HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 19 1997 PC MinutesM
8-19-97 1
AUGUST 19, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 19, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman, Mr. David Tice, Vice
Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr.
Bruce Dotson, and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief
of Community Development, Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy
County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of August 5, 1997, were approved (6:0:1) as amended. (Mr. Dotson
abstained because he had been absent August 5.)
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their August 5th
and August 13th meetings.
-------------------------------------
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 15.1-456 Review Ragged Mountain
Natural Area - Request for review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of a
proposal by the Ivy Creek Foundation to establish a natural area at Ragged Mountain
Reservoir. The property, described as Tax Map 75, Parcel 1, is located in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. Access to the property is from Reservoir Road (State Route
702). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is designated RA, Rural Area, in
the Comprehensive Plan. It is not located within a designated development area.
Deferred from the August 5th Commission meeting.
Mr. Loewenstein made the following introductory statement:
"Before beginning discussion this evening on the Ragged Mountain Natural
Area, I want to make a few remarks. First, the Commission appreciates the
willingness of the Ivy Creek Foundation to have voluntarily allowed the deferral to
tonight of this matter, which originally came before us on 5 August. The Commission
also appreciates the additional work performed by staff to prepare for this evening's
discussion, and we are grateful for the attendance this evening of additional staff to
act as a resource during our deliberations.
In a moment I will turn to Mr. Cilimberg for further general comments, but
before doing so I want to point out that the memo from Susan Thomas dated 12
August, which was distributed as part of the Commissioners' packets for this evening,
contains very pertinent statements concerning the Commission's scope of review of
this application, with particular emphasis upon the point that this is a so-called '456
Review.' This type of review is distinct from many others we make, in that it is limited
8-19-97 2
to determining whether or not the proposal before us is in compliance with the
County's Comprehensive plan. Ms. Thomas set forth in her memo, and it is also set
forth in the Planning Commissioner's Handbook, the valid responsibility of the
Commission in dealing with '456 Review' items, such as the one we have before us
tonight. I say this because it appears that some of the issues raised during our 5
August public hearing, including trespassing, poaching, property management and
other concerns brought to us by the public, are outside the scope of a '456 Review'
and therefore not within the purview of the Commission's decision.
On the other hand, it seems to me that there may in fact be questions that were
raised previously which do relate to Comp Plan compliance, and which we should
attempt to answer tonight. These include most especially matters concerning the
protection of a public water supply, and perhaps other environmental issues. The
Commission will discuss these topics, but we should avoid getting into areas that go
beyond the purpose of a 456 Review.'
I stated on 5 August that i would not be reopening the public hearing tonight on
this matter. However, i want to assure the public that their previous input has been
heard and is being taken very seriously. At the conclusion of this meeting, if there are
still questions regarding management issues in connection with the Ragged Mountain
Natural Area —assuming it is found tonight to be in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan --then l would urge the neighboring residents and the ivy Creek Foundation to
meet again to resolve those questions to the satisfaction of all concerned. I know that
one such meeting occurred before the public hearing, perhaps there could be others
as well. I have received word from Supervisor Sally Thomas, in whose district this
project is located, that she would be willing to assist in bringing all interested people
together to discuss constructively any remaining concerns.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. I hope I have explained the
rather complex situation before us this evening in connection with this review. "
Mr. Cilimberg called attention to a letter from Ms. Elizabeth Murray which was
distributed to the Commission just prior to the meeting.
In Ms. Thomas' absence, Mr. Benish presented the staff report. He had nothing
further to add but offered to answer Commission questions.
Also present to answer Commission questions were: Mr. Gene Potter, Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority; Mr. Pat Mulaney, Albemarle County Department of Parks and
Recreation; Mr. David Hirschman, Albemarle County Water Resources Manager; and
Mr. Leon Churchill, City of Charlottesville.
