HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 02 1998 PC MinutesEm
6-2-98
JUNE 2, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning. Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 2,
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, nice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker.; and Mr. Will
Rieiey. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Ms.
Margaret Pickart, Planner; Mr. JuanDiego Wade, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was confirmed. Action on
the May 12th minutes was deferred to June 9th.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Action on the
May 12th minutes was deferred.to the June 9th meeting. (Some Commissioners had not
received copies.)
Mr. Cilimberg review actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its May 20th meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA - SDP 98-052 Custom Express Critical Slope Waiver Request -
Request for waiver to allow building on critical slopes (Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance) to construct a distribution warehouse of 12,000 square feet on property zoned
LI, Light Industry and AIA, Airport Impact Area Overlay District.
No concerns were identified_
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Finley seconded that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 98-06 S.W. Heischman - Request to amend the proffers on properties zoned R-15
(with proffers) described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 24C totaling 24.9 acres, and a 3.44 acre
portion of Tax Map 60, Parcel 24C 1. The properties are located on the north side of Old
Ivy Road (Route 601), east of, and adjacent to, the Route 291250 Bypass. The properties
are located in Neighborhood 7 in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The properties are
designated for Urban Density Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. Access is from
Old Ivy Road.
'**-, Applicant requesting indefinite deferral.
tam
2
6-2-98
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 98-06 for S.W.
Heischman be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-12 Charlottesville Catholic School - Request for a special use permit to construct a
private school for 600 students on a 17-acre parcel of land along Rio Road between Penn
Park Road [Rt. 7681 and Penn Park Lane [Rt. 1481]. The property, described as Tax Map
61A, Parcel 29, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. it is zoned R-4 Residential.
The area is shown as urban density with a proposed density of 6-34 dwelling units per
acre in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. A conceptual plan accompanies this
request.
Applicant requesting deferral to June 23, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-12 for Charlottesville
Catholic School, be deferred to June 23, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------
ZMA 98-09 international Cold Storage, Inc. - Request to rezone 8.412 acres from LI Light
Industrial to HI Heavy Industrial. Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 33, is
located about 0.1 miles west of U.S. Rte. 29 on Heards Mountain Road in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. This site is not in a designated development area and is
recommended as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant requesting deferral to July 7, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 98-09 for International Cold
Storage, be deferred to July 7, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-03 360 Communications (Dudley Mountain Site) - Proposal to construct a
telecommunication tower on approximately 100 acres zoned Rai, Rural Areas in accord
with Section 10.2.2.6. Property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 18, is located on the
west side of Route 706, Dudley Mountain Rd., approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Route
631, Old Lynchburg Fed., in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This facility is proposed
to be located near the top of Dudley Mountain. This site is not located in a designated
development area. Deferred from the April 21, 1998 Commission meeting.
Before beginning the staff report, Mr. Fritz, using maps on display, pointed out the location
of existing towers, including those located in ridge areas, and described the type of tower
41
3
6-2-98
at each location. He also pointed out the location of all tower requests which have been
received.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Because of the impact on the mountain resource
area, as identified in the Open Space Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, and because of
development in areas of critical slopes, staff recommended denial of the special permit
request.
Three actions were required of the Commission:
--Action on the Special Permit. (Staff was recommending denial.)
--Action on a request for a site plan waiver. (Mr. Fritz said that while staff could
support the site plan waiver, the tower itself will require a modification of critical slopes,
so "while we are supporting the waiver of a site plan, we have a condition which will
require the applicant to comeback before the Planning Commission to receive a specific
modification of critical slopes., )
--Action on a request for a modification of setback requirements. (Staff did not
support the setback modification because "approval of the modification would allow for the
construction of a facility which is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.)
The staff report included conditions of approval in the event the Commission should act
favorably on the request. Mr. Fritz noted the following changes in the recommended
conditions:
--To No. 4(a) on the conditions for the special permit: Change "seven (7) inches in
diameter," to "three (3) inches in diameter."
--To No. 3 of the conditions designed to limit the amount of activity required for the
installation of access/electricity: Add: "...unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed." (Applicant had
told staff they could not design a road to meet the standard unless this was added to the
condition.)
Mr. Fritz said it is staffs determination that there is no indication there is no existing
reasonable use of the property. A dwelling presently exists on the property and there are
also forestry activities available.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Fritz to comment on the applicant's representation that 26 pole type
structures would be needed to provide the coverage that this one tower will provide. Mr.
Fritz said the applicant has said it would require 26 tree -top poles, or six 100-foot towers
would be required if moved off of Dudley Mountain. Mr. Rooker asked about the
possibility of using telephone pole type poles, placed some distance off the road, but not
at the top of the mountain (like CWof orrOThe numbeatshou d havethe
been 24 meeting,
'the
applicant said 26 was a typographical
Mr. Tice asked if there is any ag-forestal district land involved in this proposal. Mr. Fritz
said the nearest ag-forestal land is "just on the other side of 29."
��,
4
6-2-98
Mr. Tice asked if staffs analysis of impact on the district had included a consideration the
historic significance of Arrowhead Mountain. Mr. Fritz responded: "I did look at the
inventory that we have and, just simply due to raw distance, discounted that."
Mr. Rieley asked about the scale of the topo maps which the Commission received. Mr.
Fritz said the scale is 1:600, the same as the tax maps.
Mr. Rooker asked how the elevation of Carter's Mountain compares to the elevation of
Dudley Mountain. Mr. Fritz said Carter's Mountain is a little lower, but the difference is
insignificant.
Mr. Finley noted that the waiver of Section 4.2, to allow construction on critical slopes, is
speaking to only of slopes greater than 25%. Mr. Fritz responded: "Anything less than
25% does not require that modification. It should also be noted that the access road does
not require you to grant any modification. Construction of access roads is specifically
exempted from consideration of impact on critical slopes. So this is only for the support
building, the tower, the parking --the things associated with the actual tower." Mr. Fritz
confirmed that this is a part of existing Ordinance regulations, not the proposed Mountain
Protection Ordinance, which, if adopted as currently written, would have no impact on
these conditions.
fir..
Mr. Finley said: "So this tower is almost right on the ridge line." Mr. Fritz responded:
"Pretty close. it is within the ridge area of the proposed Mountain Overlay District, but we
did not review this for consideration under that proposed ordinance."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson. He gave a lengthy presentation.
Information provided included the following:
--A self-support lattice tower is proposed, but it doesn't matter to the applicant if it is
a lattice or a mono -pole tower.
--The height proposed is the minimum height necessary to provide the intended
coverage. The tower must clear the tops of the trees by at least 40 feet.
--The tower will not be lit. Utilities will be underground.
--A 'T' mount will be used as a mounting device, to lessen visual impact.
--The coverage objective is to provide and improve coverage on "either side of
Dudley Mountain, along U.S. 20, Routes 706 and 631, and in Albemarle County, 712.
--There is no existing structure which can provide this coverage. The only option is
to erect a new tower.
--Everything possible has been done to minimize visual impact to the greatest
extent possible. He passed among the Commission and the audience aerial photographs
which showed the distance of the proposed site from adjoining roads and nearby
residences. The photographs included simulations of the tower in place using a red
weather balloon. He described each photograph in detail.
--On the issue of co -location, one other company has expressed an interest in
either co -locating on the tower or constructing a tower of similar height adjacent to this
tower.
Z�
5
6-2-98
--it would take 24 telephone -pole type towers, at a height of 70 feet to "roughly
replicate the coverage that is being offered by a single 100-foot tower on top of the
mountain." Locating 24 separate sites (multiplied by three when including all the
providers) would be a very difficult process. Shorter poles do not offer co -location
opportunities. The applicant has found, from experience in other localities, that this does
not work. The other possibility considered was 100-foot towers, located "other than on the
top of the mountain." It would take six such towers to provide the same coverage this one
tower will provide. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to locate 6 sites with a
willing lessor and access, within the same general area.
--The applicant believes this proposal is the "best, by far, scenario."
--He called attention to photographs provided to the Commission in the applicant's
report, which showed recently approved towers. He specifically called attention to a
photograph of the tower at Keswick. This tower will be much less visible than any of the
towers shown in the photos.
--This site will meet all the FCC standards.
--The recommended conditions of approval are acceptable to the applicant.
Mr. Gibson, and other applicant representatives, answered specific Commission
questions.
--Mr. Rooker asked if any consideration was given to locating the telephone -pole
type towers higher off the ground (not along the road). Mr. Gibson said six 100-foot
towers would be required below the 800-foot elevation. Mr. Bob Denny estimated it would
take "more thank 6 but less than 24," if the height were reduced to 60 feet. He described
problems which are experienced with shorter towers. He said coverage is not as reliable,
on a day-to-day basis, with shorter towers.
--Mr. Rooker pointed out that the antennae on other towers approved by the
Commission have had much less tree clearance (7 feet) than is proposed here (40 feet).
