HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 16 2003 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
December 16, 2003
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Tuesday, December 16,
2003 at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 235, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Chairman; Bill Edgerton;
Rodney Thomas, Vice -Chairman; Jared Loewenstein and Pete Craddock. Absent from the
meeting was William Finley.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Susan
Thomas, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Lee Catlin, Facilitator; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Rieley called the regular meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. He stated that the meeting would begin
with the work session on the Crozet Master Plan Facilitated Session.
CPA 2003-07 Crozet Master Plan - The Planning Commission will review the Master Plan
prepared by the County's technical consultants, for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan, Land
Use Plan as an amendment to the Community of Crozet Profile. (Susan Thomas)
Ms. Thomas stated that last week the Commission worked on Section 2 of the Master Plan and
made it all the way to Section 3, Process and Form of Development. This section would be the
last narrative section of the original Master Plan document that would be absorbed and adopted
into our Comprehensive Plan with, of course, revisions and changes to it. The second part of this
is the Guidelines, the various matrixes and supplemental design information. The Commission
would start with Section 3, Process and Form of Development. She pointed out that they might
not get through all of this section tonight.
Lee Catlin, facilitator, stated that the discussion would begin with Creating Places Within Crozet.
Mr. Rieley suggested that they find a substitute word to use for places. He pointed out that the
document was using the word places differently than Webster's would define it.
Ms. Catlin asked what was staff's intent of the use of the word places.
Ms. Thomas stated that the intent was really for distinctive places or places with identity as
opposed to subdivisions that could be picked up and placed anywhere.
Mr. Rieley suggested getting rid of the word places, but if they left places in the document that it
should be defined. He suggested modifying it by using distinctive places.
Ms. Thomas stated that she would change the wording on # 2 and # 6 and then would do a word
search on place throughout the document.
Mr. Thomas suggested using distinctive place types on the following page.
Ms. Catlin stated that they would keep an eye on the lettering sequence as they go through the
document. Next they would go back to Section B, which would be Services instead of People.
Ms. Thomas stated that the original heading C. was moved to another place. Section C would be
titled Programs. Section D would be titled Utilities. Section E. has a correction on page 9 and then
Section F is Places. She stated that staff would work on the letter sequence so that Section B
would be entitled Services.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
%
+Uq
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that there was a problem with the fonts throughout the document.
Ms. Thomas stated that staff would correct the fonts throughout the document.
Ms. Catlin stated that basically all of the letter headers have the same weight that and that staff
needs to make some adjustments.
Ms. Thomas asked to make a quick comment. She noted that Mr. Benish and her debated
whether it would be redundant or valuable to have the base case existing condition section in
here. It was not essential in making the recommendation and in some cases it has been touched
on elsewhere in the document. On the other hand when they looked at other neighborhood
profiles they do paint a picture of what is going on in the neighborhood. There was some value of
having it all wrapped into the Crozet section as opposed to going to the Community Facilities Plan
to find out what was going on with say fire or fire rescue in Crozet. She suggested that it all be
under the geographic heading. Then the Community's Facilities Plan lays out more of the
standards and the countywide vision. She noted that is why it is in there, but you might have a
different feeling about it.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he preferred to leave that in the document, and the other
Commissioners agreed.
Ms. Catlin stated that the next was Section C, Programs.
Ms. Thomas stated that the whole programming aspect of Crozet seemed very important to the
community. It was strictly land use like they usually deal with it. But because there is so much
tourism potential there for local businesses, the programming takes on an added meaning
because it brings activity to that downtown cultural core.
Mr. Rieley stated as he was looking at the lost of community events, it seemed that the paragraph
should be put in a reduced form or possibly add another bullet because the specific events come
and go through the years.
Ms. Thomas stated that they could restructure the paragraph or imply that there are a variety of
other things that are not specified.
Ms. Catlin reiterated that the Planning Commission wanted that paragraph redrafted to include
something that implies something that is more open ended. She asked if there were any
suggestions for Social Services. Since there were no suggestions she stated that they would
move to Section D Utilities on page 7.
Mr. Thomas asked that in the paragraph proceeding D. Utilities that the verbiage in the last
sentence be changed to read, Crozet like much of the surrounding County" area is home to a
growing population of seniors."
Mr. Loewenstein suggested that in the second paragraph in the recycling recommendations that
they put County in front of budget restraints to read County budget restraints.
Mr. Thomas suggested that in the fifth line that they take out "Coiners" and replace with "a local
vendor is being used" to be more generic.
Mr. Rieley suggested that in the recycling section in the second paragraph from the bottom
regarding ConAgra being a possible location for a recycling remanufacture or processor that they
add a sentence stating that it was a good idea and a promising one to pursue.
Ms. Catlin stated that under Water and Sewer, the Commission suggested that staff include a
percentage with the gallons per day so that it was paired with the 80 percent to reflect where they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
/70
were currently at without including a date. She stated that there were no suggested changes to
the section on Stormwater. She pointed out that Section E was where the information discussed
earlier was relocated.
After discussion, Ms. Thomas stated that a brief text paragraph would be added stating the
existing conditions of the greenway systems.
Ms. Echols arrived at the meeting.
Under Water and Sewer the estimated costs need to be qualified in the text. Mr. Rieley
suggested the wording that these numbers are current estimates and the figures subject to
change and that the current estimates are slightly more than a million dollars in 2003.
After further discussion, Ms. Catlin stated that they need to qualify the figures in the text and add
a statement at the beginning of the document that sets out that all dollar amounts and figures set
out in the document are estimates.
The Commission discussed the road section on connections and asked that in the second
paragraph that they add a qualifier about exceeding the road's capacity. They asked that the
word calculated be added in front of capacity in the second paragraph under recommendations.
The Commission discussed the greenway trails. They suggested that under greenway trails in
the first paragraph that the word "dedicated" is replaced with "designated" and that they finalize
the figure of 30% by expressing it as roughly one-third. In addition, in the second paragraph
regarding the history after Route 240 rephrase the paragraph in the past tense.
In the heading for the Priority List, the Commission asked that the word "primary' be deleted from
rural road recommendations to "major."
After discussion, the Commission asked that in the section where the road names were first
mentioned (Western and Eastern Avenues) that they put in a caveat that they expect the road
names to change from Western and Eastern Avenue because it was put in there only for
identification or clarity. The Commission discussed that they were not sure of what alignment that
these roads would take, but eastern and western were used to label the roads in the Master Plan
study. The Commission asked that the caveat also be placed in the first paragraph of this
section.
There was some discussion about the fact that Crozet is not part of the area included in the
MPO's study, but that something was done for Crozet as part of the CHART study. The
Commission asked that something be done to the paragraph regarding this to make it clearer
about the relationship of the Crozet's data, even though Crozet was not part of the CHART study
area.
Mr. Benish left the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Cilimberg arrived at the meeting.
The Commission discussed the charts and tables. The Commission suggested that the following
changes be made to this section:
• Change the ratios and percentages to only ratios in the tables and charts so that it would be
clearer for people to see it. A suggestion was made that the ratios be corrected to be 1:1
ratios. On table 1 needs to be changed to decimals and percentages need to be changed to
ratios. Table 2 the percentages need to be changed to ratios.
• Correct the labels on the charts and tables.
'�► • Either put in specifically as ratios or redefine it in the section.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
• The description needs to match the information in the tables and charts.
14-W Ms. Catlin stated that the Commission discussed using different graphics for future roads. The
Commission acknowledged that it would be a nice distinction, but it was not worth spending a lot
of money.
Under the topic of transit service, the Commission asked that in the fourth paragraph that BRC be
replaced with "bus rapid transit."
Mr. Rieley asked that a statement be added before the road and transit section that states that
these projections are based upon the assumption that a substantial amount of commercial will
take place and mitigate the need for everybody to drive to and from. If that is not the case, it will
have an impact on the projections.
Ms. Catlin reiterated that the Commission wanted a statement about the dependency of the
projection of plan elements on the economic recommendations being followed.
Mr. Rieley suggested that before the charts that the caveat is placed that about the projections in
general that these numbers are not very good if they don't get the economic development.
Ms. Thomas stated that she had to leave the meeting, but suggested that the Commission keep
working on this. She suggested that they put in the dark skies at the end of this. She pointed out
that the consultants did not pick up that issue. She pointed out that was identified as an aesthetic
and a natural resource by several different groups throughout the planning process. She stated
that this issue was probably just overlooked and felt that it was necessary particularly for issues
such as where they would want to have a lighted ballfield. The other issue regards some of the
discussion about the transect types found under Section G, Map Development and Guidelines.
She stated that this discussion would probably go better after they discuss the maps and start to
y,,,. pull apart the matrixes. She suggested that they have one more session with Ms. Catllin,
depending on how far they got tonight.
Ms. Catlin stated that they had ten more minutes to try to finish this section, and then next time
they would take up Section G and the maps. The next section was Bicycle Routes and
Sidewalks. She stated that they had already suggesting making the following changes:
• Substitute BRT for express bus service.
• Comment in the first paragraph concerning roads about the economic development.
Mr. Rieley stated that there should be a discussion about the necessity and desirability for a good
on -street system for bicycles. He stated that they have had previous discussion about where
they should paint the bicycle lanes on the road. He pointed out that he did not think that they have
to necessarily paint the lanes on the road in order to provide this ability. He felt that there was a
paragraph that was missing regarding this issue.
Ms. Echols stated that staff would do some research on this issue and capture that information in
a paragraph and bring it back to the Commission to review.
Ms. Catlin stated that the next section was historic districts and asked if there were any
comments
Mr. Loewenstein asked that they were talking about encouraging historic designations, but they
were not necessarily limiting that encouragement to the creation of a district involving a larger
area than that. He pointed out that the terminology was confusing because a district could be a
single building and its acreage and it could be a whole group of buildings, etc. He asked that they
ponder that issue. He pointed out that there were a few typos. In the third line where it says that
Yancey Mills was applying for this status, he pointed out that this was not really a County
designation at all because they have to apply to the DVAD for the historic designation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
� r7Z
Mr. Catlin summarized Mr. Loewenstein's suggestion that he wanted some type of clarification
that there could also be individual sites that might be eligible for consideration beyond what is
really thought of as a district. Also, he asked that they clarify that the application for historic
landmark status begins with the state first and then moves forward from there. In the sentence
about the registration he asked that they mention that the documentation piece of that is what has
actually gotten underway.
Mr. Rieley asked that they add a sentence to the first one that says this is not mutually exclusive
with the designation of individual eligible sites.
Ms. Catlin stated that the next section was schools. She asked if there was anything to add
between this section and the maps.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that regarding libraries that it be made clear that the facility is already
needed in Crozet.
Ms. Catlin stated that a sentence should be added to state that Crozet currently has one branch
library of 1,864 square feet, which was already inadequate according to established standards.
Mr. Rieley asked that under parks and recreation that they add another level between #3 and #4
that stresses that development and linkage of squares means types of spaces that are associated
with developments to the larger park and open space system. He pointed out that they would
end up with 5 instead of 4.
Ms.
Catlin summarized the changes proposed by the Commission during the work session.
•
On page 1, places would be replaced with distinctive places or something that staff might
come up with that captures the use better and use it throughout the whole document.
•
Straighten out the alphabetizing of the sections and the font sizes.
•
In Section C under the existing conditions, the bulleted listing needs to be recrafted into a
paragraph or something to imply a more open-ended less defined list.
•
Under the existing conditions in social services, the sentence needs to be changed to say
that Crozet, like much of Albemarle County, has become home to a larger group of senior
•
citizens.
In utilities in the second paragraph of recommendations add language that recycling despite
County budget constraints.
•
Also under existing conditions in the second paragraph take the reference out to Coiners and
put in something like a private local hauler.
•
Under water and sewer, there was some discussion that a broad reaching statement should
appear at the front of the document that says something about qualifying the use of dollar
figures, numerical designations to say that they refer to current estimates that may change
over times with different situations.
•
The capacity figure needs to be expressed in a percentage that would be more closely
related to the 80 percent capacity of the item. This needs to be added further up in the
•
recommendation part.
Regarding connections, in the first paragraph take out 50 percent and say something like
roughly one-third to give some flexibility. In addition use the work designated instead of
dedicated on the rural areas.
•
Add a brief text paragraph on the existing conditions of the greenway trails.
•
Under roads, add a statement about the dependency of the projects and other plan elements
on the follow through of the economic recommendations. Also, a qualifier needs to be put in
about the variable nature of the projection and how these numbers may not be exactly
precise, specifically the traffic projections.
•
In the second paragraph under recommendations on the first line insert calculated between
roadway and capacity.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
iq3
• Rephrase the section on the southeastern quadrant and put it in the past tense to reflect that
the Board has taken action on that.
Change the listing from primary road recommendations to major road recommendations.
• Back track in the document to where Eastern and Western Avenues are first mentioned and
put in something that says something about them being in the western corridor and called
Western Avenue from here on. That inserted terminology should also be repeated in the
road section.
• Under methodology, clarify the section about the chart network that the information came
from data compiled from CHART even though Crozet was not a part of that study.