Referring to items which can appropriately be addressed in a 456 Review, Mr. Tice
said he disagreed that the issue of trespass is not an appropriate consideration when
determining compliance with the Comp Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan very
clearly speaks, in a number of places, to compatibility with adjacent properties. So, if
a use might encourage trespass on adjacent properties, it is relevant to the issue of
8-19-97 3
whether or not a use is substantially in compliance with the Comp Plan. He said he is
satisfied, however, that there are ways for citizens to address concerns about
trespass.
Mr. Tice said he still feels strongly about issues which he raised at the first
hearing, including the question of whether there is a double standard which treats
public properties differently than private properties? He said he thought the Board had
sent a clear message, in its action on the request for a private rowing business on the
reservoir, that "water quality in the public water supply reservoirs is paramount, and
these areas are not recreational amenities." He said he feels there is a way to
construct these trails which will assure that water quality is protected, so he can
support this use for the property if the following conditions are attached to address the
"shortcomings" of the proposal:
--The trail must conform generally with the proposed plan and be approved by
the Water Resources Manager.
--The ICF and the County will continue to work with adjacent landowners to
minimize adverse impacts in the development of trails.
--The ICF will conduct a general survey of natural heritage resources and
design trails to avoid areas with identified resources.
[NOTE: Two other conditions were added later in the discussion.]
If these take place, Mr. Tice said he feels the proposal can be found to be in
compliance with the Comp Plan.
Ms. Huckle made the following statement:
"This request must be in accord with the Comp Plan which has protection of
water resources as one of its basic tenets.
This request should be a wake-up call. The time has come for the county to
make some long range planning and policy decisions about the county's water
resources, both for drinking and recreation. Up until now we made decisions
piecemeal and in a vacuum. For example --in the past few months there was the
subdivision of land abutting the main body of the South Rivanna Reservoir; the
unpleasant experience of the commercial rowing request on the South Rivanna
followed and next month there may be a request for a subdivision on steep land
draining into a tributary close to the reservoir.
As the county grows, the water supply looms ever larger in importance, with
ever greater demand for water, but less reservoir capacity due to siltation. If
Charlottesville and Albemarle are to prosper, a sufficient supply of good water is
paramount.
In hind sight, it was a mistake to treat the South Rivanna reservoir as a
recreational lake rather than strictly as a drinking water reservoir as many jurisdictions
do. Most developed areas do not allow any recreational uses on drinking water
impoundments which they protect by trees and fences. In some places entire
%s�
8-19-97 4
watersheds are purchased. With so much of this county in watersheds this would be
impossible here, but we can protect our reservoirs by not encouraging other uses.
There is no doubt that the ICF has done a wonderful job of its promotion and
management of the Ivy Creek Natural Area. But, as one board member described it,
they are the victims of their own success and that area has become too popular. For
that reason, the group looked for a place to spread out some of the thousands of folks
who used the Ivy Creek Natural Area last year. This is an admirable response to the
problem of overcrowding, but is it wise to use another drinking water impoundment as
the site? Will we be making the same mistake again—e.g. encouraging recreational
uses on drinking water impoundments? Shouldn't we be following the lead of other
more experienced drinking water managers and restrict activities near our water
supplies?
The county has other parks with hiking trails as well as owning the 550 acre
Priddy Creek land which could be made available for hiking, and biking and which ICF
could foster.
The Water Resources Manager has raised important issues in his memo about
Ragged Mt. Reservoir (Attachment A to staff report) regarding increased number of
fishermen and the accessibility of their boats. If they have to drive their boats and
other gear close to the water, take the vehicle back to the parking lot and walk back to
the water again, are they not liable to park the vehicles closer to the shore and thus
start the erosion process? With no one to monitor their activities full time, would the
reservoir be protected?
This is a good time for the county to identify its priorities and head off future
conflicts over increased uses of its reservoirs by denying this request. "
Mr. Dotson asked questions about the parking permit process and about what
happens next if the Commission finds the request to be in compliance with the Comp
Plan.
Mr. Gene Potter explained that two parking permits are available per day for parking
at the caretaker's house. (Presently, there is no other legitimate place for parking.)