He asked the applicant to comment. Mr. Denny said the effectiveness of those sites will
decrease as the trees grow and eventually those sites will have to be rebuilt. A 40 foot
clearance will ensure a long -life for the site without further disruption or construction. Mr.
Loewenstein said if most of the trees are presently 50-60 feet in height, the applicant is
proposing adding almost that much additional height for clearance. He was skeptical that
these trees will double their size before technology changes. Mr. Denny responded by
repeating what he had said previously about providing coverage for a longer time period.
He added that without the additional height, there would be no co -location opportunities at
all. He said asking for less clearance is just asking for trouble down the road." One of
the applicant's representatives interjected that 40 feet is the minimum separation distance
for an antennae to effectively radiate RF signals.
--Referring to some of the maps provided by the applicant, Mr. Tice said it appears
many of the 24 potential locations for shorter towers are located in areas which already
have good coverage. He calculated only 7 or 8 shorter towers, along the road, should be
needed to provide the needed coverage. He asked the applicant to comment. The
applicant's representative said the proposed Dudley Mountain location provides
"overlapping" coverage. The maps are to "demonstrate the fact, in order to get that same
coverage and to get all the benefits, we would need worse case scenario--24 sites.
4H
6
6-2-s8
Typically, it would probably be around 14 or 15." Mr. Rieley asked if it is typical to
duplicate coverage in an area which already has good coverage --"to build a second tower
in an area where you already have good service?" Mr. Gibson replied: "... That happens
in some of the more heavily populated areas."
--Mr. Rieley asked some questions about how the logarithmic scale was used in the
calculations of the coverages shown on the maps. After the applicant had answered these
questions, Mr. Rieley said: So by that logic, by the time you get into the white areas
shown on your map (those areas with poor or no coverage), you have one ten -
thousandths (1110,000) as much coverage as you do in the green areas, if you extrapolate
that. Addressing the same issue raised by Mr. Tice about overlapping coverage, Mr.
Rieley said he is a 360 customer and he routinely calls his wife in the Hickory Hill area
and talks to her all the way to Arrowhead, without ever losing the signal. He asked: "That
being the case, why do you need six poles along the roadway at this lower mounting
height to address what doesn't seem to be a problem to begin with, or at least a relatively
minor one?" Determining that Mr. Rieley's car equipment is 3-watts, the applicant
explained: "Systems are designed to portable units which are .6 of a watt. You will
maintain coverage for a lot longer (with a 3-watt device)." Mr. Rieley concluded: "So
really what we're talking about are the kinds of phones that the personal communication
devices are --the CFW kind of devices, right?" The applicant replied: "I wouldn't say that,
because we have them for 360.... The last time I checked statistics, 60% of the cellular
`+ phone people were using the portable (.6 watt) as opposed to the car -mounted (3-watt)
devices. People want the portability. Mr. Rieley asked: "Along the same lines, since that
is the target for the service, is there anything technologically, that differentiates cellular
from a personal communication device -type system that would limit your capacity to serve
these sites in the same way CFW is on the lower poles. Is there any technological reason
why you can't use the same kind of antenna we have been approving for CFW?" After
confirming that CFW is a PCS provider, the applicant replied: "Actually, they run at a
frequency that is double ours. They will actually have more propagation problems than we
do. So by them actually going up on 60-foot towers, they are going to be having even
more problems than we would." Mr. Rieley asked: "So you are saying it would be easier
for you to serve the area on that kind of device than it would be for CFW?" The applicant
replied: "We would need this many towers, that we have here, to serve the area that we
need to cover. This is based upon our signal propagation. We would need this many
towers to cover this entire area." Mr. Gibson said 360 has tested "this type of application"
and it has not proven to be successful."
--Mr. Tice asked what route the underground utilities will take. Mr. Derek Johnson
answered that they will follow the access road. Mr. Tice said he understands the access
road varies from 20% to 40% slopes. Mr. Johnson said the access road "varies in slope
and we would be improving that access road to be able to provide four-wheel drive traffic
for maintenance and inspection of that facility, on a bi-monthly basis. Construction
equipment will be limited on that road because the tower and control building will be flown
m. Mr. Johnson confirmed that burying the utilities will require a trench, including areas
'�� that are in 40% slopes. Mr. Tice asked what types of E & S controls are planned. Mr.
Johnson responded: "We would be following the standard the State has set as far as
erosion and sediment control. Because this is an existing road, there will not be a lot of
6-2-98
disturbance except improvements to allow traffic to get up there for the initial construction.
... In this area we would be looking at the use of silt fencing, straw bale barriers, diversion
barriers, and those types of things. A trencher does not really disturb that much ground."
--Referring to the photographs of other towers (Section 16 of the applicant's
report), Mr. Tice said he had gone through his files and located the simulation
photographs the Commission was given at the time those other towers were proposed. He
compared those simulations with photographs of the actual towers provided by the
applicant tonight. He said: "The interesting thing is the computer simulations we got
when these were presented to us --and I assume the simulations were done properly --were
all taken from locations which made the tower look inconspicuous." Staff agreed that
photos they have taken show that the visual impact is much greater than the simulations
depicted. Mr. Tice said: ' Given the experience that we have had on these other
applications does not giveus a particularly high level of comfort on the reliability of
computer simulations, what comfort can you give us that your computer simulations are
more accurate?" Mr. Gibson said the applicant had floated the balloon in addition to the
computer simulation and "the floating of the balloon is absolutely accurate."
--Mr. Loewenstein asked why a 'T' mount is less visible than a triangle platform
mount. The applicant said a 'T' mount is less metal.
--Mr. Finley asked if there are technical limitations as to how much separation there
must be between co -located antenna. Mr. Gibson replied: "Typical standard is 15 feet, tip
to tip. It has been relaxed in some situations to 10 feet." Both would have to be above
the tree line. Mr. Gibson added: Yes, there is space above the tree line, but I am not
going to contend that that space is available for co -location. What we are offering to
provide for co -location is a larger lease area. We have 100' x 150' under lease, and we
have an amendment to the lease with Mr. Fitzgerald which would enable another tower or
two in the immediate vicinity of this tower, to provide for co -location. The thought here
was, rather than have a single tower 150 or 175 feet, there would be three towers, that
would be the minimum amount of up to tree level, possible, so you can get three carriers
up there. if somebody were to come along and say 'we can use space between your
array and the top of the trees, we would certainly provide that space to them, but I don't
want to give this body the impression that that single tower is going to provide much in the
form of co -location opportunities."
--Referring to the applicant's maps showing changes in coverage with the 100 foot
tower, Mr. Nitchmann said some of the coverage appears to get worse. He asked if this
was a mistake. The applicant's representative responded: "That map just shows the
coverage of the Dudley Mountain site itself, without anything surrounding. That is the
footprint of that one site. If you would overlay the two on top of each other you would see
how that would work into this system. That is just the footprint of the Dudley Mountain
site and the 24 sites needed to duplicate that entire footprint. So that hole you see there
is actually filled in by existing networks."
--Mr. Loewenstein asked about setback. Mr. Gibson said the distance from the
property line to the lease area is 40 feet, plus another 15 feet to the building. Mr.
Loewenstein asked the applicant about the likelihood of the tower collapsing. Mr. Gibson
said it is extremely unlikely that the tower would fall, but if it did fall, it is engineered so
that it will collapse into itself. Of the two companies who make the towers --Valmont and
0
6-2-98
Fort Worth --Valmont has never had a failure (in 40 years). He did not know the statistics
for Fort Worth. He said: "If you had a tower failure, there would not be anything left
standing in the immediate vicinity. it would take a hurricane or tornado force winds to
have that type of impact on a tower, and there wouldn't be anything else around it."
Public comment was invited.
The following people addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the
proposal: Mr. David VanRoijen, Mr. Byrd Woods, Mr. Jim Macllnerny, Ms. Erma Mahone,
Mr. Edward Ayers, Mr. Jay Closure, Mr. John Hermsmier, Ms. Rachel Horsely, Mr. Daniel
Hassel, Ms. Molly Macllnerny, Ms. MaryAnne Rodeheaver, Mr. Carl Dorman, and Mr. T.W.
Woods. Reasons expressed were as follows: [NOTE: Not all those who spoke cited
each reason.]
--There is already coverage in this area. Perfect coverage is not needed.
--An absentee landowner is the lessor in this situation, and has already agreed to
three towers. The residents of the area are very much opposed.
--Statistics show there is as much chance of having a car accident while talking on
a cellular phone, while driving, as there is of having an accident while driving intoxicated.
--This is the worst proposal yet. It is on the top of a ridge and highly visible from an
entrance corridor.
--Impact on critical slopes. This is an extremely steep mountain. The existing
access road is just a horse path. In some places it is so steep it is difficult for horses to
maneuver. Construction of an access road and utilities will make a mess and will leave a
scar that will never go away.
--The applicant should be required to do more progressive, better design and put
something smaller and attractive along the road.