• Under the forecast results they have already mentioned the qualifier and don't have to do that
again, but they did want to some work on the graphic itself to fix the ratio and percentage
confusion issue.
• On figure one and two find a way to distinguish between the current and future roads.
• Under transit service, insert bus rapid transit instead of express bus service.
• Under bicycle and sidewalks, include some discussion about the necessity and desirability for
good on street on street bike paths.
• Under places put in distinctive places and explain the historic landmark status applying for
state status.
In summary, the Albemarle County Planning Commission held the third facilitated work session
on the Crozet Master Plan. Lee Catlin facilitated the work session and assisted the Commission
in their review of Section III, Process and Form of Development, of the proposed Master Plan for
Crozet. The Commission reviewed and discussed staff's recommended Comprehensive Plan
language for changes to Section III of the technical consultants' Crozet Master Plan final report.
The Commission discussed the proposal and provided comments and suggestions for changes to
the document, but took no formal action. Staff will make the changes and bring it back to the
Commission for review. The Commission will begin the next session discussing Section G of the
document, Maps and Site Guidelines.
`�1rrr
The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. to the regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. in Room # 241.
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. in meeting room # 241.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 16, 2003 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Chairman;
Rodney Thomas, Vice -Chairman; Bill Edgerton; Jared Loewenstein and Pete Craddock. Absent
was William Finley.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development;
Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner;
Tarpley Gillespie, Senior Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; and Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Rieley called the regular meeting to order at 6:13 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Rieley invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Marcia Joseph stated that the Commission might have heard about this at their last meeting, but
she wanted to bring the matter to their attention again. There is a great deal of construction
activity on Route 795 in the County from the intersection of Route 708 and the Hardware River,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
which includes the little bridge. There is an unbelievable mess out there. There are no erosion or
sediment control measures other than a little piece of silt fence right near the Hardware River.
14aw" She pointed out that she did call Jim Kesterson of the Highway Department and he said that there
have been road plans that have been submitted that are currently under review. She stated that
currently the road was one -lane wide at this point and if you find someone coming in the opposite
direction you are in really bad shape because there is mud on either side of your car. She asked
what was the process for something like this in Albemarle County and what was going on. She
submitted a map showing the location of this construction activity.
Mr. Cilimberg asked for a copy of the map so that staff could check into it and get back to them.
Mr. Rieley asked that both engineering and zoning take a look at this construction activity.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was anyone else who would like to address an item that is not on
tonight's agenda. There being none, he stated that the meeting would move on to the consent
agenda.
Consent Agenda:
SDP 02 083 Blue Ridge Shopping Center Maior Site Plan Amendment - Request for approval
of an amendment to the approved final site plan SDP 96-133 by relocating the site's entrance to
align with Radford Lane, and increasing from 49,869 to 54,033 square feet of total building area.
(Stephen Waller)
Mr. Rieley stated that they would move on to the consent agenda, which has one item on it for
Blue Ridge Shopping Center Major Site Plan Amendment. He stated that there has been a
request to pull this item from the consent agenda and be discussed as a regular item. He stated
that if there were no objections that he would like to honor that request. He asked Mr. Waller if he
would summarize the staff report.
Mr. Waller summarized the staff report. He stated that this request was for the approval of an
amendment to an existing approved final site plan, which was SDP-1996-133 that was originally
entitled the Blue Ridge Highway Commercial Area. The Planning Commission at its February 18,
1997 meeting approved the site plan. On September 28, 2001, the Commission unanimously
approved the request to extend the period of validity for the final site plan, which would have
expired from its original approval date in 1997. The site plan would have actually expired in 2002.
The extension was granted primarily with the intent of allowing the applicant to have sufficient
time to redesign the site plan so that its primary entrance could be aligned with Radford Lane. At
that time the applicant also offered to explore the feasibility of redeveloping an existing storm
water detention pond on the Blue Ridge Builders Supply Company site. The applicant proposed
to increase the size of the detention pond to make it adequate for use as a regional detention
pond for several of the development area properties in that area. The applicant has submitted a
major site plan amendment. In addition to those two changes, it also proposes an increase in the
size of the building areas from 49,869 square feet to 5,433 square feet. It also proposes an
interconnection with the Blue Ridge Builder Supply Company parcel to the east and a
reconfiguration of some of the internal travel ways. This site plan was actually submitted in April
of 2002, but a deferral was requested for several reasons. One of reasons was that at that time
the regional detention pond was not allowed in the Rural Areas zoning district. A portion of this
property is zoned Highway Commercial and another portion of the property was zoned Rural
Areas. A portion of that pond would extend into a small portion of the Rural Areas parcel. It was
originally called up by an adjoining property owner, who has since moved from this site, but that
was why the request was placed on the Planning Commission's consent agenda. He pointed out
that the existing adjacent property owners were notified that if they wanted to call this up for
discussion that they could do so. He stated that if the Commission had any questions about
staff's recommendation with the 18 conditions that were supplied in the staff report, that he would
�Iftw be happy to try to answer those.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Rieley stated that his question, which was for clarification, evolves around the nearly 5,000
square feet of additional buildings proposed on this plan. He noted that his recollection was that
the previous deferral by the Commission was to allow the applicant time to redesign the entrance
so that it could be aligned with Radford Lane and not to allow the applicant to expand the project
another 5,000 square feet. He asked where the additional square footage came from and what
was the justification for it.
Mr. Waller stated that staff reviewed the major amendment with the expansion as a request that
they could have made even if the site would have already been developed. He pointed out that
they could move forward with a major amendment. As far as why the additional area is
requested, staff never really asked that question of the applicant. The applicant did indicate that
it was necessary, but because as long as they were within the confines of the existing property
lines it was not really something that staff reviewed the request for.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the expansion was allowable as long as the zoning allows for it. It might
not have been part of the Commission's deferral or extension, but any amendment submitted
would be judged against the zoning of the property and the Zoning Ordinance, and it was
certainly allowable. He stated that the Commission would have to ask the applicant why they did
it.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public
hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Don Wagner, of Great Eastern Management, stated that the reason that this plan was submitted
was because the County came to them and asked that they submit another plan to relocate the
entrance. He pointed out that they had received two bids from general contractors and were
about to award a contract to build this project when the request came in. In order to align the
entrance with Pritchett Lane, it moved the entrance sideways about 80 feet. That would put the
travel way in front of the grocery store, which was the main store that backs up to the building
supply company. As you always have a travel way in front of a grocery store in order to pick up
groceries, they would have about ten parking spaces with the main entrance coming through. He
pointed out that obviously that does not work. In order to make the interior circulation work; it was
necessary to move the grocery store back away from the highway so that you would be able to
come in at the new location. He noted that you could either turn right or left to come down in front
of the grocery store or go down through the center of the parking lot to the buildings over on the
West Side. He pointed out that moved the grocery store back away from the street. Therefore,
between the grocery store and the street they added some little shops, which was the additional
square footage that they were talking about. He stated that the main point about this was that
they would now have a connection directly across from Pritchett Lane. At the time this was
originally approved Pritchett Lane was a gravel driveway that goes back to a few houses, but it
certainly has the potential as Crozet grows to become a more major connector.
Mr. Rieley asked for clarification if he was talking about Radford Lane.
Mr. Wagner stated that Mr. Rieley was correct in that he was talking about Radford Lane and not
Pritchett Lane. He stated that they had a connection from the shopping center to the building
supply company, and the entrance to the builder supply company was directly across from the
entrance into Clover Lawn. Clover Lawn connects back into Pritchett Lane. He stated that the
traffic circulation was good between the various entities, which he felt was a positive change as a
result of this. He pointed out that it was definitely an improvement. He stated that the other thing
that was a considerable improvement was the regional detention basin. They were able to build a
detention basin down there three times the size needed for the shopping center, the building
supply company and Clover Lawn across the road. This mitigation was something that was
approved by the County Engineering staff who elected for them to go two times that size. He
pointed out that they were now picking up water that does end up in the reservoir that comes off
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
S,q&
En
of Route 250, which previously was going into the reservoir without coming through any kind of a
basin. The basin was also picking up the water that comes off of the building supply site, which
was grandfathered with its present stormwater detention pond. He pointed out that they now
were meeting the water quality standards for that. The capacity in this basin could handle quite a
bit more water that would come from the development area across Route 250. He pointed out
that was a very positive thing for the County. He stated that he would be happy to answer any
questions that the Commissioners might have. He asked for rebuttal time after the members of
the public speak to address any of their concerns.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Wagner. There being none, he opened up
the public hearing and asked that Ellen Waff come forward to address the Commission. He stated
that the Commission would reserve time for Mr. Wagner's rebuttal at the end of the meeting.
Ellen Waff stated that she lived on Route 250 west and was an adjacent property owner to this
proposal. She pointed out that the applicants have been working on this project since 1987. She
noted that the notification from the County was received on Saturday. Also, a letter had also
been received from Great Eastern Management with Mr. Wagner's signature on it. She pointed
out that she had not had a chance to walk off this property. She stated that this afternoon she
came down to the County Office Building and got an abbreviated staff report along with some
information and met with a planner. When she got home this afternoon she pointed out that she
walked the entire property. She pointed out that she was able to see a whole lot in the snow,
which included the elevations of the ridges, the trees that were down, the stream, and the springs
percolating back in the gravel area that they used for storage. She stated that her concern
tonight, aside from that background, is that she did walk it off and she did not understand several
things. She stated that she understood the reason for the stormwater management facility and
the road alignment, but she still did not understand, even after hearing Mr. Wagner make his
remarks, what the reason was for the additional square footage. She noted that by her calculation
it was 7,400 square feet and not 5,000 square feet, which was actually in the letter from the
County. She stated that not only did she feel rushed tonight, but also she felt rushed in receiving
this information on Saturday. Due to the snow she had not visited the site to look at the property
until today. She requested a deferral on this project because not only was she rushed, but also
the people in her area would probably not pay any attention to this. In addition, there was a new
homeowner, Mr. Comerford, who bought the Stacia property that was immediately behind the
shopping center. She noted that she had no idea that he knew anything about this being a
consent agenda item. She felt that he had no clue as to what they are talking about. She
requested a deferral or favorable consideration for this consent agenda request subject to the
Engineering approval because she felt that the engineers had a lot of very prevalent comments.
She stated that she was not an engineer and did not understand what they were talking about.
For that very specific reason and the fact that she did not receive very much advance notification,
she would request that this item be deferred from tonight's agenda and rescheduled some time in
the coming year.
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone else would like to address this application.
Mr. Comerford stated that he was actually the new owner of the property and had just found out
about this meeting about three hours ago when his wife opened the letter that was postmarked
last Friday. He noted that he called Mr. Waller and got this packet, but he had not had time to
look over the information. He stated that he did not know how this would actually impact his
property, but he would like to have a little more time to learn more about this retention pond that
they were talking about that borders his property. He stated that he really did not know what all of
this means. He pointed out that he was kind of caught in the dark about this. He asked if this
was typically the way that this process runs in that they get a letter the day before the meeting.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that Mr. Comerford's question was a rhetorical question for now, but it
could be answered after the public hearing was closed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Comerford stated that he would just like to have a little bit more time to get some more
knowledge on the request.
Bob Cross stated that he was a resident of Radford Lane and had a couple of things to say. First
of all the current misalignment of the Blue Ridge Shopping Center has been a real dark cloud
over Radford Lane for an extended period of time. He requested that as soon as possible that this
cloud be removed. He stated that they see this misalignment as both a safety issue and an
inhibitor to implementing the Crozet Masterplan. He asked them to note in terms of the
perspective of things that if you just take the approved site plan of what is there for the Blue
Ridge Builders, Clover Lawn and the Blue Ridge Shopping that they would be approaching
100,000 square feet of retail and office space plus parking right at the foot of Radford Lane on a
major highway. That is why they see this as a safety problem for the residents and the folks that
travel on Route 250. In putting that into perspective, they are putting more retail and office space
right there on a major highway right at the entrance to Radford Lane than exists at the square in
downtown Crozet or the shops around the Great Value Store in Crozet. He stated that they see
these retail outlets as bringing traffic into an area that normally does not come into their area. For
example, a grocery store of this size would make it easier for people even from the West Lee/Ivy
Area to come our way and do grocery shopping rather than going into Charlottesville. Currently
they were about 80 feet off of Route 250 and they feel that this is impacting their safety and the
orderly traffic flow on Route 250. He asked the Commission to please recall from the famous
Clover Lawn days about the many organizations that recommended the alignment of Radford
Lane and the Blue Ridge Shopping Center. Obviously, the Radford Lane residents recommended
this. In addition, the Route 250 West Task Force, the Scenic Route 250 Committee, VDOT and
the Planning Department recommended this alignment. From the standpoint of the Crozet
Masterplan, he pointed out that he had been involved in that for a couple of years. He pointed
out that they were assuming in the Crozet Masterplan that Radford Lane, the Blue Ridge Builders
and the Blue Ridge Shopping Center entrances were aligned so that there was an orderly
development on the other side of the road on the side behind Clover Lawn. Several parties have
expressed to him that the whole misalignment was simply an oversight by a number of people.
He asked the Commission to move forward and correct this oversight as soon as possible.