Four people per vehicle are allowed (for a total of 8). The only access for boats is
from the caretaker's house. Others may fish, if they can find acceptable parking (e.g.
Trinity Church), and can walk to the water. Permits are issued "on the third Monday
of each preceding month," during the fishing season. Those permits are usually all
given out within a half-hour's time. There is less demand for the permits during the off
season. Though firm parking guidelines have not yet been adopted, Mr. Potter said
discussions thus far make him believe that people will not be allowed to drop boats off
and then return to the parking lot. It is intended that the parking lot will serve as
additional parking for those who wish to walk to the reservoir. He said even after the
parking lot is in place, people will not be allowed to drive to the caretaker's house to
either park and fish or to unload a boat, without a permit. A full-time resident
caretaker lives in the house.
is l
OR
8-19-97 5
There was considerable discussion about how many boats could be on the reservoir at
a given time. Mr. Potter said that a number of boats (about 12) are actually stored on
the banks at the caretaker's house. He said few boats come in and out on a daily
basis because the terrain is such that carrying a boat to the reservoir would be very
difficult. Mr. Nitchmann said the fact that there are 12 boats which have been there
for some time just confirms his feeling that there is really no one overseeing this body
of water. Mr. Potter disagreed, explaining that the boats were dropped off by
individuals who, at the time, had a permit. The boats are allowed, "as a matter of
convenience and as a management policy," to stay there. Allowing the boats to be
stored discourages people from driving down to the reservoir to drop off a boat.
(Though this has happened in the past, it does not happen on a regular basis.) There
is no limit as to how long a boat can be stored on the shore. Mr. Nitchmann
concluded: "So I can take my boat down there, leave it for the whole summer, and
come and go as I please, after that, as long as I don't park in these two parking
places. (Mr. Potter confirmed Mr. Nitchmann's statement was correct.) In the future I
would be able to park in the parking lot because my boat is already down there, and
come and go as I please because no one is controlling how many boats are on the
reservoir." Mr. Nitchmann said if this parking lot is constructed, with no one
overseeing the boat situation, there could be a lot of boats on the reservoir. He again
expressed his concern: "Who is responsible for maintaining the well-being of the
reservoir, for not only keeping it clean but making sure the rules are followed and the
adjacent property owners are protected on a daily basis?" He said it sounds as
though the RWSA is not that entity. Mr. Nitchmann said he did not think the number
of cars in the parking lot would have as much impact on the reservoir as the number
of boats in use.
Mr. Potter said the RWSA is responsible for the management of the watershed area.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested that a condition could be attached which would address
Mr. Nitchmann's concern about boat usage. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the
conditions which the Commission is contemplating are not the same as on a special
permit where the Zoning Administrator can enforce the conditions. Rather, the
Commission would be saying that this use can only be found to be in compliance with
the Comp Plan IF these conditions are complied with. "So you are really telling the
public agency that it is in compliance if you do these things. If you feel there has to
be a restriction on the number of boats for it to be in compliance, there will not be an
enforcement mechanism, from the County's standpoint, as there is on special permits.
It will be up to the public body entity that is responsible for this facility to honor that."
Comments were invited from the Water Resources Manger. Mr. Hirschman's
comments, and answers to Commission questions were as follows:
--Parking is an operational component of the trail system which must be worked
out.
/5-6
8-19-97 6
�4 "w --Concerns about impact on adjacent property owners are much less on the
Ragged Mt. Reservoir than was the case with the rowing request on the Rivanna
Reservoir. Access at Ragged Mt. is very limited.
--Allowing the storage of boats at the caretaker's house eliminates a lot of
traffic, which would be very damaging because of the steepness of the area. (Mr.
Hirschman said he could not say how many boats should or should not be allowed. )
--The current permit system seems to work well.
--The proposed parking lot should not increase the ease of access to the water
for fishing purposes. He said there are currently only a small number of people who
like to fish this particular body of water who make use of the permits. He did not see
how the proposed trail system would change this.
