which is initialed "WDF
12/15/97." [Note: The condition was changed to reflect two Yagi antennas (not one
as in the original condition) because of the change in height of the tower at the
Midway substation.]
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of
other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions.
1. Prior to approval of a building permit, the permittee shall
execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith
effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with
such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the
site.
2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request,
verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow
such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes,
but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to
allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange
for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by
another provider within Albemarle County.
6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected
below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part
of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting
unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the
light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, the permittee shall
obtain authorization form County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The
County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or
installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the
permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower.
8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days
of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued.
a
1-27-98 10
10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by
`k.. no later than July 1 of that year, identifying the users and purposes for which the
tower is be used.
11. Removal of existing vegetation shall be allowed only after staff approval of a
landscape plan meeting the requirements of Sec 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a modification of Section
4.10.3.1 to allow a reduction in setback, be approved for SP 97-60. The motion
passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that a waiver a site plan be
approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 for SP 97-60. The
motion passed unanimously.
The Commission then voted on the previously stated motion for approval of the
Midway Substation. (See pages 5 and 6 of these minutes for the motion and
conditions.)
The MOTION to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that SP 97-62 for Central
Virginia Electric (Midway Substation) be approved, subject to conditions, passed
unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a waiver of a site plan
be approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 32.2.2, for SP 97-62. The
motion passed unanimously.
No modification of setback was required for the Midway site because of the reduction
in the height of the tower. (Mr. Cilimberg said if it is discovered later that a
modification is required, staff will bring it back to the Commission on the Consent
Agenda.)
SP 97-63 Central Virginia Electric Cooperative Cash's Corner Substation) - Proposal
to install a communications tower inside the fenced area at an existing electrical
substation. The property, zoned RA, Rural Areas, and described as Tax Map 50
Parcel 45C, is located approximately one-third mile west of Route 231 (Gordonsville
Road), and approximately one-half mile north of the intersection of Route 231 and 615
(Lindsay Road) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
development area, and is located in Rural Area 2.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request
and approval of a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 to allow a reduction in setback and
approval of a waiver of the drawing of a site plan in accord with Section 32.2.2.
1-27-98 11
Ms. Thomas said this proposal is very similar to the Whitehall proposal. However, she
said it differs in that the visual impact will not be distinguishable from adjacent
residences because the proposed tower will blend in with the existing substation
equipment. She said co -location options had been discussed with the applicant as
had the use of phone lines or cellular service. She said that though the transmission
line option would work, but it would require that the "line go down during installation
and the line serves several thousand people." The applicant feels that is a very
undesirable situation. Ms. Thomas said "Staff attempted to balance the impact of the
outage and the inconvenience to a large number of customers with the relatively
minimal impact of the tower and felt the tower was an acceptable alternative to co -
locating on the transmission lines...."
Ms. Thomas distributed a letter received by staff from an area landowner (not
adjacent). Staff also received comments from three landowners immediately adjacent
to the site. Their concerns were primarily with the potential for creating a precedent
for the co -location of other towers in the future and with visual impact. Ms. Thomas
said attempts at screening in the past have not been successful. Livestock destroyed
one attempt and the other was planted at the wrong time of year and was not
maintained. She called attention to the photographs which had been passed among
the Commission.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Maurhoff, addressed the Commission. He said the
substation is not visible from the road. All that is visible from the road is the top of the
concrete structures which are in Virginia Power's substation (approximately 70 feet
above the ground.) Photographs were taken from neighboring residents' driveways,
but those photos were not included because the applicant's substation was not visible
from those driveways. He said, however, that the Co-op's substation is visible to the
properties on the south side. He explained a modification is needed for the setback
because the only location on the site where a modification would not have been
needed is already occupied by other equipment. He confirmed the reason the existing
concrete structures cannot be used is related to the down -time in making the
changeover. Approximately 4,000 to 5,000 customers would be without power for 2-4
hours. Mr. Wood added that the Co-op has recently investigated the possibility of co -
locating with both Virginia Power and AEP, but the cost of leasing the space
($10,000/year) was excessive for the non-profit Co-op.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to comment on the previous attempts at screening.