--A citizens committee should be involved in the creation of guidelines to help the
County review tower applications. (Mr. Byrd Woods made this suggestion. Mr.
Loewenstein recommended Mr. Woods approach the consultant who the County will be
hiring in the near future with his suggestion.)
--The site is still shown on the property line of Arrowhead farm.
--We don't want to turn Dudley Mountain into another Carter's Mountain.
--A tower will destroy the beauty of Dudley Mountain. That beauty should not be
sacrificed for cellular coverage.
--Mountain views are important to the value of County real estate. Devastation of
the mountains will devalue property values.
--Concerns were expressed by Ms. Rodeheaver about fire hazard and the tower
attracting lightening. She was also concerned about potential interference with radio and
television reception.
--It is adjacent to Arrowhead Farm which has been placed in a conservation
easement.
Mr. VanRoijen presented a petition of opposition with approximately 40 signatures.
447'
9
6-2-98
Mr. Mark Gartley, representing CFW, one of 360's competitors, addressed the
Commission and expressed an intention to co -locate at the 80-foot level, and to "accept a
degraded signal." He said this site will provide the coverage that "thousands of people
depend on and ask for."
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Gibson to respond to some of the issues raised by the public.
--He addressed the issues of signal interference and lightening protection. He said
a lightening rod will be on the highest point of the tower and there will be a grounding
system around the base of the tower. He said he knows of no situations where fires have
been caused by lightening striking a tower. He said the tower will not cause interference
with any other forms of communication. Of the thousands of 360 towers, there has never
been a single complaint about interference.
--Mr. Tice asked the applicant about the plat, which shows "a proposed 20-foot
access easement, which appears to be on the Arrowhead property. Mr. Gibson said that
needs to be corrected. He explained the plat shows the way the existing road travels, and
the applicant had hoped the owner of Arrowhead would allow sufficient improvements to
access the site. However, the owners of Arrowhead refused to grant an easement, so the
access will have to be all within the Fitzgerald property. A new road will have to be
constructed for that section. He said the applicant has confirmed, once the correction is
made for the access easement, that there is no other encroachment on the Arrowhead
property.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked staff for the height of the tallest tower on Carter's Mountain. Mr. Fritz
said he believes it is the VWIR tower, at 381 feet. Heights of towers on Carter's Mountain
range from 40 feet to 381 feet.
Mr. Nitchmann said his position has not changed since the last tower application. He said:
"I still think we need to step back and take a closer look at this. There are three providers
now. There could be four or five in the future. We go from twenty-four 50-foot poles, to
six 100-foot poles. I can guarantee if I had known what the CFW tower at Keswick would
look like, it wouldn't be standing there today. I don't think it is our responsibility to level
the field of competition for all three providers in this industry, let alone additional providers
that are going to come along in the future, unless we put into it the necessary funding and
the consultant and get them on board and sort through this thing. I agree with Mr. Byrd
that we should have more public input and I hope that will be taken into consideration by
the consultant. I also agree that the mountain is too steep. So my opinion is, leave it
alone."
Mr. Rooker said: "This is an easy one. In listening to the applicant, I am not convinced
the applicant can't provide adequate service with a series of much lower profile towers.
ride 29 frequently and I use a cellular phone that is not mounted on the car and I rarely
have a coverage break through that area. So I think the problems there are not as
dramatic as they have been made out. I think the applicant could come back with a
V.Y
10
6-2-98
proposal for a series of a few lower profile towers to fill in the dead coverage areas to cure
that problem. I think we are looking at a situation where we are trying to kill an ant with a
sledge hammer. I will have no problem opposing this application."
Mr. Rieley said: "I agree with that as well. As a neighbor and somebody who does look
at Dudley Mountain while driving on Rt. 29, while talking on a cell phone, and as
somebody who also drives the Dudley Mountain Road often --in addition to its beauty and
all its other attributes, it is also the best way to get out of Scott Stadium and down south
after a football game --I really think this is a completely unacceptable proposal. I don't fault
the applicant for bringing it forward, but I hope our answer is very clear. There are the
issues of protection of the mountain resource zone of the Comprehensive Plan and the
high visibility, which I don't think is adequately portrayed by the simulations. Like Mr.
Ayers, in looking at those mountains, even from the 29 side, you literally can see them
with every leaf on the tree and to imagine 40 feet above the height of those is appalling.
The fact that it is in the zone of a conservation easement that we should honor and which
we took into account when the much more modest CFW proposal was before us a couple
of weeks ago, and the critical slopes --the notion of a road going up a 40% slope is
outlandish --(should also be considered). it would require a track vehicle, I think, to have
reasonable access. Mr. Denny said if the antennae is not high enough above the trees,
then there will be trouble down the road, but I think if you have a tower that high and in
that location, the trouble is immediate the day you put it up. I am also very concerned
about our co -location strategy. I am very concerned about the prospect of one tower in
this location being a magnet for others later. I think we should deny this and should
encourage the applicant to redirect his efforts. The analysis of the alternatives, as Mr.
Rooker pointed out, have really been an exaggeration to sell this proposal and I think it is
time to shift attention to an acceptable approach rather than trying to justify this
unacceptable one. I would love to see this dropped and see you come back to us with a
completely different approach and I think the Planning Commission, over the last few
approvals, has been pretty clear in the direction we would like to see these go."
Mr. Finley said: "Tonight was the first time 1 ever dreamed co -location could mean
additional towers and this could even be a magnet for additional towers on the
mountaintop." Regarding comments made about the consultant which the county is in the
process of hiring, Mr. Finley pointed out that there is a letter in the Commission's packet
which describes where "we are at this point."
Mr. Tice said he agreed with comments made by other Commissioners. He complimented
the applicant on the detail of the information which they presented to the Commission. He
said the staff report pointed out all the unfavorable factors of this application, which are
"overwhelming" in this case. He said he could not support the request.
Referring to comments made by Mr. VanRoijen about the proposed Mountain Protection
' Ordinance, Mr. Tice said there is a misconception that the proposed ordinance allows
towers. But the fact is, "nothing changes in regards to how towers are treated. Towers
are not allowed by right in the mountain areas or any other areas of the county. They
�d
11
6-2-98
require the process for a special use permit and this Commission and the Board have
been very consistent in applying the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan --in particular
the Mountain Resource Area designation in the Open Space Plan --to limit towers in those
areas. The Mountain Protection Ordinance is not an ordinance that is going to make
towers more likely in the mountain areas."
Ms. Washington agreed the applicant had done a good job on his report, but said she
could not support the request for all the reasons that have been cited.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-03 for 360
Communications (Dudley Mountain), be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
denial based on the finding that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Mountain Resource Area of the Open Space Plan and is inconsistent with
the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Ordinance and because of the critical slopes issue.
Discussion:
Mr. Loewenstein said he was not swayed by the applicant's arguments. He said he has
significant concerns about the environmental and visual degradation that this tower would
create and those concerns have not been satisfactorily answered. He said: "I also
believe the Commission would be acting in opposition to the community's best interests if
this application were approved. The staff report points out the proposal fails to meet
important provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and there is an
existing reasonable use of the property in question. I have not been particularly proud of
a few of the prior decisions the County has made in connection with approval of certain
wireless communications tower sites. A number of us have expressed chagrin about that.
I hope we have learned from the mistakes that have been made in the past. I have also
stated before that I am quite unhappy with the fact that the County still has not got its
consultant on Board on communications towers. Even though we are inching slowly
closer to that, it is still not quick enough, and the County committee that has worked long
and hard on this, recommended that. We need additional input --professional and technical
input --from impartial experts before we can make effective and reasonable decisions
without adding further towers to the Albemarle landscape. So far we do not have that
information. I am not holding this, or any other individual applicant, hostage to that
essential component of our planning process. I would say exactly the same thing no
matter what applicant or company were here before us with this type of application. I also
think denial of this application will not constitute an undue hardship for this applicant and I
think we need to hold off until we have a better set of professional and impartial
benchmarks against which to test applications like this in broad terms. For these reasons
I am not prepared to support approval of this application."
The motion for denial of the special permit passed unanimously.
_S_0
6-2-98
12
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that 360 Communication's
request for a Site Plan Waiver be denied. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that 360 Communication's
request for a modification of setback requirements be denied. The motion passed
unanimously.
Staff asked that the Commission provide the Board with an advisory recommendation with
respect to the conditions of approval in the event the Board should choose to approve the
special permit.
Mr. Tice said he would have a problem recommending the conditions "if for no other
reason than up to a 40% slope for an access road, including a trench to bury the utilities,
is just completely unacceptable." He said he did not see how that issue could be
resolved.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed. He said approving the conditions would be like saying "it's O.K."
There was some confusion as to how to present this concern to the Board given the fact
that there is no condition which deals directly with the slope issue. Mr. Kamptner asked if
there was a condition the Commission could recommend which would address this
concern. Mr. Loewenstein said he understands the concern is how would it be possible to
provide an access road and meet any sort of reasonable standard, even if it required a
waiver.