Mr. Dotson asked if a site plan for the proposal had been presented at the previous
hearing. Mr. Tice said a site plan will be required for the parking lot. Mr. Dotson said
he thinks a site plan is needed because "if we find this consistent with the Plan, what
would we be finding consistent?" He said some arrangements might be consistent
and others not.
To address Mr. Dotson's and Mr. Nitchmann's concerns, Mr. Tice suggested another
condition:
--The County will work with the City and the RWSA to ensure that the proposal,
including indirect effects such as increased boating access, does not adversely impact
water quality.
Mr. Mulaney said the question about boating has been identified and was discussed in
the report prepared for the Board and City Council. He read from the report: "The
relatively remote parking area would not lead to additional boat traffic on the lake
unless more fishermen decide to leave their boats on the lake after getting one of the
current permits. If anything, the practice of allowing boats to be left should be
revisited."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Hirschman if the trails can be laid out so as to have "zero"
impact on the watershed. Mr. Hirschman said "zero impact may be impractical." The
laying out of the trails is not as critical as the maintenance of trails. Mr. Tice pointed
out that this proposal falls under the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance
which requires a buffer zone and County approval of any access path within that
WRPA zone. Mr. Hirschman said the ordinance says trails can be placed within that
buffer provided they are constructed and maintained so as control erosion. Mr.
Hirschman says he has enforcement authority to address problems which occur within
the buffer. He also said that the requirement for a natural heritage survey will have a
lot to do with trail placement and defining a riparian zone that is some distance away
from the water will be part of that consideration. There is a sensitive riparian zone
where "we don't want any type of disturbance."
8-19-97 7
Mr. Finley asked if the ICF will be accountable for the management of this trail
system. Will there be any type of review required? Mr. Benish said the property is
managed by the RWSA, with Parks and Rec being responsible for the management,
in conjunction with the ICF. Mr. Mulaney added that the day-to-day operations of the
Ivy Creek Natural Area are run by the ICF, but the County and City are the "bottom
line" administrators. If a complaint comes up, the County will work with the ICF to
resolve the situation. Complaints about trespass should be made to the County.
There are currently illegal uses which occur, but it is believed that the presence of the
ICF-- who are excellent stewards of the land --on this property, may deter some of the
illegal activities. Also, the landowners must take some responsibility to address
trespass by posting their properties. Specifically, complaints can be made to the
RWSA, the City, the County, or the ICF. The County will feel the most responsibility
to county residents.
Mr. Leon Churchill, representing the City, addressed the Commission and offered the
following additional information.
--The County Police is part of the partnership and is the most logical unit to
respond to complaints about illegal activities related to recreational use of the
property.
--The RWSA will address any issues that relate to impact to water quality.
--The City is the owner of the property and wants to be good neighbors with the
Ednam residents.
Mr. Dotson again asked what other actions must follow the Commission's, and also
about funding for this proposed activity. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission's action
will be forwarded to the Board and though the Board is not required to take any
action, they can review any compliance decision made by the Commission if they so
choose. "So if your action has certain conditions that you believe are necessary for
the compliance to occur, then that is the word the Board, and any agency of County
government that is responsible for this particular facility that you are finding
compliance for, that those are the things that have to happen for compliance to
occur." Mr. Cilimberg was familiar with funding plans. Mr. Mulaney said the Board
has approved, "in concept," this project and have agreed to participate as outlined in
the report, and that approval is contingent upon the City of Charlottesville and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority making the same approval and upon the
successful completion of the 456 Review and whatever site plan requirements must be
met. A lot of the work for this project is being done by the ICF so there will not be a
significant cost to taxpayers. No appropriation is being sought at this time. Any costs
will be built into the budget cycle in November. The County will try to finance its share
of the project, until the next budget year, out of existing funds. Operating costs are
estimated to be $5,OOOlyear, divided between the City and the County. "We think we
can find the funds to do this project, so there will not be a need for an appropriation
before the Board to proceed with this project when we get the approval."