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone else would like to address this application. There being none, he
asked Mr. Wagner if he would like some time for rebuttal.
Mr. Wagner asked that the Commission not delay this because as Ms. Woff said that they have
been working on this since 1987. He pointed out that he thought it was 1988, but that he would
take her word that it was 1987. He stated that they would not be here tonight if they had not been
asked by the County to make this change. He pointed out that they have acted in good faith and
have spent a lot of money making this change. He noted that they have lost a couple of years in
making this change. Ms. Woff stated that she had not had a chance to look at it. He pointed out
that this plan has been on file at the County essentially as it was for a couple of years. He noted
that she was notified when the plan was originally submitted and did not see fit at that point to call
it before the Planning Commission. Regarding the new owner, he pointed out that Mr. Waller told
him a while back that the new owners had talked to him shortly after or when they were
considering buying the land from Mr. Scarcia, but to his knowledge he never came down to see
the plans. This is not something new that just came in today. He stated that he was sorry that
the County did not get the letter off sooner. He pointed out that he called the County two weeks
ago and asked them for the list of the neighboring property owners when he found out that they
were going to send letters to the adjacent property owners. He stated that he asked them to
provide him with the list so that he could write a letter and send it to those owners and explain
what was going on. He pointed out that he received an email last Thursday that the list had just
been developed and that the County had just sent out their letters, and they emailed him the list.
He stated that he got his letters out Friday to those owners. He apologized that the adjacent
owners were not notified sooner, but it certainly was not anything that they had done. He stated
that there was no reason why they should be further delayed. Someone mentioned the items
,. from Engineering. He pointed out that there had been some confusion with Engineering as to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
whether the plan could be reviewed as a preliminary plan or a final plan. He noted that usually
they had preliminary plans coming through. He pointed out that they had submitted this as a final
14%W' plan, but Engineering had reviewed it as a preliminary plan. From time to time they would come
back and say this is fine, but they needed to realize that there were some is and is to cross as a
final plan. He noted that they finally got that straight with Engineering that it was a final plan and
they came back with some things to be done. The things on the Engineering list are routine and
include a safety ledge, a manhole and things like that, but nothing to do with the layout of the site.
The only items to be done were some minor engineering technicalities. He stated that if the
Commission had any further questions, that he would be happy to answer them. Other than that,
he asked that the Commission approve this request and let them get on with the shopping center.
Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to Commission for discussion and
possible action.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he would like to address the issue of the notification being late. For the
purposes of tonight's meeting, he pointed out that his understanding was that staff was not going
to actually bring this to the Commission until after the first of the year, but the applicant asked that
they hear the request this year. Staff was going to wait until they had received approvals from
Engineering on some of the outstanding issues before they actually brought the request to the
Commission. At the applicant's request, staff went ahead and scheduled this item for this
meeting. There was a letter sent out to the adjacent property owners back in 2002 when the plan
was first submitted. There was one request that the Commission review it, which was by the
owner who sold his property and then moved away. Therefore, staff tried to handle this in such a
way that was not normal or typical in terms of making sure that the adjacent property owners
were notified of this hearing, even though a letter was sent previously. He pointed out that the
notification was a courtesy in that regard, but really was something that staff felt that they ought to
do. In order for staff to pull that together in a timeframe that was requested, it shortened the time
period to get the letter out.
Mr. Rieley asked what was the normal advance time for letters of notification to be sent out to
adjacent property owners.
Mr. Waller stated that for site plans or by right uses the original letter of notification goes out two
weeks after the application is submitted. It would actually be four weeks before the Planning
Commission meeting. The time in between that is when staff would have the site review
committee meeting. That notification letter went out in 2002 when this application was originally
submitted, which was after the site review committee meeting. This was because of some issues
regarding whether or not the detention pond as proposed would be allowed to be built and
designed because there was a determination that it was not allowed in the Rural Areas at that
time. Since then, in a situation that was related to it on another site plan, the ordinance has
changed and these types of uses are now allowed in the Rural Areas. But at that time when the
determination was made detention ponds were not allowed in the Rural Areas. At that time the
applicant actually requested deferral. This item has been dormant for eight or so months while all
of those issues were being worked out.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Waller what issues were pending with Engineering at present.
Mr. Waller stated that the pending issues mainly fall around the approval of the erosion and
sediment control plan and the stormwater management plan. Basically, that includes the approval
of the basin that was shown here and a lot of the pipes that are going to be used to get the water
to that basin. The Engineering comments are reflected in the conditions, which are on page 24.
He noted that the Planning staff added additional conditions regarding the screening of that
detention pond from adjacent properties and roadways. Currently, the plan does not show any
screening in the vicinity of the pond. The existing tree line and the tree line to be retained is also
not shown, which was something that they would need to show on this plan before final approval.
i4b" He noted that would be shown on the landscaping plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
�19
n
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any other things that they need to do.
Mr. Waller stated that aside from the screening of the pond and the Engineering comments for
the erosion and sediment control plans that there is also a condition of approval for Service
Authority approval of the construction plans for the sanitary sewer and water lines.
Mr. Thomas asked if all of the conditions have to be approved before the applicant receives final
approval.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that before the final signatures are provided on the plan that it was subject to
the Commission's approval.
Mr. Rieley asked what are the implications for deferring this request to the middle of January. He
asked if they have enough time to do that.
Mr. Waller stated that it was possible, but it would really depend on if the next revision of the plan
satisfactorily addresses all of these conditions. If the applicant came back with another plan and
all of these conditions are not satisfied, then they would go through another situation where they
would have to make the changes and resubmit them.
Mr. Rieley stated that his question was relative to the timing and whether they can defer it on their
own.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that ideally when they bring a final plan to the Commission for their approval,
that staff tries to have all of the conditions essentially met. There might be one or two conditions
that are outstanding that get shown as a condition. He pointed out that in this case there are
twelve outstanding conditions. He stated that the idea was to give the applicant some additional
time to have those things addressed when they came to the Commission. He stated that it would
give the applicant and staff the time to finish that.
Mr. Rieley asked if time was a limitation for the Commission on taking that action unilaterally.
Mr. Waller stated that there was an approval letter in the packet for when the extension was
granted. He stated that in that letter it states that the expiration date for the plan is May 28, 2004.
Mr. Rieley stated that the answer was that the Planning Commission could defer this request to
allow those issues to addressed.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the site plan regulations provide that when site plans are amended, they
are to be processed according to the rules that apply to a site plan in the first instance.
Therefore, the 60- or 90- day rule applies here as well. He pointed out that he did not know where
the County is in that time line, given the lengthy extensions that have been given.
Mr. Waller stated that the applicant requested a deferral while the issues with the other site plan
were being addressed, and that the 60-day time period has passed.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the Commission is in the legal limbo of the applicant having the
opportunity to go to Court ten days after giving them notice, compelling the Planning Commission
to take action on this site plan.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission was in the position that they cannot take unilateral action.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the Commission could deal with that scenario by possibly pulling itself
out, unless the applicant agrees to a deferral until the Planning Commission's next meeting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was totally confused. He asked how they were granted a 21-month
extension to a specific date of May 28, 2004 and then this letter went out to the developers and
the applicant.
Mr. Kamptner stated that date was not the date to amend their site plan, but that date really is the
date by which they need to vest their approved site plan.
Mr. Edgerton asked when the 60-day period started.
Mr. Kamptner stated that date deals only with processing this particular amendment, applicable to
site plans that are submitted. He stated that the May 28, 2004 date speaks to the validity of their
approved site plan.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that it was a different timetable. He stated that Mr. Wagner did speak
very briefly to the purpose of the additional square footage, but he thought that was something
that should be discussed a little further by this group as well. There has not been much other
than acknowledgement of its existence there.
Mr. Rieley agreed because it was an important issue as it was when they took this issue up
initially. He stated that he had felt from the beginning that the realignment of the entrance with
Radford Lane was essential. He pointed out that he made it clear the last time this request came
up, and he had not seen any information that changed his mind, that in his view this extension
was granted just to make that connection and not to increase the square footage. He noted that in
his view if the applicant wants to increase the square footage, then that begins the site plan
process over again. He stated that if they want to do that, then they needed to submit a new site
plan. The applicant did not want to do that because they wanted to get an extension of the
existing site plan. He stated that in his view one of the things that should not change is previous
square footage.
SW Mr. Thomas stated that it was an amendment to the site plan and legally he can make an
amendment to the site plan.
on
Mr. Rieley stated that he could apply for one.
Mr. Thomas agreed that he could apply for an amendment because the property does have the
correct zoning. He stated that he could not remember them having any stipulations of holding it
to 4,500 square feet from the original amendment. He stated that he was not sure that as a
Planning Commission that they could legally do that. He noted that he did not think that the
square footage was the real problem at this point. He stated that he wished that the neighbors
had gotten notice earlier so that they could have looked at it. He questioned if there was a way
that they could appease that and make the neighbors have an appropriate notification.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he objected to the process, which put the additional square footage
into the site. He stated that he was not denying that under the regulations that apply that it may
be possible to add that as part of the neighbor's site amendment request, but none of that has
really been addressed at all in the staff report. The applicant did not address this significantly. He
felt that adds another element to this that really needs a little bit more study and discussion.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was one thing to say that if this was a fresh application that the zoning
would allow the square footage that is being requested. But it was another thing to say that
because of that that they are obliged to accept it as a legitimate modification of the previous
application. He suggested that they review the minutes of the meeting, but he thought that there
was a substantial amount of discussion about whether increasing the square footage was a
justifiable component of changing the entrance. He stated that he was not in favor of it then and
he was still not in favor of it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
M
Mr. Craddock stated that the alignment of Radford Lane and the stormwater detention pond were
two of the items, and it almost seems that the applicant was saying that they would give us this
for that.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was not privileged to be here when that original decision was made,
but he was having a philosophical problem with the Commission being held to a deadline to act
on something that is very different from what was approved. He stated that he considered an
increase in square footage a significant change in the plan. Therefore, he would like to solve both
problems by getting the applicant to agree to postpone the item for two to three weeks to let the
neighbors take a good hard look at it. He noted that staff could also go back and discuss the
additional impacts of the additional square footage being requested, which was not mentioned in
the staff report. Therefore, he could not be supportive of the request. He stated that he would
take issue with the way that this was being handled.
Mr. Rieley asked if the other Commissioners thought that it would be a good idea for this request
to be deferred in order that the neighbors and staff can take some additional time to work on the
plan.
Mr. Thomas stated that he had one question before they could take that step. He asked what
staff could have provided to them regarding the impacts. He asked if the applicant could have
supplied that information regarding what the impact of what the additional 5,000 square feet
would do to the area
Mr. Waller stated that would have been addressed with the request to allow the additional
disturbance within the buffer. He stated that in the Water Resource Ordinance that was cited in
the staff report, which allows for that disturbance, was actually just subject solely to the Water
Resources Manager. What they are looking at is whether or not the final results of the mitigation
plan is going to be a better alternative to what was actually there in the first place, and if some
mitigation of the disturbance has already taken place in the buffer before the approval. But, it
does not really look at the fact that there are more disturbances within the buffer. He stated that
to staff it was a trade off because basically there was a saying that anything can be engineered.
With that review that was the main impact. The disturbance within the 20-foot buffer was the main
impact from the increase in size because it pushes the buildings and parking lot back farther.
With that he felt that there was some higher level of review that could take place as far as if they
could determine if that pond is being impacted as a source of aesthetic resources based on the
impact of the enlargement of the development on the site.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that his understanding was that the additional square footage would be
used for separate purposes from those that were already planned. He stated that he would have
to assume that there would be additional traffic impacts. There might be a variety of impacts
because these are additional shops or offices that were not part of the original application and it
impacts beyond simply the detention basin or the water resources.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that all of that did get evaluated. He asked that the Commission please
understand that they were dealing with the site plan so that the traffic generated in association
with the entrance and expansions that are occurring on the site in association with buffers or
water are subject to site plan review. Now what you could get as an explanation of that review
was the fact that it was before the Commission in the manner that it was with a recommendation
for approval from the reviewers. That acknowledges that they have addressed those things. But
for the Commission to understand how they were addressed, they would need to have the
reviewers tell them that. That is just about all staff would be left with bringing to the Commission
on the deferred date. It would be more information on how those particular changes have been
addressed in the site plan and mitigation plan. He pointed out that it was not a rezoning or a
special use permit and was not something that could be judged up or down based on the fact that
there was more square footage and traffic generated. He noted that it was judged based on the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
utility of the site and its design to carry those changes and that would be what the Commission
would receive an explanation about.
Mr. Rieley asked how the other Commissioners felt about this issue.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to see this again so that the neighbors would feel more
comfortable with what is going in there.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he understood that the reason that the application was being pushed
through was at the request of the applicant. He noted that he heard that typically staff already has
had Engineering review all of the information and come up with all of the requirements before
bringing something to the Commission on the consent agenda. He asked if he heard staff
correctly on this.
Mr. Waller stated that typically staff would bring this to the Commission with some
recommendations for approval in the packet including ones from the Architectural Review Board.