Mr. Loewenstein said he also has concerns about the geology of this site and the fact that
blasting might be required.
Mr. Nitchmann said: " It is ridiculous, after having recommended denial of this request for
the reasons stated, to then say if the Board of Supervisors, in its wisdom, wishes to
approve this, then all these other things are O.K. with me. Well, it's not O.K. with me. Let
them decide which ones are O.K.and which ones aren't. It's like speaking out of both
sides of your mouth."
The Commission did not recommend approval of the conditions. They listed the following
concerns:
--The proposed height of the tower is too tall. (Condition 1)
--There is no acceptable way to address the 40% slope issue for the access road.
(Not addressed with a condition.)
--Co-location may turn out to be a magnet for other towers in this location.
(Condition 5)
Mr. Cilimberg said he will pass on to the Board that the Commission has these concerns
and if the Board chooses to approve the request, they can send it back to the Commission
for action on the conditions at that time.
5/
6-2-98 13
The meeting recessed from 9:30 to 9:40.
-------------------------------------
SP 97-57 Townwood Mobile Home Park - Proposal to add 13 additional units to the
existing mobile home park as permitted by Section 17.2.2(17). Property, described as Tax
Map 61, Parcel 8 is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Rio Road and
Hydraulic Road in the Rio Magisterial District. The property consists of approximately 12.6
acres and is zoned R-10, Residential. The area is located in Neighborhood 1 and is
recommended for Urban Density [6.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre.] Deferred from the
April 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented a brief staff report. He reported that the Zoning Administrator has
informed him that the existing zoning violations at the mobile home park have not been
fully abated, but progress has been made. He said staff met with the Chief of Housing
and the applicant and two new conditions have been added (numbers 12 and 13) which
are intended to insure the requirements of the Fair Housing Act are met. The Chief of
Housing has confirmed that these two conditions satisfy the concerns of the Fair Housing
Committee. However, the County Attorney's office feels these conditions may not be
enforceable. Minor modifications have been made to other conditions based on comments
from the Building Codes and Zoning Services Office and the County Attorney's office.
Conditions 12 and 13 generated a considerable amount of discussion. Those conditions
were proposed as follows:
12. Prior to the approval of any site plan all existing leases shall
comply with the Virginia Manufactured Home Lot Rental Act and the Virginia
Residential LandlordfTenant Act. All new leases shall comply with the Virginia
Manufactured Home Lot Rental Act and the Virginia Residential
Landlord/Tenant Act.
13. All leases, existing and new, shall contain a statement affirming the
Fair Housing Laws. The Fair Housing Logo shall be visible on all leases, rules
and regulations, and shall include fair housing hotline phone numbers.
Mr. Kamptner explained the County Attorney office concerns about conditions 12 and
13: "The concern of our office is that these two conditions are not connected to any
land use issue. It really gets the County in the business of reviewing private
contracts. ... It would put the Zoning Administrator in the position of having to enforce
these conditions --going to court --and enforcing a zoning violation's contract provisions
that don't comply with various Housing Acts. It also would put the Zoning
Administrator in a position of possibly pursuing an action to revoke a special use
permit ... if the agreements between the owner and the tenants don't comply with these
Housing Acts. So, from our department, and also Zoning, we think these conditions
should (not be included). It was presented that the applicant has consented to these --
and that's good. We would recommend that the applicant and the Housing
5;�
6-2-98
14
Department work together to be sure that the tenants that come in do have lease
agreements that comply with these various acts."
Mr. Tice said he did not understand the County Attorney's position. He said #13
would be a very straightforward decision on the part of the Zoning Administrator.
Regarding the land use connection, he said the Special Use Permits section of the
Ordinance gives the criteria for granting a special use permit, one of which is "being
consistent with public health, safety and general welfare." He said: "It seems to me
compliance with fair housing laws and the other laws mentioned here are related to
public welfare."
Mr. Kamptner responded: "You have to look at that in the context of some sort of
land use issue. Just about anything, if you take it out far enough, has something to
do with general welfare. The Zoning Administrator should be in a position of enforcing
conditions that deal with land use issues that are directly connected to the Zoning
Ordinance. Conditions that are imposed, whether voluntary or imposed by the Board
of Supervisors, should be conditions that are intended to address impacts from the
land use that is approved by the special use permit because it is that mechanism that
allows a use that is more intensive or has some other features that are more intense
than what is allowed as a matter of right to exist, by virtue of these conditions, that
minimize those land use impacts. I think putting conditions like these in a special use
permit is taking us beyond the realm of the types of conditions that have some nexus
to some land use impact. From a less technical view, I am concerned that these
conditions, and ones like these, become a catch -all --a way to deal with issues that
aren't directly related to the land use issues but they are there to make the situation
better. There is nothing wrong with trying to make the situation better, but it's putting
them as special use permit conditions that is our concern."
Mr. Tice said he believes there is a land use issue. Were this not in here there are
legal remedies that individuals can pursue under these specific Acts. By having it in
here, it seems to me to be saying that, as a land use issue, something that is going to
be granted by special use permit should cover these areas that are part of our
county's Affordable Housing Policy, which is a land use issue. I think there is a land
use connection."
Mr. Loewenstein said he wonders if this is a land use issue based on the type of
housing involved, i.e. "affordable housing."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if State law requires landlords to include in leases the two
statements that are covered in conditions 12 and 13. Ms. Ginni McDonald,
representing the County's Office of Housing, indicated the two items are not required
by law. Mr. Nitchmann said he does not believe it is the responsibility of the Planning
Commission to require that certain things be included in leases which are not required
by law. Referring to the language which says both "existing and new" leases, he
pointed out that all existing leases would have to be reissued, and he questioned the
6-2-98 15
County's authority to make such a requirement. He said: The next thing we'll be
doing is saying landlords can't require 60 days rent in advance. Then where does it
stop?" He added that if this requirement is made of this applicant, then it should apply
to every lease in the county. He doubted the County would be able to successfully
defend such a requirement in court.
Mr. Finley said he agrees with the County Attorney's position, and with Mr.
Nitchmann's concerns. He said: "What does this mean for the future? I haven't the
slightest idea what could be tagged on in the future because we, somehow, tie it into
land use. As a Commissioner, knowing nothing about these two, I'd prefer they were
not in here."
Mr. Rooker said: "I have a problem with them also. Item 12 clearly purports to be a
matter of law. So the leases are going to comply with these two laws. However,
when they say 'existing leases,' I don't know, as a matter of law, that the existing
lease might be grandfathered. So, I don't know if it is fair to impose on this applicant
requirements that may not be imposed by law, and, if they are imposed by law, there
are remedies for handling it." (Mr. Loewenstein commented: "I am satisfied with that
explanation.")
Mr. Tice agreed that #12 is more "problematic" than #13. He added: "But I still look
at what this county is trying to accomplish in its Affordable Housing Policy. The
argument that 'this may not be required by law,' --the other 11 items aren't required by
law either. ... The whole purpose of the special use permit is that these are uses that
are allowed by exception on the property, and it seems to be consistent in the
protection of public welfare, if we have this Affordable Housing Policy and this Fair
Housing Policy, that we ought to be applying it." (Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the
items addressed in the other 11 conditions are related to land use issues, but 12 and
13 are related to a contract between two individuals.)
Mr. Rooker added: "I also think we need to think about whether we are prepared,
every time a rental property comes before us, to impose this condition. I don't know
that it would fair to impose it on this applicant any more than any other applicant that
comes before us for a special use permit dealing with rental property." Mr. Nitchmann
said the conditions would have to be applied to every rental proposal.
Ms. Washington changed the subject and asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on the
issue of whether it is "ethical" for the Commission to recommend approval of the
request before the existing zoning violations have been resolved. She pointed out the
applicant was given until June 5th to remove the violations, but, as of today, June 2nd,
they are not fully resolved.
Mr. Rooker suggested Ms. Washington's concern could be addressed by the addition
of a condition that site plan approval will not be granted until the zoning violations
have been abated. He asked if such a condition is legal.
6_�
6-2-98 16
Mr. Nitchmann said he could not recall such a condition in the years he has been on
the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said: "You have had special use permits in which
there are violations which existed, but, typically, the special use permit is, in and of
itself, to correct the violations. This is a little different."
Mr. Kamptner responded: "I think in the past we have treated the zoning track and
planning track differently as far as enforcement. I guess if you can find an impact
from the land use that is approved that is somehow connected to the existing
violations. Certainly, a condition to deal with those could be imposed. If there is no
connection, then I would recommend that you allow the zoning enforcement to take its
course. But if you do find a connection between those conditions and the impact
resulting from this SP, I think that would be appropriate."
Mr. Rieley said he believes "there is a clear and direct relationship." Mr. Loewenstein
agreed.