/W0
8-19-97 8
Mr. Dotson asked if a condition can be attached requiring Commission review of the
site plan. Staff said the Commission always has the right to review any site plan, so a
statement made as part of the action is all that is really needed. Mr. Benish pointed
out that the site plan requirements will be minimum because all that is really being
reviewed is the parking lot. There will be a general concept map for the trails. There
will be very little development activity subject to a site plan review. Mr. Cilimberg said
staff can provide, at the site plan review, any findings related to the Water Resources
Protection Area.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there is a Committee which will meet regularly to review this
activity. Mr. Mulaney said there is no committee in place for this particular project.
There is a committee for the Towe Park so a committee would not be inappropriate.
Perhaps the Towe Park committee could serve for this activity also. Mr. Nitchmann
said he would feel better if there were a requirement for some type of regular review.
Mr. Nitchmann asked what happens if it is found that the conditions which are being
attached to this approval are not being followed --can the 456 compliance
determination be revoked? Mr. Cilimberg responded: "it sounds like you are going to
find compliance under certain conditions --if those are being met. If they are not being
met it is not in compliance. It will then be the Board of Supervisors responsibility to
come back with the other parties involved and say there is a facility here which we
found in compliance under certain conditions which are not being met." Mr. Tice said
the funds for the project could not be committed unless the conditions of compliance
have been met. Mr. Cilimberg added: "That's part of the check-up process in each
year's budget approval."
Ms. Huckle asked if there is any yearly review of the Ivy Creek Natural Area. Mr.
Mulaney said his office works very closely with the ICF, but there is no formal yearly
review.
Mr. Tice said this property is a real gem and it is exciting that the ICF wants to create
a plan to allow the citizens of this community to be able to see it.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Ragged Mountain
Natural Area be found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, (Section
15.1-456) if the following conditions are complied with:
(1) The trail must conform generally with the proposed plan and be approved by the
Water Resources Manager.
(2) The ICF and the County will continue to work with adjacent landowners to
minimize adverse impacts in the development of trails.
M
M
8-19-97 9
(3) The 1CF will conduct a general survey of natural heritage resources and design
trails to avoid areas with identified resources.
(4) The County will work with the City and the RWSA, including an annual review, to
ensure that the proposal, including indirect effects such as increased boating access,
does not adversely impact water quality.
(5) A site plan must be approved by the Planning Commission.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann said he agreed that the citizens of the County should have the right to
use the property, provided the use does not have any adverse effects on the
watershed.
Ms. Huckle said she would like to see this area remain a gem. "Oftentimes there are
unintended consequences of an action. I don't think 10 or 15 years ago anyone had a
clue that the Ivy Creek Natural Area would become so popular and that additional
natural areas would be required. "
Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed with the motion and the conditions. He said: There
may be some risks involved in the management of the property, and I think it is
critically important to address those in the best possible way because we are talking
about a very significant natural area and we are talking about a watershed
impoundment. 1 am convinced if the conditions which have been attached are put in
place with this approval for compliance, I am satisfied, personally, that we have a
done a good job to ensure that the integrity of the site and the quality of the water
within that site are maintained."
The motion for approval passed (5:1:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the
dissenting vote, and Commissioner Washington abstaining.
Mr. Tice left the meeting at 8:26.
SP 97-19 CFW Wireless, CV 120, Britts Mountain - Petition to construct a 150-foot
telecommunications tower and associated facilities on a portion of 65 acres zoned RA
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property,
described as Tax Map 75, Parcels 22 and 23, is located on the east side of Route 29,
Monacan Trail Rd., on Britts Mountain. This site is located in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District and is not located within a designated development area.
The applicant was requesting deferral to September 2, 1997.
rw A
8-19-97
10
*"'"l Public comment was invited. None was offered. The public hearing was closed.
on
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 97-19 be deferred to
September 2, 1997. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 97-04 Daniel Bieker - Request is by Daniel Bieker for a change in zoning
classification from RA Rural Areas to R-6 Residential with proffers. The property is
located on a five acre parcel known as TMP 79-25A, on Ashton Road in the Rivanna
Village. RA zoning carries a density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre; the proposed
zoning classification allows 6 dwelling units per acre. The proffered rezoning would
result in a density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre and the County's Land Use Plan
shows a neighborhood residential density of 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant was requesting deferral to September 2, 1997.