He pointed out that the Engineering Department was saying that these are the things if the plan
was purely administratively reviewed by staff that are still out there that have to be taken care of
before they can even look at signing this off.
Mr. Edgerton stated that if there were no concerns from the neighborhood that he would be
comfortable going ahead and trying to expedite this. But the concerns expressed by the
neighbors that they have not had a chance to review the changes to the plan was due to the fact
that they have not had a chance because of the hurried up process. He stated that personally he
would like to give them an opportunity to have a few weeks to review it. If typically the County
gets a notice to a neighbor four weeks before a hearing and they were comparing that with four
hours before a hearing for one of the neighbors that he felt that they should go the extra mile to
give them an opportunity to study the plan. He stated that he would be more comfortable seeing
this come back with all of the review as part of the staff packet.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed.
Mr. Craddock concurred with Mr. Edgerton. He asked if this would come back as a consent
agenda item or a deferred public hearing.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it would not be coming back as a public hearing.
Mr. Rieley stated that the request could come back as a regular item and could be opened for
public comment. He pointed out that he wanted to get the sentiment of the Commission. He
pointed out to Mr. Wagner that he had heard a unanimous view among the Commission that they
would like to see the neighbors have enough time to scrutinize this more thoroughly and
wondered if he would like to ask for a deferral to their January meeting.
Mr. Wagner stated that he would like to explain his position before he told them what his position
was. Ms. Woff has been down at the County opposing this since 1987 and he did not expect her
to change her mind. He noted that he had a nice conversation this afternoon with Mr. Comerford
about the letter and he was a little surprised to hear what they said tonight, particularly that this
was very new to them because that was not his understanding from Mr. Waller. He pointed out
that he did not speak to that, but he did tell him that they had heard about it quite some time ago.
As to them pushing this through, he stated that they have on file a letter from the County that
says that this plan can be administratively approved. They found out about a month ago that
because of this letter that Mr. Scaria had written, which they thought had died when he moved
away, that they would have to come back to the Commission. But someone at the County has
decided contrary to what they had told us about a year ago that the plan could be administratively
approved, but that it had to come before the Planning Commission. He stated that if they are
going to start building at the site that they need an approval so that they can start dealing with
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
contractors and tenants again. When it came up that this was going to have to come back before
the Planning Commission, they thought that it was not going to be held at the middle of January.
He pointed out that if they are to start building in May that it was not very far in the construction
business from January to May. For that reason they feel like they were asked to give up two
years and spend tens of thousands of dollars to do this in order to align the road. He pointed out
that they have aligned the roads and definitely provided some value to the public by the regional
storm water pond. He stated that he was not in the position to request a deferral. He asked that
the Commission act on the request. He asked if they deny the request that he would like for them
to state plainly their reasons for denial so that they would understand them.
Mr. Rieley stated that the public hearing was closed to bring the matter back before the
Commission for discussion and possible action. He stated that the applicant has declined to take
a deferral. He stated that it seemed that they have three possible courses of action. One is to
approve the application, as it was before them with these conditions and/or additional ones if they
see fit. Secondly, they could deny the application. He stated that he had an inclination to deny
the request on the basis of the expansion of the use over the original application. The third option
was to take a cue from the advice of Mr. Kamptner that the Commission could defer this with the
cognizance that the applicant's next step potentially would be to either take these steps or to go
through the courts to have the matter expedited. He stated that would probably take longer than
the month that they were asking them to spend. He pointed out that there might be some other
options.
Mr. Kamptner stated that, based upon what Mr. Cilimberg had said about what a typical final site
plan looks like when it comes to the Commission in that all of the technical requirements have
already been satisfied, they would not be ready to vote it up or down. He stated that the
Commission might also want to consider stating as a basis for deferral that the twelve items that
have been listed in the staff report be completed as part of the final site plan. Then they would
have a final site plan that was in the condition that they typically see. He noted that condition
would also provide that all of the technical requirements have already been incorporated into that
plan rather than left dangling as conditions. Combined with that, the Commission also could
address the other issue to allow staff the opportunity to come back and more fully explain the
impacts of the revised site plan compared to what the Commission saw a couple of years ago.
Mr. Rieley stated that was a good suggestion because he felt that was a refinement of number 3
rather than a number 4. He asked what the pleasure was of the Commission.
Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission had recommended site plans before with conditions, but
this one was a whole lot different because the applicant has added more square footage to the
project than what they had originally seen or what had been passed originally. He regretted that
the applicant would not agree to a deferral in cooperation with the neighbors so that the
neighbors could learn a little bit more about the project. He stated staff had scheduled the review
for January, but then the applicant speeded it up and staff was not able to get all of the facts
together to finish all of the statistics that they needed. He stated that he would still like to see the
applicant defer the request so that they could look at more of the facts and get the figures that
they need.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that if it were not for the increase in the square footage, the brief
notification and the neighbor's concerns that he would have to say that they were on the right
track here. But those things remain concerns for the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Loewenstein. He stated that he was prepared to go with the third
option as suggested by Mr. Kamptner if he could figure out how to word the motion. He asked
Mr. Kamptner to restate his motion.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the deferral would be on the basis of allowing the site plan to be revised
to incorporate the twelve conditions, so that the Commission would have a final site plan without
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
these conditions. The conditions would have already been addressed. The deferral would also
give staff additional time to prepare an explanation of the impacts of the redesigned project. He
stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would be held on January 13t .
Mr. Rieley asked if staff feels that would be adequate time with the upcoming holidays.
Mr. Waller stated that would be dependent upon Mr. Wagner's ability to get the revised
information with all of these conditions incorporated into the site plan, and then give Engineering
adequate time to look at the site plan and recommend it for approval.
Mr. Edgerton moved to defer SDP-02-083, Blue Ridge Shopping Center Major Site Plan
Amendment, as previously stated by Mr. Kamptner, to January 13tn
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Finley — Absent)
Deferred Items:
SP 2003 70 Gregory R. Gallihuah-Nextel Partners (Sian #591 - Request for special use permit
to allow the construction of a personal wireless facility with a monopole, approximately 85 feet in
total height and 10 feet above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet. The proposed facility
includes flush -mounted panel antennas and ground equipment. This application is being made
in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for microwave and
radio -wave transmission and relay towers in the Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax
Map 74, Parcel 2C, contains 2.78 acres, and is zoned RA Rural Areas. The proposal is located
on Dick Woods Road (Route 637), approximately 1.25 miles south of the intersection of Dick
Woods Road and Interstate 64, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive
Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. (Stephen Waller) DEFERRED
FROM THE DECEMBER Z 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG
Mr. Waller summarized the staff report. This request is for the installation of a personal wireless
service facility with a metal monopole that would be approximately 85 feet in total height and have
a top elevation that would be approximately 720 feet above sea level. The monopole would be
equipped with one array consisting of three 8-foot long by 1-foot wide and 7-inch deep flush
mounted panel antennas. The 8 feet is actually a correction. For some reasons the last page of
the applicant's construction plans did not make it into the transmittal that was copied and
delivered to the Planning Commission or to the one provided for the public. This page actually
shows the correct antenna sizes and it also shows an elevation of the proposed shelter that
would be installed with the facility. He pointed out that during the review of the request that staff
observed a balloon test with a balloon that was floated at the proposed height of this monopole.
The balloon was visible above the trees from a portion of the road right-of-way of State Route 637
and also from a portion of an adjacent property located to the west of the site. Staff notes that due
to the difference in the proposed height of the monopole and based on the observance of the
balloon test that the monopole would be skylighted from several of the near by properties around
the site. He pointed out a few corrections that should be made in the staff report. On page 4 in
the second paragraph, it starts with staff has determined that a rather large portion of the
proposed monopole would extend above the tree tops of the surrounding forest when viewed
from at least one adjacent property and the road upon which the subject parcel has frontage. The
next sentence should read that this would result in the introduction of a facility that would not
blend well within its natural surroundings. On page 5 in the fifth paragraph, it starts with Section
1.5 from the Zoning Ordinance and then in the next to the last paragraph that starts with however
due to the combination of the size of this parcel and the wooded area surrounding the site. He
pointed out that the word site was left out in that sentence and it should say the area surrounding
the site. He pointed out that the plans were revised at the time that the applicant requested the
*Am— deferral. He stated that in the analysis for the waiver from the adjacent parcel that the waiver
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
request information stated that based on the requirements of Section 4.1.3.1.b, the structure
should be set back 80 feet from the western property line. However, instead of pursuing a fall
zone easement the applicant is requesting approval of a waiver in accordance with Section
4.10.3.1.c. He reiterated that the applicant is still requesting that waiver. The next paragraph in
that section states that the fall zone for the proposed monopole would extend 31 feet into the
adjacent property because the location of the pole was shown in a different location on the
current plans, which would actually only extend 20 feet into the fall zone. Because of that the
monopole would no longer extend in to the 25-foot side yard setback. It would be outside of that
25-foot side yard setback on that adjacent parcel. Additionally, the staff report states that the
distance to the nearest off site dwelling was 320 feet, but it was actually 375 feet. Some of that
distance is also made up because of the difference in the pole location. Staff also notes that the
current pole location is being reviewed on the plans. It is the same location that the balloon test
photos were taken, but the plans just came in after the original balloon test.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if he would clarify that the balloon test that they have copies of in their
packets are of the current location.
Mr. Waller clarified that their copies of the balloon test were of the current location. He pointed out
that staff has reviewed this request. Based on the analysis of visual impacts that are provided in
the staff report, staff recommends denial of the plan. But, staff is also recommending if the
Planning Commission or the Board sees it appropriate to approve this request that the conditions
of approval that are provided at the end of the staff report be applied to this. Most of those
recommended conditions are for the standard conditions of approval that are applied to the Tier II
Wireless Facilities with some additions that are specific to this location.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Waller.
Mr. Thomas asked if the panels were 6 feet long.
Mr. Waller stated that the panels would be 8 feet long, but the additional 2 feet on the panels
would not increase the height of the tower.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any other questions for staff. Since there were none, he opened
the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, Attorney for Nextel Partners, Inc., stated that Mr. Waller had covered most of the
corrections that she pointed out to him in the staff report. She noted that she had asked him to
clarify, in particular, the fact of the distance of the tower's location from the western boundary of
the Gallihugh's property. She stated that it was hard to hear Mr. Waller, but she thought that he
had stated it clearly that the distance was 65 feet from that property line as opposed to 54 feet.
These plans have gone through a few versions as they responded to staff's comments and the
results of the balloon tests, etc. Therefore, a number of plans are on file with the County. In one
of the versions the tower was 54 feet, but it is in fact 65 feet from the property line. She pointed
out that Ms. Roland Eubanks, a site acquisition specialist from Nextel Partners, was here this
evening. In addition, Ms. Gallihugh, who is the property owner, is also present this evening. As
Mr. Waller stated, this is an application for a tree top wireless telecommunications facility, the top
of which would be 7.7 feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the facility. The
proposal complies with the County's Wireless Policy in all respects in terms of its design, color
and location. It will have an equipment cabinet that would be painted brown. The concrete pad,
the pole, the antennae, the cables and the ice bridge will all be brown. The antennae panels will
be flush mounted to the pole and will not extend above the top of the pole. The facility is located
within a small clearing in a wooded area. Therefore, they will be able to locate the pole and all of
the associated ground equipment within the lease area without the need to remove even a single
tree. In addition, the proposal takes advantage of an existing access road that will prohibit the
need to conduct any extensive grading or clearing of the area leading to the lease area.
Therefore, they have a fairly small footprint. In addition, the base of the pole will meet the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
V
Planning Commission's standard requirements in that they will not exceed 30 inches in diameter
and the top of the pole will not exceed 18 inches in diameter. The tallest tree within 25 feet of the
facility is a 76-foot Black Walnut that is located approximately 16 feet from the centerline of the
pole. She pointed out that was a distance that the applicant would like to work with because they
are always faced with the challenge of locating the pole as close to the tallest tree as possible.