Mr. Wood said nothing has been planted during the time he has worked with the
Co-op (5 years). He said an adjacent landowner uses the pasture right up to the
substation fence. He said the Co-op shares a fence on one side (on the west) with
Virginia Power, and their site is not screened either.
Mr. Tice said he is usually a strong advocate of screening, but it seems screening is
much more problematic on this site than the others because of the adjacent Virginia
Power Substation and also because this site is not located adjacent to a public road.
4?
1-27-98 12
The pasture is another complication. Given the presence of the existing 70-foot
concrete towers, this proposal does not result in a significant change in the character
of the substation as with the previous two applications. He said he could support
staffs recommended conditions.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed that the existence of the concrete towers makes this request
different than the others. But he said his main concern is that this site is located in
the Southwest Mountains District and he wants to "make sure that whatever we do is
not going to add significantly to the visual degradation of that area, and will not create
additional blight in a National Register district." He said that though the site is not
visible from a public road, this area is used by both area residents and others for
recreational purposes and there may be more population effected by this than may be
apparent.
Mr. Rooker asked staff to comment on whether screening might be effective. Ms.
Thomas responded: "It's my understanding that Central Virginia owns a parcel that is
larger than what is inside the fence, which might make it possible to install livestock -
type fencing on the outer perimeter with a row of trees on the east and the south only,
between the livestock fencing and the chainlink fencing. I think it might make the
adjacent property owners feel more comfortable. I don't know if it will really make a
difference for the travelling public. It is kind of a goodwill gesture that would
demonstrate a good neighbor policy and might, in the long run, make a big difference."
Mr. Loewenstein said he thought it would be worthwhile for the Co-op to make that
type of good -neighbor gesture. He pointed out that the County has encouraged
landowners in this area to place their land in easements and to do other things to
protect this historic resource. He said he would support some type of screening.
Mr. Maurhoff said the Co-op's property extends to the pasture fence row on the north
side. The Co-op owns 1 acre and the substation is located on the northern 1/3 of the
property. He pointed out that the Co-op substation is at a lower elevation than the
Virginia Power substation, so the effectiveness of screening will be negated because
the Virginia Power substation is higher and more visible (on the west side).
Mr. Rooker said Virginia Power may be making requests in the future and requiring
screening of the Co-op site is a start in making this a much more attractive site. Mr.
Loewenstein agreed.
Ms. Washington asked if Virginia Power could be asked to install some screening.
Ms. Thomas said staff could make that request, but has no leverage to require such
screening at this time.
On the issue of co -location, Mr. Finley said the height of this proposed tower is the
same as the existing structures and the only addition will be a single, round pole.
Given the complications with co -locating which have been described, he said feels the
pole will be equally as acceptable. Mr. Rooker agreed, if screening can be provided.
EWA
1-27-98
13
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 97-63 for Central
Virginia Electric Cooperative (Cash's Corner Substation) be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The height of the tower shall not exceed 75 feet. Lightning suppression equipment
not exceeding three(3) inches in diameter may extend up to an additional twelve (12)
feet above the top of the tower.
2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted.
b. The tower shall have no lighting.
c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color.
3. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled
"Cash's Corner Substation" and initialed "SET 12/15/97."
4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to a single Yagi antenna not to exceed two (2) feet
in length or seven (7) inches in diameter. The antenna type shall be as shown on an
untitled plan for a SCADA 900 Mhz Substation Structure which is initialed "SET
12/15/97."
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
1�%Ww 5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of
other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions.
1. Prior to approval of a building permit, the permittee shall
execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith
effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with
such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the
site.
2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request,
verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow
such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes,
but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to
allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange
for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by
another provider within Albemarle County.