Public comment was invited. None was offered. The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 97-04 be deferred
to September 2, 1997. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-33 Oak Union Baptist Church - Proposal to add a dining hall addition to
existing church on approximately 0.708 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 42,
parcel 81, is located on the west side of Owensville Road (Route 676) at the
intersection of Whippoorwill Road (Rt. 839) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is designated as Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Staff did not support the Virginia Department of Transportation's recommendations.
Because no intensification of use is proposed and because the church has fewer
vehicle trips than would a single family residence, staff did not feel the improvements
recommended by VDOT were warranted. Staff visited the site and it was their
determination that sight distance was adequate.
Staff confirmed VDOT's recommendations are not always supported by staff,
particularly when no intensification of use is proposed.
The applicant was represented by Ralph Smith. He said no changes in church
membership are anticipated. The new building will be used primarily for Sunday
School classes.
163
8-19-97
11
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson said he lives near the church and is familiar with its activities. He said the
church is an asset to the neighborhood and this appears to be a straightforward
request.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed. He added that he was glad to see the existing historic
structure will not be impacted by the addition. Also, the new structure will be
compatible with the historic building.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-33 for Oak Union
Baptist Church, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to
the following conditions:
1. This special use permit is for worship and church related activities only. Day care,
pre-school, or other such activities shall require an amendment to the special use
permit.
2. The proposed building will be similar in appearance to the architectural drawing
titled, "Oak Union Baptist Church," received August 8, 1997.
;;�ftw 3. The applicant will add gravel to the parking lot to raise it to the road pavement
surface.
The motion passed unanimously.
SUB 97-035 Airport Industrial Park, Lot 7 and Lot 8 Final Plat - Proposal to create two
lots averaging 3.03 acres, a common area of 4.0 acres for stormwater detention and a
residue of 8.762 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 19B, is located on
the east side of Route 606 (Dickerson Road) at the intersection with Quail Run Road
in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned LI, Light Industrial and is
currently designated for Industrial Service use in the Hollymead Community. The
application includes a request for a private road and a request for a waiver from
screening requirements.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the final plat and
approval of the request for a private road and waiver from screening requirements.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He offered to answer questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
No concerns were identified by the Commission.
16�_
8-19-97
12
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Airport
Industrial Park, Lots 7 and 8 Final Plat be approved, subject to the following
conditions, and that a request for private roads be approved [Section 18-36b(3)], and
a waiver be granted for buffer requirements (Section 21.7.3).
(1) In accord with the provisions of Section 18-36b(3) of the Subdivision Ordinance
the use of private roads is approved.
(2) In accord with the provisions of Section 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance a
modification of the undisturbed buffer adjacent to Rural Area land is approved subject
to the following:
a. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat, applicant shall install, or post a
landscaping bond pursuant to Section 32.7.8.2 providing for three (3) staggered rows
of screening trees, planted fifteen (15) feet on center, spaced ten (10) feet apart
adjacent to Route 606 where grading has occurred within fifty (50) feet of the right-of-
way. The required trees shall be of sufficient height to provide a screen of at least
four (4) feet above the grade of Route 606. A diagram of the required plantings is
attached and is initialed WDF 8/4/97.
The motion passed unanimously.
--------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Nitchmann asked about VDOT's policy for allowing cellular towers within their
right-of-way. Mr. Fritz said a policy is currently under review but has not yet been
formally adopted.
Ms. Huckle announced a Commission outing to take place on the Rivanna Reservoir.
Though October 4th was announced as the date, it was decided this date would not
work. Ms. Huckle was to check on other dates and re -announce the outing at the
August 26th meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
�t
V. Wayne ilimberg, cr a