She noted that ultimately you would get the most screening benefit from being as close to that
tree as possible, but at the same time they have to be very respectful of the health of that tree, its
drip line and root structure. Therefore, they try to walk a fine line between getting close to the tree
to receive the benefits of its screening, but not be too close to it that they might risk damaging the
tree. In addition, they always comply with the recommendations of the arborist that they consult
with in connection with construction. In this case, the arborist recommends some tree protection
fencing, some fertilization of that tree and some other conditions after construction. As always
the most important issue in regard to reviewing these proposals is the visibility of the pole. She
asked the Commission to consider the visibility of the pole in light of this entire area in their
review. The proposed facility, when considered in the context of the larger area of the Ivy valley
and the entire Ivy exit near the interstate, is relatively minimal. During the balloon test that they
conducted a few months ago, the balloon that was raised to the height of the proposed pole was
not visible at all from the interstate in either direction. It was visible at a distance from selected
vantage points in the Rosemont neighborhood, but in most of those instances there was a back
drop of trees behind the pole. There was one area where the pole was visible without a backdrop
of trees and that was along Dick Woods Road, which was essentially in front of the facility. She
stated that she brought a laser pointer to point out some specific locations. She asked to direct
the Commission's attention to the plans behind Mr. Edgerton that showed in red the Gallihugh's
parcel, Dick Woods Road and Route 637. She pointed out that the location of the entrance to the
Rosemont Subdivision. She stated that the pictures were submitted with the staff report, and that
she would be submitting some photo simulations that were taken looking towards the pole in that
direction. In addition, Mr. Waller took a photograph that she would submit a photo simulation of
from the neighbor's driveway. She pointed out the location that the photographs were taken was
the only location where the pole would be clearly visible without a backdrop of trees. She pointed
out that it was a distance of one tenths of a mile, which they measured on several occasions on
that day. She pointed out that once you reach a certain point that the trees that are on the
Gallihugh's property and beyond block the view. Coming from the interstate the pole would not
be visible until this area where you see it for one -tenths of a mile, but then you would no longer
be able to see it. The same is true coming towards the interstate. For your reference, the
interstate runs approximately in that direction behind the pole. Therefore, the pole will actually be
providing service to the interstate in that direction. Of course, it will also provide service along
Dick Woods Road and to surrounding residences in the area. She distributed three photo
simulations to the Commission for consideration. She pointed out that the first two photo
simulations were prepared using photographs that the staff prepared during the balloon test. The
third photo simulation was one that she took herself at the same time that the balloon test was
conducted. She pointed out that the first photograph was taken by staff using a telephoto lens
and was taken from Rosemont Drive at a much higher elevation looking down on the balloon test.
She pointed out that the wood pole is approximately in the middle of the page, which she felt
blended in quite well with a backdrop of trees. She pointed out that it appears to be approximately
71/2 feet above the top of the trees. The second picture was taken from the adjacent neighbor's
driveway by Mr. Waller roughly at the area shown on the plans just to the east of the Rosement
Subdivision entrance. The third picture was one that she took using a telephoto lens from Dick
Wood's Road almost in front of the Gallihugh's property. Again, this is the only location where the
pole is clearly visible without a backdrop of trees behind it, which was for a distance of one -tenth
of a mile in each direction. She stated that she would be happy to address any questions or
comments that the Commissioners may have about the photo simulations. She asked that the
Commission keep in mind that the County's Wireless Policy was intended to be a compromise
position between the traditional tall towers. Some of the traditional tall towers were approved in
the old days that are visible for a great distance and are not considered to be supportive of
Albemarle County's policies, but yet provide very good service. The compromise was between
that position and having no towers, which essentially pivoted the service. She stated that the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
policy, in her opinion, attempts to strike a very nice balance between allowing service, but yet to
the extent absolutely possible to minimize the visibility of the wireless facilities. This facility, like
others, will not be invisible, but in the context of the larger areas surrounding the coverage
objective that the minimal visibility of this one -tenth of a mile location is, in her opinion, fairly
limited relative to the area. As many of the Commissioners realize from previous requests, this
area has been quite challenging for wireless providers in siting towers for many years. There
have been a number of tower applications that have been denied. There have been a number of
tower applications that have been ultimately withdrawn due to significant opposition. She stated
that they felt that this was a reasonable compromise in light of those issues. She stated that they
have worked very hard to alert the neighbors to their proposal and to work with them. She stated
that they had alerted the neighbors to the extent that they could contact them to speak with them
and address their concerns. She stated that in light of the context it was not visible from the
interstate. She stated that she was prepared to address the setback issue, but was out of time.
She stated that she would be pleased and appreciative of the opportunity to discuss that as that
issue comes up following the public hearing.
Mr. Thomas asked Ms. Long to finish the discussion regarding the setback issues. He asked if
the staff report was a follow through from the previous report that the applicant has not provided
any information for the availability or lack thereof an alternative site.
Ms. Long stated that she had not stated clearly and concisely that perhaps there is not another
available site in this area. At the time that this application was submitted, this was the only
available property that Nextel Partners was able to identify that met the objectives. She pointed
out that they obviously needed a landowner that was willing to lease property to them. They need
a property that is located in close proximity to the coverage objective, which in this case was the
interstate. Ideally they look for properties that have an existing access road that would not
require grading, clearing and tree removal. The property needs to be somewhere near some
trees and meet a basket of criteria. She stated that this was the only property at the time that
Nextel Partners was aware of.
Mr. Thomas asked that she talk about the setback issues a little bit.
Ms. Long stated that she would like to clarify again that the pole was to be located 65 feet from
the western property line. That creates a fall zone area of 20 feet so that in the incredibly unlikely
event that the pole was to collapse, and there have been no reports of such things, that the top of
the pole would extend 20 feet. If the tower fell in that direction it would extend 20 feet over the
boundary lines. Therefore, they have a 20-foot fall zone area. The County policies require that
the towers be set back from the property line at a distance equal to the height of the structure. If
that cannot be met, one of two things is available. Either the Commission could waive the setback
requirement upon a finding that the public health, safety and welfare would be equally or better
served or the applicant could obtain an easement from the adjacent property owner, which would
restrict development of any buildings or structures within that "fall zone area." She stated that
they attempted to contact the adjacent landowner to discuss this issue with him, but they have not
been successful in that regard. In addition, they went ahead in the beginning with their application
and requested that the Commission waive it. She pointed out that it was something that they do
every time and was part of the process. She stated that they submitted the application at the
beginning and have continued to work with the neighbor by trying to contact him. The fall zone
area is within the setback for the rural areas in that all structures within the rural area have to be
located no more than 25 feet to the side property line. This is called the side yard setback area.
In essence, if they were to obtain an easement and were able to get one from this landowner, the
easement would require he and his family to not locate any buildings or structures within that "fall
zone area." However, the Zoning Ordinance already restricts any buildings or structures within
that area because it is the side yard. Absent from obtaining a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals, the property owners could not locate a structure there anyway. Given the fact that the
fall zone area is now smaller and within the boundaries of that side yard, she felt that the
Commission could reasonably make a finding that the public health, safety or welfare would at
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
least be equally served by waiving the setback requirement. There is no greater protections that
are granted by a fall zone easement because you are restricting development that is already
restricted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Thomas asked if they were able to contact the neighbor.
Ms. Long stated that they contacted him by phone several times and Ms. Eubanks, of Nextel
Partners, contacted him as well. She stated that she would appreciate to be able to respond to
any comments.
Mr. Rieley stated that there were four persons signed up to speak on this issue. He pointed out
that the first person to speak was Charlotte Hogue.
Charlotte Hogue voiced concerns about having a second cell tower being placed on such a small
lot so close to the property line. She asked if there was any limit as to how many towers can be
located on a small piece of property. She stated that this certainly devalues the nearby
properties. Also, she noted that she was very upset about the actions of the surveyors since they
were all over her property, climbing on the woven wire fences, walking all around and standing
behind the house scaring the lady there who has a very serious heart condition. She stated that
they also cut her tree. She pointed out that the surveyors did not ask permission nor tell her that
they cut the tree. Also, they did not knock on the door when they came near the house and they
had no idea who they were as their vehicle was not where it could be easily identified. She stated
that why they were even on her property eludes her because this property does not adjoin the
proposed tower site. She stated that she was certainly opposed to seeing another tower from her
windows.
Mr. Rieley asked Leslie H. Jones to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Jones, the daughter of Leslie Jones, stated that her father had to leave. She pointed out that
he was present to speak about Route 795, the trespassing on his property and what was
happening on the road. Since he was not here, they would bring these matters up at another
time.
Robert Hogue stated that he owned property on both sides of the proposed tower site. The
proposed tower site will be located closer to his home than the previous one. He stated that
pictures of cell tower sites do not always tell the truth and can shift angles to have a tree in
between. He stated that it was hard for him to move the windows in his home. He pointed out
that most of the trees around this site are hardwoods with very few pines. The present tower is
very visible from inside his home. The proposed site is very close to the edge of the woods. Most
of the trees on the east side of this proposed site belong to him and he did have the right to cut
them down. He pointed out that if he chose to cut those trees down that it would open up the view
from Dick Woods Road. He stated that the noise from the present tower was terrible and he
could hear it inside his house with the windows closed. He stated that if he walked in the woods
near his property line on his property that the noise hurts his ears. He pointed out that a lot of
other people in the neighborhood could hear the noise too. He asked why the surveyors were on
the furthest corner of his house away from the proposed site. He noted that he could understand
why they would be on the side closest to the proposed tower site, but not why they had to be on
the backside of his house. He stated that this tower would not only have a negative impact on
him, but also on the Rosemont and Langford Subdivisions. He pointed out that he would not
grant an easement to the cell tower company and he did not want a cell tower this close so that it
could fall on his property. He asked that the Commission turn down this request for the cell
tower.
Tammy Gallihugh stated that she was the property owner of the land that Nextel Partners wanted
to put the tower on. She stated that they have worked very hard with Nextel to try to comply with
N40W all of the conditions that were requested by the staff. She pointed out that there is an existing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
tower on the property. She stated that they have had a lot of people looking for the tower who
could not find it that have stopped at her house to ask about it. She pointed out that she has had
to show them where the tower was located. She requested that the Commission approve the
tower because she was disabled and it would help take care of her family. She thanked the
Commission for their favorable consideration.
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone else would like to address this special use permit application. There
being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for
discussion and possible action. He asked Ms. Long if she wanted some time for rebuttal. He
stated that he would open the public hearing for Ms. Long's rebuttal.
Ms. Long asked to respond to Ms. Hogue's comments. She stated that she spoke with Ms.
Hogue when she tried to reach her son and she did make her aware of their concerns regarding
the surveyors. She pointed out that she spoke with the surveyors that carried out the site work
for Nextel Partners, but was not sure what happened. The surveyors assured them that they had
no reason to be on anybody else's property other than the Gallihugh's property to carry out their
work. She expressed her appreciation to Ms. Hogue for making her aware of that so that Nextel
Partners and the surveyors could be aware of that. She pointed out that she was not aware of
any reason why they would have had to cut any trees. They certainly would not have done that
without anyone's permission. Nextel Partners assured her that was well beyond the scope of any
procedures that are ever carried out. Ms. Gallihugh has indicated that they have a problem with
trespassers in the back of their property of hunters and so forth. She noted that she did not have
any idea if there was a connection. She pointed out that they were aware of that and have
attempted to address that concern with their surveyors.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that in Ms. Long's earlier discussion that she indicated that no trees
would have to be cut. He pointed out that there was a drawing in the packet showing a clearing
with a grading plan. He stated that he wanted to be very specific about that because if they have
located it in such a way that there was no required clearing that he wanted to know.
Ms. Long stated that they do not anticipate the need to remove any trees at this time and they
were not asking for any permission to remove any trees. She stated that they were not planning
on removing any trees of any size. Originally in one of their prior versions of the plan, there was
one tree, number 18, that was about 33 feet tall that they were planning to remove in order locate
the ice bridge. She noted that when she became aware that the conditions of the Alltel facility
that was on the same parcel absolutely restricted any tree removal within 200 feet, that they
revised the plans to route the ice bridge around that tree. Originally they thought that the
Planning Director would have the discretion to permit very limited tree removal for small trees that
did not impact the screening. Regardless, once they learned that was not permissible they
relocated the ground equipment slightly and shifted the shelter location to make some room to be
able to work around that tree. Then they submitted a revised set of plans to the arborist that they
have engaged to have him review the plans and reassure them that by revising the ground
equipment location they would not do anything to impact that tree or any other tree. She noted
that the arborist's comments were supportive in that regard.
Mr. Craddock stated that Mr. Hogue talked about the noise from the cell tower. He asked what
type of noise that he was referring to.
Ms. Long stated that she had never heard any of the cell towers that she has been around
making noise. She pointed out that Ms. Gallihugh said that since the recent ice storm it has been
emitting some humming noises. She stated that this evening was the first time that she had
learned of this. Therefore, she indicated to Ms. Gallihugh that she needed to contact Alltel and let
them know that they have a maintenance issue. She stated that the existing tower should not be
emitting any noises. She noted that towers should essentially be silent. She stated that the
towers might not be 100 percent silent, but that certainly it should not be emitting a noise that is at
a level that Mr. Hogue could hear it from his home.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
cm
Mr. Craddock asked if they have any air conditioners located in their shelters.
Ms. Long stated that she thought that they actually do have a very small air conditioner, but she
would ask that Ms. Roland Eubanks come up because she did not know much about that. She
stated that it was her understanding that there has to be some sort of a cooling system to cool the
radio equipment that is in the cabinet.
Ms. Eubanks stated that the air conditioning unit sets inside the equipment cabinet.
Ms. Long pointed out that in this case the unit would be enclosed within a small shelter.
Therefore, the unit would actually be inside a small building.
Ms. Eubanks stated that there should not be any noise emitted.
Mr. Craddock pointed out that it was probably a maintenance issue.
Ms. Long stated that she would help address that issue with Alltel as well.
Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion
and possible action.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the tower was pretty visible, which essentially was the crux of it. He
pointed out that the Commission has seen a lot of these and that there are cases where it may be
very difficult to decide because there was just a tiny bit of visibility. He stated that he felt that this
case goes beyond that. He noted that he was concerned about the visibility issue and the fall
zone issue. He felt that the staff made the right decision in recommending denial.