Mr. Kamptner said: "Another way to deal with this, if you find that the use is contrary
to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or is inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, or that you can't make any of the findings of the SP, is to deny the application."
wr. Mr. Rooker responded: "That is what I would like to avoid. If the Commission is of a
mind that they want to approve this application, except for those pending violations --
this has already been deferred once --I would try to fashion a condition that would
satisfy us that we are not approving a land use that is inappropriate because of these
violations. (Later in the discussion Mr. Fritz proposed the following condition: No site
plan approval shall be given until such time as all violations cited in Zoning
Administrator's Notice of Determination of Violation, dated May 6, 1998, from the
Zoning Administrator, Amelia McCulley, to West Rio Land Trust, have been abated.)
Ms. Washington again expressed concern about the fact that the applicant has had a
month to remove the violations, but has not done so. She did not think the violations
(trash and inoperative vehicles) should be that difficult to deal with, particularly if the
applicant wanted this request to be reviewed favorably. She said: "Personally, I have
a problem approving it."
Mr. Nitchmann said it is not as easy to deal with these violations as it may seem. A
landlord cannot just go onto a person's property and take another person's property
away, without following proper legal procedure, which can take from 90 to 120 days.
Ms. Washington said there is no evidence of what steps the applicant has taken thus
far to effect the removal of the trash and the vehicles.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Hill. He said he is trying to get the mobile
home park "straightened out." He said he has been working with the staff and feels
the conditions of approval can be complied with. He pointed out that some of the
5�
6-2-98 17
questions raised are more difficult to address because of the fact that the landlord, in
this case, is renting only a pad, and not the actual dwelling unit. This fact makes it
more difficult to apply the Fair Housing standards. An attorney is looking at this
question for the applicant. He addressed the two zoning violations. He said he sent a
letter to residents, 30 days ago, advising them that the extra vehicles must be
removed. He estimated 50% of the vehicles have been removed thus far, but said it
may take court action to have some of them removed. He said removal of the other
trash should be completed by today. He presented recent photographs of the park
taken "at 3:30 this afternoon." He explained measures which are being taken to
upgrade the water service to the park. He said he had enjoyed working with staff and
the Housing Office and he "believes we are all trying to do the same thing, but there
are just different ways of getting there."
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Lois Tickle, representing the Townwood Homeowners' Association. (Townwood is
the adjacent neighborhood of 140 townhomes.) She expressed opposition to the
request for additional lots. She listed the following specific concerns:
--if approved, can the screening trees required in condition No. 11 be changed
to "a 6-foot shadow box privacy fence to be properly maintained." She said trees,
over years, do not provide much screening and do not prevent trespassing situations.
--How is the county going to monitor, on an on -going basis, the condition of the
mobile home park? Phone calls and numerous letters of complaint written by the
Townwood Homeowners' Association to the County, have been "to no avail." (Mr.
Nitchmann suggested that any future letters of complaint be sent to the appropriate
Board of Supervisor member. Ms. Tickle said she believes letters were sent to the
Supervisor.)
--"The unclean and unsafe environment of this mobile home park adversely
affects property values of all surrounding communities."
--If approved, can the location of the tot lot (condition #6) be changed.
She asked that the Commission reflect on they concerns they would have if this
mobile home park were adjacent to their personal property.
Ms. Pam Struther, a resident of the Townwood Mobile Home Park for 9 years,
addressed the Commission. She described problems which she has experienced
repeatedly related to water pressure during the entire nine years she has lived in the
park. She has been without water, off and on, for the last two weeks. When she calls
the landlord she gets no response. She said she has always felt if she complained
too frequently about problems, she would be evicted by the landlord (Dr. Hurt). She
stressed that she owns her home and if she were to be evicted she would have to find
another location for her mobile home. She asked if landlords are required to follow
these regulations. (Mr. Kamptner responded: "These are Acts, so they are part of the
Code of Virginia.) She expressed concern about what will happen with the water
situation when there are 13 additional homes in the park. She agreed that the park
needs to be cleaned up. She said she believes residents would be willing to pay extra
0
M
6-2-98 18
for periodic large item trash pick-up. She has recommended this to the landlord, but
received no response. She ended her comments by asking the Commission who she
should call the next time she has no water. She said she has called the RWSA
directly, but because the landlord (Dr. Hurt) pays the water bill they will not respond to
her complaints because she is not the customer. Mr. Loewenstein said he believes
this would come under the Virginia Landlord Tenant Act. She said she has only
recently become aware of the Virginia Manufactured Home Lot Rental Act and the
Virginia Landlord Tenant Act.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein invited comment from Ms. Ginni McDonald, representing the County's
Housing Office. She explained that conditions 12 and 13 "are remedies for this
particular situation." Home, Incorporated, a statewide testing organization located in
Richmond, suggested that "we ask the owner to offer to do that as a way to remedy
the violations within his lease --they violate three different acts." She said Mr. Hill has
been working diligently "to try to do that." This is not something the Housing
Committee would recommend be done for all housing situations. "It was because it
became known there were violations and this was a remedy short of Home, Inc.
contacting a resident and bringing suit. She concluded by saying she believes this is
' a land use issue because there have been court cases where localities have denied
group homes in certain residential areas and, when sued, the local governments have
lost. She said: "To me that's a zoning issue, that's a land use issue, and because the
citation for this particular park was part of the American with Disabilities Act
Amendments, there might be a land use connection."
Mr. Tice continued to argue that he believes this is land use issue. He said the
Zoning Ordinance says "we have to find that the use is in harmony with the purpose,
and intent of this Ordinance and, specifically listed in the Purpose and Intent section of
our Zoning Ordinance (1.4.11) is 'to promote affordable housing.' And then
elsewhere there is the discussion of public health, safety and welfare. And as we
heard tonight, real or potential, there are implications for public health, safety and
welfare. In Section 31.2.4.3 of the Special Use Permit Section, where we can impose
conditions, it specifically says we can impose conditions: 'Such conditions relating to
the use for which such permit is granted as it (i.e. the Commission in this case) may
deem necessary in the public interest.' It goes on to say that can include 'and or other
particular aspects of occupancy or use.' In the section dealing with mobile home
subdivisions, 5.5.3 states that special use permits are required. 5.5.5 says that all
mobile home subdivisions shall conform with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the
Code of Albemarle, Chapter 7 of the Code of Albemarle, and all other applicable law."
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that the two Acts cited are already law. "That being the
case is it necessary to specify what has been specified here in condition 127'
S7
6-2-98 19
Referring again to Section 5.5.5, which says mobile homes have to apply with all
applicable law, Mr. Tice asked: "Does that mean if something is in violation of the
law, that then, in fact, the remedy of the county then is to revoke the special use
permit?" Mr. Kamptner replied: "i think in that context, all applicable law means all
applicable land use related laws. I think of a commercial establishment --if there is
sexual harassment going on, that doesn't mean that the land use becomes a zoning
violation because a particular law has been violated. You are talking about laws that
were adopted for a public purpose. We certainly have no quarrel with the remedies
that these acts impose. It is the forum of where they should be enforced. Is it the
Zoning Administrator's job to enforce Fair Housing Laws that have been created
separate and apart from zoning? I don't think so." Mr. Rooker interjected: "I also
have a question as to who makes this determination --the legal determination as to
whether or not leases comply with the Fair Housing Act." Mr. Kamptner said: "If it
were a condition, it would be the Zoning Administrator's job."
Mr. Loewenstein asked who oversees compliance with the Fair Housing Act, if this is
not a condition of the special permit. Mr. Kamptner replied: "A state agency." Ms.
McDonald added: "It would be up to the individual to file a formal complaint. There is
a State agency that would mediate (before the item would go to court)." Mr. Rooker
confirmed that there is a State agency which will bring charges, because he has "seen
it done."
Mr. Tice said he understands the process described, but he still believes "this county
is committed to the purposes and intents and policies that it has put in place. He said:
"I agree with the comment that was made that this isn't necessarily something that we
should be leaving up to the State or the Federal government. It seems to me it is a
very reasonable thing for a locality to say, because of the affordable housing and fair
housing policy that the county has, that all leases should contain a statement affirming
the Fair Housing Laws." He said he finds #12 to be more problematic than #13. He
could see no problem with #13. Mr. Rieley noted that #12 is more substantive.
Mr. Loewenstein again raised the issue of future applications, i.e. would the same
conditions have to be applied to future special permits. Mr. Tice replied: "Any future
application that met the same kinds of conditions, with the history that has been
involved here. If there are other applications that came before us that had the track
record that this one has .... (sentence unfinished.)"
Mr. Rooker interjected that there has been no proof that this applicant has violated
Fair Housing Laws. There have been allegations made, but there is no record of law
suits where it has been proven he has violated the Fair Housing Laws. Mr. Rooker
said: "So I don't know how we could draw a distinction between this applicant and
anybody else who comes before us for a special use permit for rental properties." Mr.
'`' Loewenstein said he shares this concern.