6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected
below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the luminaire. For
purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp
or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect
the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
1-27-98 14
7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, the permittee shall
obtain authorization form County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The
County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or
installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the
permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower.
8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days
of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued.
10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by
no later than July 1 of that year, identifying the users and purposes for which the
tower is be used.
11. Staff approval of a landscape plan meeting the requirements of Sec 32.7.9.8 of
the Zoning Ordinance to provide buffering or screening on all sides of the site (except
the side shared with Virginia Power) and with the tree type to be of the maximum
height feasible, given the power line requirements. No screening shall be required
which might interfere with the applicant's access to the property.
After Ms. Washington made the motion, there was further discussion to pin down the
wording for the screening requirement. The applicant asked that screening not be
required where it might interfere with the Co-op's or Virginia Power's 30-foot access
easement to the substations on the north side.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that a modification of Section
4.10.3.1 to allow a reduction in setback, be approved for SP 97-63. The motion
passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Ms. Washington, seconded, that a waiver of a site plan
be approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 for SP 97-63. The
motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-61 Central Virginia Electric Cooperative Schu ler Substation) - Proposal to
construct a communications facility on 0.53 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.6].
Property, described as Tax Map 132, Parcel 5A, is located on the west side of Route
602, Howardsville Turnpike, approximately 0.8 miles south of Route 800, Schuyler
Turnpike in the Scottsville Magisterial district. This site is not located within a
designated development area. Rural Area 4.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request and
approval of a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 to allow a reduction in setback and
approval of a waiver of the drawing of a site plan in accord with Section 32.2.2.
1-27-98 15
Applicant comment was invited. Mr. Maurhoff said this is one of the older substations
and the actual substation itself is constructed of wood poles. So this wood pole will
blend well with the existing facilities.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Gary Wood, one of the applicant's representatives, but now speaking as a Nelson
County supervisor for the Schuyler area, spoke in support of the request.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-61 for Central
Virginia Electric Cooperative (Schuyler Substation), be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The height of the tower shall not exceed 75 feet. Lightning suppression equipment
not exceeding three(3) inches in diameter may extend up to an additional twelve (12)
feet above the top of the tower.
2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted.
b. The tower shall have no lighting.
c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color.
N..W 3. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled
"Schuyler Substation" and initialed "WDF 1/15/98."
4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to a single Yagi antenna not to exceed two (2) feet
in length or seven (7) inches in diameter. The antenna type shall be as shown on an
untitled plan for a SCADA 900 Mhz Substation Structure which is initialed "WDF
1 /15/98."
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of
other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions.
1. Prior to approval of a building permit, the permittee shall
execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith
effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with
such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the
site.
2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request,
verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow
1-27-98
16
such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes,
but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to
allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange
for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by
another provider within Albemarle County.
6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected
below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the luminaire. For
purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp
or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect
the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, the permittee shall
obtain authorization form County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The
County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or
installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the
permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower.
8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days
of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued.
10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by
no later than July 1 of that year, identifying the users and purposes for which the
tower is be used.
Discussion:
Mr. Rieley pointed out that the screening issues are not as pertinent for this site
because it is already screened. Mr. Tice noted that he does want to ensure that
existing vegetation is not removed. Mr. Fritz said condition No. 7 addresses that
concern.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a modification of Section
4.10.3.1 to allow a reduction in setback, be approved for SP 97-61. The motion
passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr.Tice moved, Ms. Washington, seconded, that a waiver of a site plan be
approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 for SP 97-61. The
motion passed unanimously.
yam, Frederick and Maureen Ri in Entrance Request - Request to allow Tax Map 39,
Parcel 21 D, to access Route 684, Mint Springs Park directly. This property is located
ra
1-27-98
17
within the Emerald Ridge Subdivision at the end of Saddleback Ct. in the White Hall
Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request. The
staff report concluded. -
Staff is unable to find that, due to any existing development, topography, or
other physical consideration as distinguished from a special privilege or
convenience, alternative access would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger
of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent properties.