Mr. Edgerton concurred with Mr. Loewenstein.
Mr. Thomas stated that the visibility issue was not as big of an issue as the fall zone issue.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not recall a case in which they have granted a waiver when the
adjacent property owner objected.
Mr. Craddock stated that the neighbor could put a shed in that location.
Mr. Rieley stated that he would like to point out one positive aspect about this application. He
stated that the arborist's report was really excellent and was a model of what the Commission
should be looking for in terms of the importance of the health of the trees in the surrounding area.
He asked if there was a motion.
Mr. Loewenstein moved for the denial of SP-2003-70, Gregory R. Gallihugh/Nextel Partners.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
The motion for denial carried with a vote of (5:0). (Finley — Absent)
Mr. Loewenstein moved to recommend denial of the waiver request for SP-2003-70, Gregory R.
Gall ihugh/Nextel Partners.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
The motion carried with a vote of (5:0). (Finley — Absent)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Rieley stated that the waiver request had been denied. He stated that SP-2003-70 would go
to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for denial and would be heard on January
*%MW 14th.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff report contained a number of recommended conditions. He
stated that should the Board of Supervisors approve the request, he suggested that the Planning
Commission recommend that those conditions be included.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that in the event that the Board of Supervisors
approves the request that the conditions recommended in the staff report be included.
1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with
the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment
building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the construction
plans entitled, "Nextel Partners - Gallihugh Site", last revised November 11, 2003 and
provided herein, with Attachment A.
2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises
the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation.
3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) shall never exceed
seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25-feet tree, identified as T-20 on
Sheet C-4 of the construction plans. In no case shall the pole exceed 85 feet above the
existing ground elevation at the time of installation without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit.
4. The metal monopole shall be painted a brown wood color that is consistent with the trees
surrounding the site.
5. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to
the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications
set forth in the application plans.
6. Only flush -mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas
be more than 12 inches.
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole.
8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one -inch
in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole.
9. No guy wires shall be permitted.
10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire
shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the
purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or
lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the
lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the
lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
12. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and
ground equipment shall be included in the construction plan package.
13. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has
been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator.
14. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or
vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified
*401. arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
�9L
specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be
removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All
construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including
necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree
conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of
Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees
within two hundred (200) feet of the facility. A special use permit amendment shall be
required for any future tree removal within the two hundred -foot buffer, after the
installation of the subject facility.
15. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site
plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall
review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit
have been addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
or to any facility operation, the following shall be met:
16. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet
above ground level and in elevation above sea -level (ASL) using the benchmarks or
reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator.
17. Certification confirming that the grounding rods: a) height does not exceed two feet
above the tower; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one -inch, shall be provided
to the Zoning Administrator.
18. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper
than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
19. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal
wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which
equipment, on both the monopole and the ground, are associated with each provider.
20. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall
be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is
discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to
guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the
Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a
letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned
upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction
of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
The Planning Commission took a ten-minute break at 7:50 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:05.
Public Hearing Items:
SP 2003 075 Alan & Theresa Zick/Ashleigh Preservation Tract B: Request for special use
permit to allow construction of a bridge in a floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3.05.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries,
bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types. The property,
s described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 22V, contains 100 acres, and is zoned RA Rural Areas. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
proposal is located on Priddy Court, approximately 0.3 miles from the intersection of Priddy Court
and Ashleigh Way Road, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates
`%MW this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2. (Scott Clark)
M
Mr. Clark summarized the staff report. This is a request for a permit for a bridge in Turkey Run.
The bridge was built prior to the current owner's purchase of the property and no one really
knows whether or not it was built prior to the adoption of the current flood plain regulations. The
applicant wants to make sure that their bridge is in conformity with the regulations. They don't
plan any further construction beyond what is already there. Currently it is a 100-acre parcel in the
Ashleigh Rural Preservation Development. It is one of two preservation tracts and it is under
easement held by the County. Staff's main concerns with this would be erosion impacts on the
neighboring properties, impacts on the stream and health and safety. It is possible that there will
be erosion impacts from the construction of this bridge even though it has been in place for some
time. One of the conditions recommended at the end of the staff report is for a mitigation plan to
be established by the Engineering Department, which most likely would consist of some plantings
to help stabilize the banks and limit that problem. The other largest issue with this was the
structural adequacy of the bridge. The Engineering Department put in another of their standard
conditions, which is just to make sure that they get the calculations showing that the bridge is
adequate. It is possible if there is a problem with that that some minor reinforcement of the
bridge would be done, but nobody expects any significant construction. We also reviewed this
with Mr. Kamptner to ensure that the approval of this permit would not violate the terms of the
easement. The easement does talk about preventing alterations to the overall topography of the
property, but this is not considered anything of that scale. It is a fairly small bridge and flat area
and there is very little elevation change involved with it at all. Therefore, staff is recommending
approval with the five conditions that you can see at the end of the staff report.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Clark. There being none, he opened the
public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Eric Morrisette stated that he was present to represent the applicants, Alan and Theresa Zick. He
pointed out that Mr. Zick was here with him tonight. He stated that Mr. Zick and his wife
purchased this property and in the selection process for the desired home they took a look at the
bridge and realized that they should look into the legality of the bridge. He pointed out that they
were mostly here tonight simply to try to comply with the ordinance requirements. As they
inquired about the bridge, they found that that bridge has been there for many years. The
research indicated that there had been a ford there as far back as the 1800's. A deed of 1910
certainly showed that. There was a ford crossing the stream. The property changed hands many
times between various lumber companies. He stated that he could not locate any one in the large
companies that have any history for these parcels. As far back as he could date is a party that
was involved at the transaction in the mid-80's that verified that there was a bridge on the
property at that time. Certainty, they needed it to date back to 1980 when this section was applied
to the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that he had written statements from parties that date
back to the mid-1980 that the bridge was there. He stated that he also has another written
statement in the year of 2000 when the bridge had some repairs done. At both times the bridge
was at a point of disarray. It is a very sturdy bridge if you have been out to see it. It has concrete
abutments and steel beams underneath. At the time of initial construction, it had a wooden deck
going across it and around the year 2000 or late '90's when the most recent logging had
occurred, the bridge just became so unstable or the decking of the bride became so unsteady
that they had to replace it. The owner at that time went in and put a concrete reinforced decking
on top of that bridge. They certainly believe that the bridge has been there forever. There have
been no changes done to the abutments and he had a written statement to that effect. He stated
that they were just here tonight to make it a legal issue with the County so that they could get
their building permit to move forward.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Morrisette. He asked if anyone else would
like to address this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the
matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that this seems to be a pretty straightforward proposal. He noted that the
Commission finds themselves in a somewhat peculiar position of approval expo -factor or
whatever the right term would be. But given that there does not appear to be any significant
disturbance involved, he would be in favor of this. He stated that he would be willing to move to
that effect once they hear from the other Commissioners.
Mr. Craddock stated that he agreed.
Mr. Loewenstein moved for approval of SP-2003-75, Alan & Theresa Zick/Ashleigh Preservation
Tract B, subject to five conditions recommended in the staff report.
1. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the
floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after construction.
Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas
of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within 1 vertical foot.
2. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the
stream channel and any associated wetlands.
3. Engineering Department approval of mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the
stream buffer. The mitigation plan shall include an implementation schedule.
4. Engineering Department approval of plans and computations verifying structural adequacy of
the bridge and abutments.
5. Conditions 1 through 4 must be met within four months of the approval date of this permit.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Finley — Absent)
Mr. Rieley stated that SP-2003-75 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation
for approval and would be heard on January 7tn
SP-2003-074 Karin M. Gest Private School - Request for a special use permit to allow a private
school for classroom driver training in accordance with Section 20.4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for private schools in the PUD Zoning District. The property, described as Tax Map
61Z, Section 3, Parcel 202B, contains .245 acres, and is zoned PUD-Planned Unit Development.
The proposal is located on Incarnation Drive, at the intersection of Rt. 1694 (Branchland
Boulevard) and Rt. 1427 (Hillsdale Drive) in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive
Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in
Neighborhood 2. (Tarpley Gillespie)
Ms. Gillispie summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow
a private school to be located within the existing Branchlands Professional Center Office Building.
It is a private school for class room driver training and it would have up to ten students, with an
average of 8 students, and conduct classes after 4 p.m. in the evening with the occasional
Saturday activity as well. The property is zoned PUD and is part of the original Branchlands PUD.
There was a site plan completed for this new building in 1999. There were 97 parking spaces
required for the site plan. The site provides 105 parking spaces. In our review one of the things
they needed to do was to determine the number of parking spaces that would be required. The
Zoning Ordinance gives the authority to make that determination to the Zoning Administrator who
requested a parking study from the applicant. The applicant provided the parking plan, which is in
the packet. The parking plan is also posted on the board. She stated that also provided was
some stipulations about their business such as the hours and the number of students. The
parking plan shows the 4 parking spaces designated specifically for this use and there are 8
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
M
spaces in the lot, which are open spaces that pretty much anyone can use. The Zoning
Administrator did require 5 parking spaces for this use and staff felt that those 5 parking spaces
were being met through the 4 designated and the 8 open spaces. Therefore, it does meet the
parking requirement. Staff reviewed the proposal against the Comprehensive Plan, which
designates this property for Urban Density Residential and against the Neighborhood Model.
Because this is an existing site and there are no anticipated land use impacts, staff does not
recommend any site improvements or exterior modifications to be made. Staff feels that it is in
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and is recommending approval. Staff recommends two
conditions of approval. The first condition was that the maximum number of students be kept at
ten. The second condition would be that the normal hours of operation be from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. with a provision that an occasional school related activity might occur outside of those hours.
She pointed out that Steve Melton was here to answer any questions on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were questions for staff.
Mr. Thomas stated that it was a very good use for shared parking. He stated that in the condition
it said except school related events. He asked what events that they would be and if they would
occur during the specified hours.
Ms. Gillispie stated that this was a standard condition that the Zoning Department likes staff to put
on private schools. This condition would allow a graduation ceremony or some other activity for
parents.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public
hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Steve Melton stated that he would represent Ms. Gest tonight. He stated that he concurred with
staff's comments and would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Rieley asked if anybody else would like to address this issue. There being none, he closed
the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-2003-74, Karin M. Gest Private School, with the conditions
recommended by staff in the staff report.
1. Maximum enrollment shall be 10 students;
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM provided that
occasional school -related events might occur outside of these hours.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Finley — Absent)
Mr. Rieley stated that SP-2003-74 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation
for approval and would be heard on January 7th.
CPA-03-06 Rural Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan - This will be the first opportunity
for public input on the draft plan - further opportunities will be provided as the draft plan moves
towards final recommendation by the Planning Commission. The draft section is posted on the
county website at www.albemarle.orci and is also available for review in the Planning Department
located in the County Office Building. Comments regarding the section may be forwarded to the
Planning Department at (434)296-5823 or to Joan McDowell (imcdowell(cr�albemarle.org) by
anyone unable to attend the December 16 meeting. (Joan McDowell)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
� I to
Mr. Rieley stated that this was the first opportunity for public input on the draft plan. He stated
that there would be other opportunities. He asked Ms. McDowell to provide a brief introduction
before they took public comment.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the primary purpose of tonight's session on the Rural Plan was to
gain for the first time some public input from the general public.
Mr. Cilimburg pointed out that the Planning Commission had indicated previously that after the
first of year that they would take what they hear tonight and begin talking about that. Then the
Commission would begin work sessions more specifically geared to the sections as they currently
exist and the changes that they might want to make based on the comments received tonight.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that tonight the thrust would be on accepting public comment, and Mr.
Cilimberg stated that was correct.
Ms. McDowell stated that they were here tonight for the first input session. She pointed out that
this was more of a public input session rather than a continuation of the Planning Commission
work sessions so that the public has an opportunity now to speak directly to the Commission
about what they like or don't like and what they would like to see and what they would not like to
see in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she hoped that everybody has had an
opportunity to take a look at the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has posted a copy of the Comp Plan
on the web page under albemarle.org. There is a paper copy in the Planning Department. If
anyone has not had a chance to do that, she could make that opportunity for him or her to review
the document. This document is a draft of the Rural Areas chapter that is an element of the
Comprehensive Plan, which has several sections within this element. These sections contain
what is a vision for Rural Albemarle and then the guiding principles. The Planning Commission
worked with staff over several months to finalize this section. They looked at land use patterns,
residential and commercial development, and several land uses. Last week the Commission
added another section entitled Conservation Use. It provides the framework and the policies from
which eventually ordinances will be developed. Therefore, this is a very important document and
she was pleased to see people here who are interested enough in this to be here. She stated that
she would not take the time to go over what they have been working on for over a year since she
was very interested in hearing what the public has to say.
Mr. Rieley stated that with that they would open for public comment. He pointed out that they
would first go through the sign up list and then if anybody else would like to weigh in they could
do that. He stated that the first speaker was Marcia Joseph.