6-2-98 20
Mr. Finley asked: "Likewise, why wait 'til after the fact. Put it in all of them. Are we
going to put all applicable acts and laws into our conditions?"
Mr. Cilimberg commented: "What hasn't been discussed here is what Albemarle
County, in its own Code, might, separate and apart from the Zoning Ordinance, adopt
as housing regulation to assure what you are saying --that certain measures are met in
any case where housing is involved. Maybe that is on the horizon. Maybe, in fact,
the county is going to adopt provisions under its own Fair Housing Code --and I believe
it can --but it seems that is where you will get into the question of whether or not this
can be equitably applied across the Board. You are not going to see too many
residential special use permits for rental property. Very seldom are you going to see
them, and most of the time they are going to be site plans and I know you can't put it
in a site plan provision. And you can't require it in a zoning action because you can
only accept proffers. If that is the issue, this probably isn't the place to be discussing
that in terms of an equitable application. In terms of whether or not it can be here,
can't say. But we started with that approach after consultation with the Housing
Office, and the intent of dealing with what had been raised as a particular concern
here, in this application. Whether or not this special permit is approved, the situation
out there is still going to be there. Violations will still exist that need to be addressed.
If there is anything subject to some procedure under Fair Housing Law, it still will be
there subject to that procedure. So it might be worth looking at the special use permit
in terms of what does it do as a land use for this particular property that either is an
improvement or a detriment over what exists now? That is the core of the issue as I
would see it for decision making. We have an existing situation that does not meet
our ordinance. It is substandard in terms of our ordinance and we cannot make this
non -conforming use become conforming. We can only consider some improvements
to this use that might make it more conforming, which is what you have before you. In
making the decision of whether or not you want to recommend approval of that, I think
you need to think about whether that actually means you are improving a situation that
is substandard."
Mr. Rooker said he drives by this park very day and the front is relatively attractive. It
seems most of the problems are farther back in the property. He said if all the
recommended conditions are satisfied, the result will be a more attractive park after
this is approved than presently exists and there will be 13 more units of affordable
housing. He again recommended that a condition be added requiring that "the zoning
violations will be abated prior to approval of the site plan." He said he wants to make
sure that 13 units aren't added before the time that existing violations are taken care
of. He also expressed concern about the issue raised by Ms. Struther related to water
problems. He said the question of adequate water needs to be answered before 13
more units are added.
Mr. Cilimberg said the water issue is definitely a land use issue which needs to be
addressed.
M
6-2-98 21
How to address the water problem was discussed. Mr. Fritz said the Service Authority
has confirmed that the water meter is "more than adequate in terms of its size, for the
mobile home park, including the proposed units." Beyond the meter, the lines are
private and the Service Authority would not be involved. Mr. Hill was asked to
comment. He explained the meter was replaced with 200 psi when Rio Road was
widened. The source of the water pressure problem was just today identified to be a
problem with the cut-off valve. The valve is to be replaced "tomorrow" (by the
property owner). He confirmed there is a new 1-inch line throughout the park and that
the lines are sized adequately to support 13 more units.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if it is possible for County staff to verify the adequacy of the
lines within the property, after the faulty valve has been replaced. Mr. Fritz said he
thought this would be a function of the Building Official.
Mr. Rooker recommended a condition be added which would require that there be a
determination made that there is adequate internal pressure to serve these 13 units.
Mr. Fritz offered the following wording: Building Official approval of adequacy of public
water to all units, both existing and proposed, prior to approval of site plan.
Mr. Tice once again expressed his support for conditions 12 and 13 and his belief that
they are land use related.
Mr. Rieley said he agrees with Mr. Tice. He explained: "When you look at 12, it is
simply a reaffirmation that the Manufactured Home Lot Rental Act and the Virginia
Residential Landlord/Tenant Act will be obeyed. There certainly seems to be nothing
controversial about that. The second one, #13, that the leases contain a statement
confirming the Fair Housing Laws, certainly seems clear and is much in the same vein
as the previous one. The Fair Housing logo doesn't seem as important to me, or that
the rules and regulations and telephone be included. I certainly don't see anything
objectionable about it. I wouldn't mind if it was made universal for every time we had
a special permit where there was rental property involved. I also agree with Ms.
Washington's concern about issuing a special use permit at the same time that we
have two on -going violations, but I think Mr. Rooker's suggested condition is a good
way to deal with that. On 12 and 13 we may be in a grey area legally, but we're on
solid ground ethically, and I feel much more comfortable in that position."
Mr. Nitchmann said he disagreed with Commissioners Tice and Rieley. He said: "I
might be able to live with 12 but I can't live with 13 at all. It has too many widespread
implications to not just this applicant, but to every landlord in the county. If this goes
through, and it gets picked up someplace else, it's going to increase the
rents... because the landlord is not going to pay for it. I would very much prefer that
we get a thorough legal determination on this from the County Attorney's Office before
we attach this to a special use permit, because (I don't think we have the legal
grounds to start requiring things that are private contracts between individuals)."
60
M
6-2-98 22
Mr. Finley said he is strongly opposed to 12 and 13. He questioned whose job it
would be to check all leases prior to the approval of a site plan. He said: "We have a
lot of tangible work to do. ... There are acts everywhere and there must be ways of
enforcing these acts, but I do not believe that is our term of reference. Are they
having problems enforcing this and they need more clout so they want it in a special
use permit. Why is this necessary? If this is the law, then somewhere there is an
enforcement authority that should be enforcing the law."
Mr. Rooker said: "I certainly agree with the goals to be served by these acts, But, I
don't even know if the Virginia Residential Landlord/Tenant Act applies to the rental of
a pad. I'm really uncomfortable including things in a special use permit where we are
imposing compliance with acts that we don't even know for certain whether or not they
apply to the transaction at hand. I agree with what Mr. Cilimberg said, i.e. if there is
some hole in the law that we can cure on a countywide basis and should cure, it
should be done in an Ordinance, not in a special use permit that just applies to one
particular applicant."
Mr. Loewenstein said he tends to agree with Mr. Rooker. He said: "I think from a
moral perspective, the idea of compliance and affirmation that are cited in these two
conditions, make a lot of sense. But I am really uncomfortable with the legal greyness
of this and for that reason I have a lot of trouble with (these two conditions). I wish it
were an easier decision to make."
Mr. Loewenstein asked for comment on the Townwood Townhomes request that a
privacy fence be required instead of screening trees. Ms. Washington said she could
support the request for a fence. Mr. Nitchmann said he believes the fence will
undoubtedly offer better screening and -it will_ better address -trespass problems. Mr.
Fritz described how No. 11 could be changed so as to reflect the requirement for a 6-
foot screening fence instead of screening trees. Mr. Rooker said he would support
fencing in both the locations where trees were proposed in No. 11.
Regarding the location of the tot lot. Mr. Fritz said the most probable location will be
central to the proposal. No definitive location was discussed.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 97-57, for Townwood
Mobile Home Park, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject
to the following conditions, with the original conditions 12 and 13 deleted and replaced
with new conditions as shown below:
1. Not more than 13 additional units shall be permitted.
2. All new units shall be setback at least 15 feet from the designated internal
road.
3. The minimum street width shall be 20 feet with a prime and double seal
surface except in the area noted on the plan by staff as "Portion of Road with Island,
WDF 4/9/98". The existing travelway in the "Portion of Road with Island" shall be
paved.
&f
6-2-98 23
4. Defined roadside ditches and drainage culverts shall be provided where
deemed necessary by the Director of Engineering.
5. The provisions of Sec. 5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to all new
units except as noted in this special use permit or as may be modified by the Planning
Commission during the review of the site plan.
6. A tot lot meeting the requirements of Section 4.16.2.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance shall be provided. The tot lot shall be located such that it is not within 50
feet of any existing unit.
7. The applicant shall obtain Engineering Department approval of modifications
to the drainage system at the rear of the property which conveys water from
Greenbrier Drive.
8. Fire hydrants shall be located to serve the entire Townwood Mobile Home
Park and the location of the hydrants must be approved by the Fire Official.
9. One recreational vehicle parking space shall be provided.
10. No clearing or grading shall occur other than that which is necessary to
improve the existing internal road, meet building code requirements for the placement
of units and to provide for utilities.
11. A minimum 6-foot high screening fence shall be provided on Greenbrier
Drive and adjacent to the gas pipeline from the end of the existing fence to the edge
of lot 3 where it abuts the open space. A minimum 6-foot high screening fence shall
be provided adjacent to the Four Seasons Development on lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Required fencing shall be maintained.
12. Building Official approval of adequacy of public water to all units, both
existing and proposed, prior to approval of site plan.
13. No site plan approval shall be given until such time as all violations cited in
Zoning Administrator's Notice of Determination of Violation, dated May 6, 1998, from
the Zoning Administrator, Amelia McCulley, to West Rio Land Trust, have been
abated.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:3, with Commissioners Rieley, Tice and Washington
casting the dissenting votes.