It is the opinion of staff that the proposed entrance onto Route 684 results in a
degradation of the environment in crossing the stream intended for conservation
and a violation of the intent of the conditions of prior approvals. Staff views this
request as a special privilege or convenience. The property currently has an
adequate entrance on a public road, Saddleback Ct. Staff is unable to identify
any favorable factors to this request.
Mr. Finley asked if there was a note on the plat saying the existing road should be
closed. Mr. Fritz replied: "No. Nor was the existing road shown in any of the plats or
any of the reviews, including the special use permit review. It was always envisioned
that all the lots would be served by the internal roads." Mr. Kamptner added.. "At
least as far as this property is concerned, the conservation setback would foreclose
that possibility anyway, which was required by the County but which is now a
covenant and enforced by the Homeowners' Association."
Mr. Fritz confirmed that this dwelling existed before the subdivision was created.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Hirschman, the County's Water Resources Manager, to address
what is at stake in terms of the water conservation issues.
Mr. Hirschman responded: "The intent, when that subdivision was created, was to
have very strict conservation areas along all the streams. The language that was
approved at that time is very restrictive in terms of not allowing tree cutting, structures,
vehicles --the intent was, if there was going to be a subdivision, these stream buffer
areas had to be of high integrity. I think, for that reason, any type of improvement
would be looked at as contrary to the integrity of the stream buffer areas. Whether
you can compare impacts --cutting a tree vs. a stream crossing vs. parking a backhoe--
it seems to me irrelevant because the original language in the homeowners' covenants
established what those conservation buffer areas were supposed to be."
Mr. Rooker asked if this property is in the watershed for the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir. Mr. Hirschman responded: "Yes. It all flows down past Mint Springs. I
think it is a tributary to Lickinghole Creek, and then Mechums and then the Reservoir."
The applicant, Mr. Ripin, was present, but offered no comment at this time. He did
respond to public comment later in the meeting.
M
1-27-98 18
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Helen Wauner, speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Emerald Ridge
Homeowners' Association, addressed the Commission. Her statement is made a part
of these minutes as Attachment A. She expressed opposition to the request and
asked that the applicants be required to remove the culvert and restore the stream to
its former condition. Ms. Wauner also submitted a letter written by the President of
the Homeowners' Association to VDOT which describes the residents' concerns about
the driveway. (She did not read the letter into the record.)
At Ms. Wauner's request, three additional Emerald Ridge residents, stood to show
their opposition to the applicant's request. Three other residents who use Rt. 684 (but
are not Emerald Ridge residents) also stood to show their opposition.
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, Ms. Wauner said there are approximately
20 households in the Homeowners' Association.
Ms. Elaine Clark, property owner directly across from the proposed driveway,
addressed the Commission. She said she is opposed to the driveway primarily for
safety reasons, but also because the applicant installed the driveway without
acquiring the needed permits or without following the property County process. She
also questioned whether or not the Ripin's would be able to achieve the required sight
distance without trimming on her property. (Mr. Ripin responded to this statement
saying that VDOT has assured him that sight distance is possible.) She stressed that
the applicant has another existing driveway which is adequate.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Tice asked Mr. Fritz to describe the work which has already taken place on the
entrance. Mr. Fritz replied: "The crossing is in and is usable. It has been closed off
by VDOT right at Rt. 684. It would need some stabilization. There is some question
as to whether or not the pipes in the crossing are of the proper size.
Mr. Tice asked what the next steps will be if the Commission supports staffs
recommendation to deny the request. Mr. Fritz again said the entrance onto 684 has
been closed by VDOT, though that may not be a permanent solution. He said the
work that has occurred in the stream valley is not in violation of any condition of the
special use permit or of the Subdivision plats as far as staff can determine, so that is
something that would be privately enforced.