Marcia Joseph, representative for the Southwest Mountain Coalition, stated that first she looked
at the conservation uses, which was the latest addition. On the second page in the second
paragraph they were talking about long term conservation uses. She suggested that some of the
words be removed, where it says, "and can provide a greater level of protection for natural
resources." Under objections, it talks about supporting rural landowners whose main objective
was the conservation of rural land. Then it says not necessarily an agricultural or commercial
forestal use, which she felt should be stricken. This is mainly because they were talking about
strategies and using the acquisition of conservation easement program. She pointed out that she
would hate for someone to come in and say that they were going to make it so that any of these
conservation easements that came in, which they were paying tax dollars for, that they were
going to limit the agriculture forestal use or something like that. The flavor of this is almost
negative on agriculture and forestry, and she would like to see that as a little more of a favorable
response to agricultural and forestry. Other issues in this have to do with timing of development
rights that are located around page 19, which she felt was a good idea. There are other localities
that do something like that. Both Augusta County and Rockingham County limit how often
someone can do subdivisions in the Rural Areas. The cluster option is extremely important
because as of July 1, 2004 they are going to have to be able to do that by right. She stated that
she did not support the central water or septic to do something like that. It would be very nice if
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
they could have 75 percent of the parent parcel designated as a preservation tract, but she felt
that they should think long and hard about those central systems. The crossroads was a fabulous
idea if that was how they were able to preserve some of the historic structures out in the Rural
Areas by being a little bit more lenient in allowing some scale of uses that make sense in a
crossroads community. She agreed those things like parking could be scaled down, etc.
Regarding central systems, again, she felt that allowing small lots in the Rural Areas might be a
good idea, but they need to look at the carrying capacity of the land itself. She stated that she
had other concerns, which she would send to the Commission by email.
Mr. Rieley stated that the next speaker was Ben Brewster.
Kat Thrash stated that Ben Brewster and his wife had to leave and she would speak for him. She
stated that she lived out in the southern part of the County. On behalf of the Brewsters and much
of her neighborhood, which was part of the Carter's Mountain area, she would like to thank the
Planning Commission for their work in preparing the draft on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Brewster especially wants to express his support for the timing of developmental rights and the
usage. While some might argue that disallowing a person's ability to use all of their development
rights at once by saying that it would infringe on their rights, they believe that it would focus their
intention on the responsibilities of a land owner rather than just the rights of the landowner.
Something that is not spoken of very much is that if one is going to benefit from property rights
they should also accept the responsibility that goes along with them in mainly not damaging a
neighbor's property or the property values. At one time and still in certain places property might
be looked on strictly as an investment to be sold off at the owner's discretion regardless of how it
affects their neighbors or the County. People today in a populated area such as Albemarle
County believe that we have passed this point and a property owner has a reasonable
responsibility towards others in the County and how they dispose of their property. The timing of
development right usage would decrease the assets, in other words the land's equity, however in
the investment world limiting an investor's equity is often done to protect other investors. If an
investor is not comfortable with this, then such an investment is deemed to be unsuitable for
them. Similarly, if a perspective landowner is worried that he will need to sell a piece of land
periodically to live off of, then maybe land is not what they should be owning. Additionally, if a
landowner's financial situation changes such that selling land is their only option, then maybe the
entire piece should be sold intact. Making our neighbors pay for their problem is not fair to them.
While the timing of the development right usage will have to strike a balance between
effectiveness and protecting the County with fairness to all property owners, it is important to note
that it does not disallow the sale of land or even a portion of land. But, it does disallow the
indiscriminate sale of parcels.
Tom Loach, of Albemarle County, stated that he was listening to the characteristics of the Rural
Plan and one thing that was left out was the financial impact of the plan. He referred specifically
to the land use tax program as designated in the Land Use Plan. In the last twenty years the land
use tax program has cost the taxpayers of Albemarle County one hunderd million dollars. This
year alone it cost $9,000,000 in subsidies and another $950,000 in direct tax payments to the City
of Charlottesville. That said, when you ask anyone in the County government, being financial
planners of administration, to show you the cost benefit analysis or return on investments for the
one hundred million dollars, they can't. When you look at the data in the plan on page 4, it says
that from 1985 to 2002 the number of development right lots under 21 acres created per year
ranged from 171 to 340. Then, in sum there were 3,000 development rights that were created,
which converted over 15,000 acres of Rural Areas for potential residential use. Another 704
parcels between 21 and 50 acres in size were created using over 19,000 acres of land. One has
to question the validity of the program. If the goal of the program is to preserve Rural Area, then
you have to compare that to the Ace Program. The last two years the Ace Program has averaged
better than 100,000 acres per one million dollars spent. If you extrapolate that against the
$100,000,000 that you would have by now 100,000 acres of County land preserved forever with
between 1,500 and 2,000 home sites off the market. The truth is that with every development
., right under the current Land Use Program and every development right that existed when the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
program started still exists. The property owner only pays the past five years in taxes when the
land is sold. The bottom line is that the Land Use Tax Program is an incentive program while the
Ace Program is an investment program. Before the County spends another $100,000,000 they
should decide which provides the best benefit for the taxpayer.
Charlotte Hogue stated that she was opposed to changing the division right either by number, by
size or time factor. She questioned how the County feels that they can take without just
compensation. She asked if they really feel that this will slow growth or do they want Albemarle
to become a County only for the very wealthy people.
Elizabeth Muse, a resident of Bleinhem Road at Quandary Farm, expressed her gratitude to the
leadership of Albemarle County for addressing the issue of growth in the Rural Areas. As you are
well aware, we are rich in agricultural and historical resources. As you also are aware, those
resources are disappearing before our eyes and are forever being altered by the suburbanization
of the Rural Areas community. She noted that her heart would like the Commission to focus most
on the preservation of the beautiful land around us, her pragmatic side must raise the basic issue
of water. Although we have more water than we apparently need, the drought is but a distant
memory and an issue that will certainly be a reality again. Without change, the Comprehensive
Plan that now has agricultural fields and forests can very easily be broken into small lots with
wells being dug only a hand full of acres apart. Not only is the available ground water
increasingly tapped by expanding development, but the watershed that shapes and feeds the
larger environment is also being changed. She asked that the Commission to please note the
obvious that water is a limited resource over which they have no control. It is a resource that
feeds the agricultural and forestal industries and a resource upon which our daily lives depends.
If development continues at its current pace, they will not have to wait for a drought to have
extreme problems with water. It will simply be an everyday occurrence. She hoped that while the
Commission was considering the entire ramification of the proposed Comprehensive Plan that
they keep in the forefront how dependent the farmers and rural residents are on the water supply.
There is an opportunity before the Commission to limit the growth in Rural Areas and she hoped
that they would take this opportunity. She thanked the Commission for their attention to these
important issues and for considering the impact that the development is having on the Rural
Areas of Albemarle County.
DeForest Mellon stated that he was a member of the Board of Directors of the Citizens for
Albemarle and would speak for that organization this evening. Citizens for Albemarle urges
adoption of the current Rural Areas plan now before the Commission and the Board of
Supervisors. We would also suggest the urgent necessity of developing a strategic plan to deal
with the following issues:
1. Using existing and novel approaches, we urge the Planning Commission to aggressively
pursue the reduction of "build out" of the Rural Area, which currently encompasses
approximately 65,000 by -right development parcels. No matter how these parcels are
clustered, their execution would dramatically alter the present character of the County's rural
areas and would have a significant, negative impact upon the area's biological diversity.
While downzoning is one possible solution, we urge adoption of other proactive mechanisms
such as floating a bond issue to purchase development rights, more aggressive programs to
educate landowners about the benefits of conservation easements, perhaps enlisting the help
of organizations currently engaged in acquiring such easements.
2. We support the elevation and the status of "Conservation Lands" in the Land Use designation
to be coequal with agricultural and forestry uses. The basis for adopting this important
change in status is the recognition of economic as well as ecological importance of essential
services provided by natural habitats, including ground water retention and purification,
oxygen recharge to the atmosphere, as a repository of genetic diversity in essential
organisms, such as insect pollinators, and to provide wildlife habitat, all contributing to
Albemarle citizen's quality of life.
3. Finally, we urge the Planning Commission to adjust or modify the general zoning provisions
in particular the ecological sensitive areas of the County, such as the western portions which
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
constitute the major aquifer recharge area, the headwaters of major rivers in the County, and
the corridors along the James and Rivanna Rivers. We believe such especially ecologically
sensitive regions should be protected from further human disturbance.
Betsy Carter stated that she was in favor of making the parcels in the Rural Areas 50 acres since
it would help us a great deal. She stated that they not only treasure the aesthetics of open space,
but it brings tourists to our area to eat in our restaurants, sleep in our motels, purchase in our gift
shops and see our many historic attractions. She pointed out that it was an economic matter
also. She stated that some of the Commission might have heard the comments that others have
made that we need to protect what we want to market and that is the case and the reason to
protect our Rural Areas so that they could market it to our tourists. She stated that would
definitely contribute to our economy. She asked the Commission to help preserve the beauty of
Albemarle County.
Fred Scott stated that he served on the Rural Area Study Commission. First, he asked to thank
Ms. McDowell because she got most of the information right. He stated that he supported the vast
majority of the information that was before the Commission. He stated that there were several
areas that could be improved. He noted that it was distressing to seethe 21-acre parcel because
he did not know a single soul that believes that the 21-acre zoning was the right thing to do. It is
generally believed that when you make parcels 21 acres and you build houses on them, then you
have to use up land at the 21-acre rate. He noted that if they changed that to 50 acres that it was
going to accelerate that problem. It is not the size of the acreage that matters, but the use of the
acreage that matters. He stated that the people with huge farms are not the ones that matter, but
the people that matter are the ones that are trying to build a house for their families. He stated
that he was not saying that they need more lots, because he did not think that they need any
more build out density in this County. He pointed out that he was not saying that at all. The total
build out now should be built on as small a lot as the land can take and use all sorts of smart
modern systems. As a former speaker said, they should use the water from a large preservation
tract that surrounds the clusters. That brings out another thing that if they are really brave they
will do, which is abandon the existing zoning that they have today and move straight towards a by
right Rural Preservation Tract Zoning. He stated that he was convinced that given flexibility that
is the right way to go. It will take courage, but he felt that it makes a lot of sense. He thanked the
Commission for their time.
Marcia Parsonage stated that she was speaking for the League of Women Voters. The League
highly commends the Planning staff and Commission for your thorough and thoughtful revision of
the Rural Areas (RA) chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and for your inclusion of public input
throughout the process. The wealth of important data on the state of the RA and the clear
statement of vision and guiding principles provides County officials with essential direction for
developing wise policy and making hard land use decisions. We applaud the emphasis on
consistency between the RA chapter and other sections of the Comprehensive Plan and on
promotion of an "orientation to resource protection that pervades the County's entire planning
process. The League strongly agrees with the revised chapter and with a majority of citizens
surveyed that:
• Rural Area growth must be limited and well managed to maintain the rural character.
• Residential/commercial development should be focused in designated Development Areas.
• Agriculture, forestry and conservation are the desired primary land uses in the Rural Areas.
• Water quality protection in reservoirs, streams and wells is of prime importance.
Documented residential growth in the RA makes it clear that continuing current by -right
subdivision could alter forever the forests, farms, open spaces and natural habitats that define
rural lands. To counter this trend, we support the direction of residential and commercial growth
to the Development Areas and maintenance of the current policy of not extending public water
and sewer to the RA. We believe it will be critical to develop the new tools and policies
recommended by the Planning staff such as decreased development lot size, increased large lot
size, and time -release development. Rural Preservation Development should be further analyzed
and standards put in place that would truly minimize land developed and insure the preservation
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
Q�
of large contiguous parcels. Performance standards and restrictions for all RA subdivisions must
be consistently applied and must achieve the goals of preserving, protecting and conserving land
'i%m•= for appropriate desired rural uses. Fiscal and tax "tools" already in place should also be
strengthened, for example, through increased funding for conservation easements and by
enabling more use -value taxation for open space and environmental protection along with
agricultural and forestal uses. She presented a copy of her presentation to the Commission for
the record. (See the attached copy of the presentation for the League of Women Voters.)
Lee Fordburg, resident of Albemarle County, thanked the Commission for having this public input
session. He echoed his appreciation for all of the work that was going into the development of
this Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that he shared the concern that most of the residents
of Albemarle County had in that the beauty and continuity of Albemarle County's rural areas be
maintained as best possible. He asked the Commission to focus on this matter of concern and
question it as he has as they move forward with the plan because he was not quite sure that it
was consistent with the goals. That is the question concerning the proposed clustering of the
development rights on the smaller lots. If anything, it does appear that it would actually invite
development in the County for residential purposes and actually accelerate it. It would also
create a dense population of residential housing along the rural roads. If you look at the
designated growth areas that they currently have, such as the Crozet Master Plan, the end result
of the clustering would be to create streams of housing developments clustered close to the rural
roads. The very rural roads that they currently treasure so much will be altered and that the
entire County may become a ribbon of extended development much like the arms of an octopus
as such. He noted that he was not sure if he understands completely the consequences of the
clustering. But if he was reading it correctly, he asked that as the Commission moves forward that
they do consider ultimately the consequences of doing that clustering.