Commissioners Tice and Rieley both confirmed that their votes had been based on
the removal of the original conditions 12 and 13. Had those conditions been included,
they would have supported the motion.
Ms. Washington felt conditions 12 and 13 were important, but she said her lack of
support was mostly based on the feeling that an approval should not be given while
zoning violations still exist. She said she passes this property every day and she does
not agree that significant improvements have taken place since the owner was cited
with a violation. (Mr. Tice agreed.)
"%w- Mr. Rooker pointed out the conditions imposed by this permit will result in a much
better situation than presently exists. Fire hydrants will be added in the park; some of
the roads will be repaired and sealed; a tot lot is being added; screening is being
4�2'
24
6-2-98
added; and the water situation is going to be improved. If this request were to be
denied, "we would have no mechanism to ensure those things would take place in this
trailer park and I then see a truly deteriorating condition there. Living near that
neighborhood, I have a concern that we stop that and I think this is the best way to
stop it."
Ms. Washington said: I would like to see it look better and I would like to see all the
conditions imposed on it. I would like to see it change for the better. But, I just think
if we don't take a stand to make sure some of these things get done before we
continue to grant approval --while I have been on this Commission I have seen us take
harder stands than this on other issues. To me, people's safety and people's
property, people having water every day, people having a place for their kids to play --I
see those kids out there going across the street where there is no crosswalk --I see the
advantage of some of the things we are trying to implement, but I see the
disadvantage of what is going on right there. Just because I don't have as much
money as you does not mean that I have to live in the conditions that are present at
Townwood Mobile Homes. I don't care what you say, it's not going to change my
mind. I've seen things around here slip through the cracks and I'm just afraid this
might be one of those things. "
Mr. Loewenstein said the condition which was added requiring that the violations be
abated before the site plan is approved should address Ms. Washington's concerns.
Mr. Rieley asked staff to report back to the Commission, in the near future, about
the appropriate way to address conditions 12 and 13 (which were deleted). Mr.
Cilimberg said such a report would need to come from the County Attorney.
Referring to comments made earlier in the hearing by Mr. Nitchmann that the County
provided water to the Key West subdivision when it began to have problems, Mr. Tice
said: "Here we have a situation in one part of the county, a relatively well-off
neighborhood, that the County ran a line to, and we have a situation right in town
where there are water problems." Mr. Rooker said: "Hopefully, that will be cured."
SP 98-13 Dennis Enterprises, Inc. - Request for a special use permit to expand an
existing use of outdoor storage and display for auto sales on 2.748 acres of land
located on U.S.Route 250 approximately 1.4 miles west of the intersection with State
Farm Boulevard. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 13 is located in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and is designated as Regional Service in
Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Deferred from the May 19, 1998
Commission Meeting.
Ms. Pickart presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
63
Im
6-2-98 25
Mr. Nitchmann asked if it is possible to require compliance with the new sign
ordinance for this (and the following) request. Mr. Tice asked also about lighting. Ms.
Pickart said the sign will be reviewed according to the existing ordinance and the ARB
will review the lighting plans, in relation to the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg added: "Any
signs that get changed or replaced will be subject to the sign provisions." Mr.
Nitchmann asked if the applicant can be required, as a condition of approval, to
replace the existing sign.
Mr. Tice asked how stormwater will be handled. Ms. Pickart said all water related
issues will be addressed through the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that what is
before the Commission is a special permit for outdoor storage and display. The
Engineering Department would have to address how stormwater is being addressed
on the site. That is a part of site plan review. Ms. Pickart said she believes there are
issues that are still being worked out. Mr. Tice asked: "Isn't that relevant....?" Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "No it really isn't. The Board of Supervisors actually changed
the provisions of the special use permit after the adoption of the EC Overlay, to
specifically say that the element of site development which was outdoor storage and
display was subject to special use permit. So what is actually before you is not the
use. It is the element of the use that is outdoor storage and display. That is what is
subject to special use permit. Because of some earlier interpretation of the way the
ordinance was originally written, after the EC Overlay was adopted, it was a broader
application and it was actually a special use permit for the whole use, and that was a
grey area and there were a lot of other things being discussed as part of that. The
Board actually made a change in an amendment that actually defined this particular
special use permit as being for outdoor storage and display." Mr. Tice asked if the
Commission will see the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission can call the
site plan up for review. Ms. Pickart said the site plan is almost ready for preliminary
approval. Mr. Tice said his question is how the special permit for outdoor storage and
display might complicate the county's ability to deal with the proper treatment of
stormwater on the site. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It doesn't complicate it at all. It
just defines how outdoor storage and display is supposed to be addressed by the ARB
as part of the overall site plan. Basically, what it really ends up doing is it gives the
ARB most of the decision making on how the outdoor storage and display will be
accommodated from a design standpoint."
Citing section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance, Mr. Loewenstein asked about the potential
detriment to adjacent properties that stormwater runoff might cause. Mr. Cilimberg
responded: "It has been interpreted for us previously that because this is a very
defined element of special use permit approval, that what you are looking at as
detriment to adjacent property is the fact that you have outdoor storage and display --
the visible existence of outdoor storage and display is what you are reviewing." Mr.
Loewenstein asked: "So there are no other issues?" Mr. Cilimberg responded:
" "From a special use permit standpoint, that is the element of the use that is before
you, or, actually, before the Board, for their approval." He said the Commission
seems to be asking that preliminary plans come before the Commission on these
G `f
M
6-2-98 26
questions. Staff would have to go back and bring that to the Commission. He said:
"If you feel there is a connection between that and this approval, then you would have
to defer this action and take the action on the special permit along with action on the
preliminary site plan."
Mr. Tice again asked: "if we approve the special use permit with those lots shown on
that plan, how constrained does that make the county in reviewing stormwater
management, that they might then end up approving a site plan that would be less
than the level of stormwater protection they would ... (sentence unfinished)?" Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "There is nothing you do in an approval of a special use permit
that is going to remove the requirements of the stormwater management or water
resource management provisions. The Board cannot approve a special use permit
which would, in its effect, remove the possibility to abide by requirements of the Water
Resources Ordinance or the site plan provisions of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Kamptner added: "There is no condition here that ties your approval to a
particular plan."
After hearing the staffs explanations, Mr. Tice said he would not want to hold up this
request to allow Commission review of the preliminary site plan. He added: "But I
`*mw would suggest in the future, when we have these kinds of things, it would be
worthwhile to have them both before us (the special permit and the preliminary site
plan)."
Mr. Tice asked how waste water is currently handled on the site. The applicant's
representative later answered this question and said that the site uses a septic tank.
The tank was recently checked and no problems were found. No increase in number
of employees is proposed. He said the applicant would like to connect to public sewer
but it is not presently accessible. It is hoped the line will be extended to the Brown
property and then to this property.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Brian Smith. He first commended the
Commission for their time and commitment and for they way they work together. In
answer to Mr. Nitchmann's question about how runoff from washing of vehicles is
handled, Mr. Dennis Manendez said the wash area drains to a dirt area into the
woods and the service bay floor drains drain to a dry well.
Mr. Tice asked if there is a plan for the landscaping of Rt. 250, Mr. Cilimberg said he
is not aware of an overall plan. Mr. Tice said his question was: "if there was a plan,
who would be looking at this from a standpoint of how this landscaping plan would
mesh with an overall plan for 250." Ms. Pickart said that would be a function of the
ARB.
Mr. Loewenstein said he had visited the site and there appears to be some recent
clearing where this proposed expansion is to take place. He asked Mr. Smith to
6-2-98
RZA
comment. Mr. Smith said the clearing is to remove some materials (concrete) that
were dropped at the site years ago.
Mr. Nitchmann again raised the issue of the sign. He pointed out that this entrance
into the City is very spectacular and he said if the Commission can require that the
sign be changed to meet the new ordinance as part of this approval, then it should be
made a condition. Mr. Smith said he would talk to the owner to see if he might be
willing to lower the sign, but there are no plans to change the sign at this time. Mr.
Manendez responded from the audience: "it costs money."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-13 for
Dennis Enterprises be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. The expanded use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness
is issued by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the approved site plan.