Based on Mr. Hirschman's comments which say that if the driveway is approved a
water quality impact assessment will be required in accordance with the Water
Resources Protection Areas Ordinance, Mr. Tice said he is inclined to believe the
driveway is presently in violation of the WRPA Ordinance. Mr. Fritz responded:
"There is no violation of the Subdivision Ordinance or special use permit, but it is
,. within a perennial stream, which has a Water Resource Protection Area associated
with it and there has been no water quality impact assessment done." Because it is in
1-27-98
19
violation of a County ordinance (the WRPA Ordinance), Mr. Tice asked what action
the County would take.
Mr. Hirschman responded: "I think what you are asking is, under the Water Resource
Protection Ordinance, could we require the removal of the crossing? The interesting
thing is that the Resources Protection Area buffer is overlaid on the conservation
zone, which the County does not enforce, but the County does enforce the stream
buffer. If it was just the stream buffer County Ordinance without the conservation
deed restriction, we would figure out what would be appropriate mitigation and pursue
it from there. I don't think we would say it would have to be removed --that's not what
we've done in the past. But with the overlay of the deed restriction, it would probably
depend on what happened between Mr. Ripin and the Homeowners' Association, I
would think. It is clear that the intention of the homeowners' document is to not have
the improvement in those conservation areas. So that is why the question is
confusing."
Mr. Finley asked if the pipes are on subdivision property. Mr. Hirschman said the
plats show the stream as the property line, but he was uncertain whether the actual
pipe and fill in the stream channel would be considered subdivision property. Mr. Fritz
referred to Attachment H of the staff report which he said provides as much
information as the staff can provide. Mr. Hirschman passed among the Commission a
new plat, showing the easement, prepared by Roger Ray. He said it "shows the
stream within the property line on the Emerald Ridge side."
Mr. Finley asked if the replacement of the old ford crossing with a culvert would
require any type of permit. Mr. Hirschman said all crossings, even to replace a
previous crossing or an existing ford, would require permits from the Army Corps of
Engineers. The County would get involved if there is a Resource Protection Area
buffer and a 100-year floodplain. Even if not in the floodplain, a permit would be
required, based on the stream buffer impacts, if the crossing is on a perennial stream.
The Corps, DEQ and VMRC regulate the waters of the U.S. and they have a series of
permits. Mr. Finley asked if County Engineering would inspect the pipe size, etc. Mr.
Hirschman said the County does not have standards for private driveways, e.g. there
would be no requirement to construct the driveway to a 10-year storm design. (Mr.
Fritz said if the driveway were in the floodplain, a special use permit would be
required.)
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on the Commission's ability to
require removal of the existing structure. Mr. Kamptner replied: "We'll look at Section
18-37, the procedure that this was brought under, to determine whether or not there is
a violation of the subdivision ordinance because an entrance was established without
Planning Commission approval. With VDOT not granting an entrance permit and with
you not granting authority, we need to look at whether or not it is an entrance. It is
possible that, physically, there is an entrance. We'll pursue that and we'll also get
together with Mr. Hirschman, when this runs its course, and pursue any remedies to
restore the property to the extent we can under our ordinances. It may be the
Homeowners' Association has the best remedy available to enforce the covenant."
?15
on
1-27-98 20
Mr. Finley referred to conditions of approval for Emerald Ridge: "Staff approval of
deed restrictions to include ... no building, fence, structure or improvement of any
nature whatsoever, except for a well, either temporary or permanent, shall be
constructed or erected within the confines of the conservation setback. " Mr. Finley
concluded: "So that would definitely include a culvert." Mr. Fritz replied: "That
condition required the staff to require that language appear within the covenants. It
was not the condition that staff would enforce that, but that had to be in the
covenants."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that the Frederick and Maureen
Ripin Entrance Request be denied.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mountain Protection - Mr. Benish gave a brief update on the status of the proposed
Mountain Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Tice said he hoped the staff would move quickly to schedule a work session so
this Ordinance can go to public hearing. He did not think more than one work session
would be needed. Staff hoped to be able to set a work session in three weeks.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
9-