3. Vehicles shall not be elevated.
Discussion:
Mr. Kamptner responded to Mr. Nitchmann's question about whether or not the
applicant could be required to change the sign. "I am assuming this is a non-
conforming sign. As a non -conforming sign, one provision provides that when a
substantial change of sign, use or structural alterations occurs upon a lot containing a
sign, such sign shall not be permitted unless modified to be in full compliance with this
ordinance. There is another provision --kind of the amortization provision --which
provides that each time an existing non -conforming sign is replaced, remodeled or
consolidated, the maximum sign area, height or setback shall be reduced by 25% until
the sign is brought into conformity with these regulations." Mr. Cilimberg added:
"Those are all provisions currently in the Ordinance which don't require a special use
permit condition. Those are things that would happen as an operation of the
Ordinance." Mr. Rooker said: "I guess the question is whether, outside of the
Ordinance, we can attach a condition that would require compliance with the
Ordinance." Mr. Cilimberg said the question is whether or not, because of this being a
special use permit for outdoor storage and display, can that be considered a
connection?" Mr. Kamptner said: "The connection between the sign and the special
permit is remote. We may want to ask the Zoning Administrator to make a
determination as to whether or not there is a substantial structural alteration. I don't
think, given the nature of this particular special use permit, that is the case."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
1�6
M
c-2-ss 2s
Mr. Tice said the record should reflect the discussion about the connection to public
sewer. He said he is concerned about the potential for significant pollution, given the
septic tank and the use of the dry well. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a mandatory policy
which exists for connection to public water and sewer However, because the line
would have to come across a neighboring property, not owned by this applicant, he
said he did not think the County could force the neighbor to grant an easement. Mr.
Rooker asked if the County could use eminent domain to acquire the easement. Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "It would be an absolutely new thing for the County to do. The
County is not in the water and sewer business. It was not involved in the Key West
water line extension (as mentioned earlier), other than to grant jurisdictional area. It is
always through the Authorities that that is done." He confirmed that the Authority
could, theoretically, exercise imminent domain. He said staff could request that the
Authority took into whether there is anything they can do to assure the availability of
sewer to this site.
SP 98-19 Brown Toyota - Request for a special use permit, in accord with the
provisions of section 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow outdoor storage and
display for auto sales on 1.35 acres of land located on U.S. Route 250 East
approximately 1.5 miles west of the intersection with State Farm Boulevard. The
property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 14A is located in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. The property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor
Overlay District, and is designated as Community service in Neighborhood 3 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Pickart presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the gas tanks will have to be removed from this site. The
applicant later responded to this question. He said the gas tanks have already been
removed.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Gregg. He said it is ironic that a car
dealership is allowed by right on this site, but a special permit is needed to allow cars
to be display on the property. Regarding the issue of extending the sewer line to the
adjacent Dennis Enterprises' property, he said: "That all makes sense and 1 don't see
any reason why that can't be worked out." He was unable to answer Mr. Finley's
question as to whether or not any soil samples had been taken when the gas tanks
were removed. He confirmed that the removal of the tanks had to meet all EPA
requirements. Mr. Finley said it is to the buyer's benefit to check this very closely.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the wash bays will drain into the sewer. Mr. Gregg was not
sure, but said the drainage will have to follow the applicable Best Management
Practices.
67
Om
6-2-98 30
Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant had considered any other locations for the tank.
Having visited the site he said the proposed location is adjacent to the stream,
whereas almost any other location on the property, if there was a spill, the pond
would be a receptacle for a safety valve." Mr. Carter said the proposed location is
least visible for the entire community. He said a containment pond can be built just
below where the tank will be located and the whole area can be termed. He said he
feels the placing the tank on a flat area and then constructing a berm is the best
protection for the stream.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that one of the conditions of approval is "County Engineer
approval of spill containment measures." He said he believes this will also be tied into
the Water Resources Ordinance. So: "I think the combination of what this condition
requires, plus what would have to be addressed as part of that ordinance, is going to
look at those things mentioned here --the type of spill that might occur, the proximity to
the stream, the pond. Fire and Rescue was also involved in the event some of this
had a hazardous aspect to it."
It was decided condition No. 2 would be amended to add the requirement for the
approval of the Water Resources Manager.
Mr. Rieley asked about the "cut -in area" which is on the site. Mr. Carter said that area
is actually his yard and he has been using it for fill. Noting that this area is pretty
steep, Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Carter if he would be willing to accept as a condition that
this area have 2:1 slopes established and be reseeded. Mr. Carter responded
affirmatively.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to Section 5.2 of the Ordinance which says "there won't be any visible
evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than one sign," Mr. Rooker
asked: "How can you rectify that with an application that involves building an outside
structure?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Any of the supplemental regulations in the
ordinance can be modified by your action. In doing that, normally, if you are going to
modify, you are going to modify to meet the intent, which is one of the reasons that, in
this case, staff recommended that there be measures to screen the tank from adjacent
properties that would be a condition." Mr. Rooker asked: "But you don't view this as
violating this specific language of the Ordinance?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I guess
it could technically be viewed as violating if you did not allow for the modification
through the condition you would approve. This whole section of the Supplementary
Regulations is preceded by the modification provision that is granted to the Planning
Commission."
Mr. Rooker recommended an additional condition limiting the size of the tank: "Tank
shall not exceed 6,000 gallons, nor be larger than 18 ft. x 8 ft. x 8 ft.." The applicant
expressed no objection to such a condition.
Gf
M
6-2-98 29
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that because this is will be new construction, the sign will have
to meet the new requirements.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 98-18 for Brown
Toyota be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by
the ARB.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the approved site plan.
3. Vehicles shall not be elevated.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
SP 98-16 Carter Asphalt Maintenance - Petition to establish a Home Occupation Class
B for an asphalt sealer business. The applicant proposes to locate an asphalt sealer
container on site. The site, zoned RA (Rural Areas) is located on 7.070 acres at 2529
Castle Rock Road (Route 691). Property described as Tax Map 84, Parcel 66K1 is
located on Route 691, off Route 635 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Answers to Commission questions were as follows:
--The proposed tank will be 18 ft long x 8 ft tall x 8 ft wide.
--There is a 114 mile driveway. The tank will be located on a flat area, as soon
as you come (into the driveway). It cannot readily be seen from Rt. 691. It is
approximately 100 feet from the creek.
--The staff has been working with the County Fire and Rescue Division and the
Engineering Department on the design of the containment area. It can be addressed
in a couple of different ways, and Fire and Rescue will work with the applicant. "They
would like to see some kind of trenches to contain a spill, or some type of berm." This
material will dry quickly.
The applicant, Mr. Bert Carter, addressed the Commission. Answers to questions
were as follows:
--The material is a mixture of coal tar, water, clay and asphalt. It dries quickly.
Vinyl acetate can be added to make it dry more quickly, but the material does not
come with this material added.
--The maximum number of temporary employees would be two, and it is
estimated temporary employees are used ten times a year.
--It takes five to ten minutes to fill the truck from the tank. The motor used is
similar to a riding mower motor.
M
OR
6-2-98 31
Mr. Rieley suggested an additional condition, as already agreed to by the applicant:
"2:1 side slopes shall be established on the graded areas and they shall be re -seeded
to stability."
Mr. Tice said he would feel more comfortable if more was known about the plans for
the berms, in relation to the creek, but he said he has confidence that the Fire and
Rescue Division will look at this closely.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-16 for Carter Asphalt
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of all applicable County and State requirements.
2. County Engineering Department, including Water Resources Manager,
approval of spill containment measures and tank installation.
3. Staff approval of measures to screen the storage tank from adjacent
properties.
4. Tank shall not exceed 6,000 gallons, nor be larger than 18 ft. x 8 ft. x 8 ft..
5. 2:1 side slopes shall be established on the graded areas and they shall be
re -seeded to stability.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
SP 98-17 Blue Ride Healing Arts - Petition to establish a Home Occupation Class B
for an energy healing and yoga class business. The site is located on 1.7 acres at
5675 Oak Drive in the Community of Crozet. The property is zoned R-2 and
described as Tax Map 56C Block C, Parcel 9. The property is located off Route 240
at the end of Oak Drive in the White Hall Magisterial District. This area is in the
Community of Crozet development area.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Finley asked if any problems are anticipated as a result of the additional traffic on
a private road. Mr. Wade said the applicant may have to address that with the
Homeowners' Association. She may need to pay an additional amount for
maintenance.
The applicant, Ms. Heather Penny, addressed the Commission. She presented a
petition of support signed by 10 neighbors. Answers to Commission questions were
as follows:
--Class length is approximately 2 hours.
--Parking will be available on the applicant's property.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
'7O
Im
6-2-98
32
Mr. Rooker suggested that conditions be added (1) to address the hours of operation;
and (2) to state that the applicant can be the only employee. Ms. Washington said the
applicant may need to have a substitute teacher from time to time. Ms. Penney said
there may be times when a substitute would be needed. Mr. Rooker suggested the
condition limit the employees to 'only one employee other than the applicant."
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP 98-17 for Blue Ridge
Healing Arts be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the
following conditions, and that a modification of Section 5.2.2.1(d) be approved to allow
greater volumes of traffic.
1. Students not to exceed eight per class.
2. Not more than six classes per week and one class per day is to be held.
3. Zoning/Inspections Department approval of off street parking.
4. Only one employee other than the applicant.
5. Hours of operation shall be between the hours of 8:45 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Attorney General Opinion on Affordable Housing - Mr. Kamptner reported: "The
opinion concluded that the affordable housing programs under the enabling legislation
may only be voluntary, not mandatory."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m., Wednesday.
M-
71