Edward Sherrar stated that he lived on Route 53 on Buck Island Farm. He stated that he found
that he liked a lot of the work that the Commission has done. He noted that he shared with most
of the people in this room the desire to keep the County as it is with slow growth and to channel
the growth into the growth areas. One of the things that he has heard from the Planning staff is
that agriculture is irrelevant to the future of Albemarle County. He asked to address that question
and to aim it at the 50-acre lot as opposed to the 21-acre lot size. He stated that the 50-acre lot
size would simply gobble the County up more rapidly. He noted that you would have to build a
bigger house, a fancier house, but the County would still be covered with houses with no farms.
If they don't protect the agriculture, then what they were going to have is land waiting to be
developed. The farmers cannot make it on 50 acres. He pointed out that you could not rent
enough 50-acre parcels to make a farm and you would be subject to the whelms of bartering
landowners with little or no agricultural experience. He noted that you need a couple hundred
acres to farm viably, but you really need more than that. He stated that he owned a couple
hundred acres, rents a couple hundred more and then owns a couple hundred more acres in
another County. He noted that he was still a small farmer. It is very hard to make it and you
cannot do it with 50-acre lots. If they start selling lots of 50-acres, then the farms would be
gobbled up in no time. The average farmer is 61 or 62 years old and he was going to have to do
something with his land. He asked the Commission to try to find more imaginative ways to slow
growth in those areas through TDR's, PDR's, Service Districts and perhaps the public facilities'
legislation that they have heard a little bit about this year at the State level. He felt that they might
be able to slow and channel growth by using those concepts. But, if they go to the 50-acre lot
size, he felt that they would simply gobble up the County with three million -dollar houses. He
pointed out that the County would then begin to look like Fairfax and not like Albemarle because
there would not be any farms.
Tom Olivia, resident of the Schuyler area in the Scottsville District, stated that the County and
staff should be commended for this draft that was being discussed tonight. He pointed out that it
was the fruit of a long public process and that he felt for the first time squarely addresses the
issues surrounding the co -existence of different valued resources in a finite rural landscape. He
noted that he sent written comments to the Commission last Friday regarding the draft that was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
�o�
developed at that time. He stated that he had only had a brief opportunity to look at the very
latest draft, and so his comments tonight were somewhat restricted. The most recent addition to
the current draft appears to be the inclusion of a section recognizing conservation as a land use.
This recognition is essential to the long term well being of our community. Modern science now
tells us that all of the needed natural resource protections cannot be accomplished on multiple
use landscapes in some areas in which a natural resource existence is a primary goal omitted.
Many rural landowners seem willing to dedicate part of all of their properties to this use and he
felt that common land use policy should recognize it. The draft includes on page 17 an important
proposal that a participatory process be established to develop further a vision for the
simultaneous protection of Rural Areas, Agricultural/Forestal landscape resources, biological and
water resources, and historical resources. As an environmentalist, he stated that other
environmentalists in this area would be willing to participate in this process. As a part-time farmer
for the past 15 years, he would hope that members of the agricultural sector would be willing to
participate in such a constructive process. He stated that protecting these treasured rural
resources is likely to cost somebody a lot of money. Therefore, he asked that the Commission
consider adding fair distribution of resource protection costs to the tasks to be addressed by this
vision development group that is proposed on page 17. He asked that they consider raising
revenue to help defray the costs of the bond issues discussed by Mr. Mellon for Citizens of
Albemarle that would be related to this.
A. E. Shackleford, resident of Stoney Point, stated that he operated a 365-acre farm that was
bought by his great grandfather in 1817. He stated that he could attest that maintaining the kind
of rural atmosphere that they all agree that they want takes a great deal of sweat equity because
it does not just happen. He stated that it was not going to happen by people who are not
supportive. He stated that although he agreed with a lot that this plan offers, he certainly echoed
the praise of the planning staff that has already been expressed. They have listened and have
adapted well and done a marvelous job. He stated that he wanted to raise an objection to two
parts of it. The first objection is the equality of what the plan calls the defining principles in the
rural area, which was originally designed primarily for agriculture. He noted that it was his
intention that it was going to take agriculture to support anyone that owns property in that area
and that they better do all that was possible to protect and support it. The second and biggest
issue that he had was with the minimum lot size. If you increase the lot size, then you have
therefore decreased our number of division parcels. He pointed out that he did not even know
how many parcels that he had because he did not plan to sell his place if he did not have to. He
stated that value is bound to be affected in spite of what some people will say, but appraisers
don't all agree. If taking away division rights did not reduce the value of his property then the
Ace Program would not be costing a million dollars a years to compensate for the loss of those
rights. He noted that he saw this increased lot size as a form of down zoning. If that is what the
County wants, then by all means compensate the property owners. If not, then the County should
allow clustering. He stated that there would not be any more people in the County by clustering
than by leaving it at 21- or 51-acre parcels. What you will do is have much larger open space. He
noted that you would be able to have these contiguous spaces that the wildlife people, the bio-
diversity people, and the foresters all say that is needed. He noted that you would have the water
resources, etc. on protected land because there would be no more division rights. He asked that
the County not take away their rights, but just let them have them in a smaller place. The County
roads are still going to have the same number of cars because of these people are going to have
to go to town whether they live on 51 acres or not.
Sherry Buttrick stated that she was delighted to see the long awaited review of the
Comprehensive Plan's Chapter 4 Rural Areas. She stated that she just wanted to touch on a
couple of the high points of things in the plan that she thought was a good idea. She favored very
much the promotion of Agricultural/Forest Districts and was delighted to see that. Also, the time
release zoning that was done in some of the other rural Counties she thought has worked there
and is a very good suggestion. She stated that she was pleased to see the council still referred
to. She stated that the holding period for the family divisions is an important loophole to close
. because there has been fairly wide spread abuse of that. Family divisions are an important
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
9 oz
concept, but abuse has been widespread and it is the shortness of the holding period that has
caused the problem. She noted that she seldom agreed with Fred Scott, but she felt that they
both agree on the fact that the 21-acre lot size is the worse policy that there has been. But, they
would probably disagree on the solution. She pointed out that a larger lot size was probably the
solution, but that she did not know the exact number. The most important thing to be done in the
review of this Comp Plan is to break the cookie cutter of the 21-acre mold and do something else
about that. She stated that many people in the Rural Areas have always felt that the land use tax
is vital to the preservation of the Rural Areas. Agricultural and forestal uses pay more in tax than
they cost in the services. The illusion that money is lost is nothing but an illusion because that is
the landowner's money. The definition of land conservation and perhaps that concept as
developed here she found was confusing and ambiguous. She stated that it might be a good
concept, but that it needs some development. The concept of the central water and septic was
perhaps a dangerous thing in the Rural Areas. She thanked the Commission and staff for all of
these recommendations and for looking closely into these things because the Rural Areas are
under serious threat. The Comprehensive Plan has had wonderful language in it since 1989, but
the Rural Areas are disappearing. She asked that they try to see if they can stop that from
continuing.
Mr. Rieley stated that he wanted to make one parenthetical remark that relates to what Ms.
Buttrick said about our disappearing Rural Areas. He pointed out that he did a quick calculation
and if Mr. Loach's quoting of the number of acres in the last 40 years is correct that equates to 2
'/2 times the land area of the City of Charlottesville that has been developed within rural
Albemarle. He stated that it was kind of an interesting notion. He asked if there was anyone else
who would like to speak on the Rural Areas section. He pointed out that they would give
everybody a chance to speak.
Jeff Werner, representative for the Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that PEC was created
in 1972 to protect the rural landscape of Virginia's Piedmont. Over 38,000-acres of Albemarle
County is under conservation easement. In the PEC's nine -county region, this total is over
175,000 acres. The PEC urges the County to move forward with this proposed Plan and he
stated that he would offer some specific comments. First, he stated that he wanted to explain the
dot maps that they have used to represent the build -out potential of the Rural Area. The data for
this map comes from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's (TJPC) 1996 Build
Out Analysis. That analysis did account for site limitations such as steep slope, flood plain, etc.
To create our map, the computer randomly scattered the potential rural lots -- or dots -- on to the
map. Some dots may be where site limitations preclude development. The critical point is that
while some dots might be moved elsewhere on the map, the data suggests that no dots should
be removed from the map. This map is critical, as it clearly shows the potential for a very un-rural
Rural Area. The costs of a suburbanized rural area include increased sediment into our streams
and public reservoirs, increased demand for improved rural roads and public services, demands
on groundwater, fragmentation of the landscape and the loss of environmental resources to name
a few. Whether in increased fees to dredge the reservoir or increased taxes to finance road
improvements or in requiring long-time residents to drill ever deeper wells to access a stressed
groundwater system: the rural area development is not free to any of us. The County's budget
policy is to provide "a higher level" of public services in the Growth Area. The County cannot
maintain this budget and provide an equal level of services to the entire County. It is fiscally
impossible -no matter how much retail space we add to the Growth Area. The PEC offers the
following specific comments regarding the proposed Plan.
Prohibit pocket well and septic plants in the Rural Area. These systems are expensive and
feasible only for large-scale developments. They are not a means to provide affordable
housing. These private systems have a well -documented history of failure and often require
costly public intervention. The County must maintain its policy of providing limited public
services in the Rural Area.
evelopment be in a Preservation Tract. A model exists in
Require that 85% of a cluster d
Fauquier County's ordinance. While many view it as a panacea, the PEC is not in favor of
rural clustering. Whether development is clustered or scattered the result is the same number
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
� o3
of wells, the same number of septic systems, the same number of car trips, the same number
of school bus trips, the same call for quicker response times from police, fire and rescue.
Clustering is a Potemkin Village allowing the continued suburbanization of the Rural Area in a
way that everyone can convince themselves they are protecting it.
Adopt more stringent review requirements for small lot, suburban -scale developments not
related to a bona fide agricultural or forestal use. These criteria — such as review of a grading
plan and requiring improvements to public roads — must be sufficient to fulfill the objectives of
the Plan.
The painful truth is if all of the dots stay on the map — we have not protected the Rural Area.
(See the attached copy of Mr. Werner's presentation.)
Timothy Hulbert, resident of 2246 Brandywine Drive in Charlottesville, stated that he worked for
the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce. It is an alliance of 1,200 member
enterprises dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business and enhancing the
quality of life of our Greater Charlottesville communities. Founded in 1913, today our Chamber
enterprises together employ more than 45,000 men and women, earning more than $1.3 billion a
year. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to offer some comments on the proposed
rural area chapter amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. On behalf of a number of
our member enterprises, he would like to relay to you, in no particular order of interest, some of
their concerns about the proposal you are considering. Some of the questions that have arisen
include:
• What is the estimated increase in housing costs that you anticipate the proposed "down -
zoning" of rural area division rights to 50-acre minimum lots will have in the regional housing
market? Does your analysis of this estimated cost increase calculate the affect that upward
pressure on rural area housing costs will have on other housing market sectors? How does
this policy facilitate the County's stated affordable housing goals?
• Do you anticipate that the proposed "down -zoning" of rural area division rights will result in
more or less homes being constructed in the County's rural areas?
• Rather than "down -zoning" division rights to 50-acre minimum lots by governmental
regulation, might not greater incentives towards clustering and smaller lot sizes "open up"
more land for agricultural and agribusiness pursuits?
• Current Albemarle County policies define "agriculture and forestal activities" as having "the
highest priority' in all County rural area decisions. The proposal, in defining other goals —
scenic, historic & natural conservation, water supply, service delivery, etc. — seems to set up
an unavoidable conflict with other competing goals of equal value. Are agriculture and
forestry enterprises still the County's highest priority in the rural area? And if not, what will be
the mechanisms and schedules for resolving conflicts between two competing goals?
These are some questions for you to ponder as you go forward. He thanked the Commission for
this opportunity and that they would continue to work with them as best possible. He pointed out
that as they go forward that there would be many more questions that need to be addressed
before this is right.
Phyllis White, resident of the Slate Hill area of Albemarle County, stated that she hoped to
become a part of the Federal Historic District that hopefully will happen in that area. She stated
that she was a member of the Board of the Rivanna Conservation Society, a Certified Stream
Monitor and a member of the local chapter of the Virginia Channel and Navigation Society. There
will be a full report coming out next month that she would make sure that the Commission gets a
copy of from John Murphy, the Director of Stream Watch, which the County hopes to fund. She
stated that she received some results earlier this year, which showed that during the first five
months of 2003, there had been significant deterioration of the Rivanna River in its main stem
and tributaries from 2002. Fully one-half of the streams that were monitored by Stream Watch,
County personnel and other groups received an unacceptable rating path. This report coming out
will certainly cover the whole period through 2002 to 2003.There is a lot of antidotal evidence that
there has been deterioation in the Rivanna and its tributaries. Hundreds of citizens enjoy
swimming, snorkeling, fishing, canoeing as she did. Many people that they have talked to say that
**so' there has been a real deterioration in the quality of the water and the fishing. In fact many
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
9- bq
fishermen have just simply stopped fishing in the Rivanna, especially downstream from
Charlottesville. She stated that they had a lot of concern about the quality of the water, the fact
' that the recreational activities that go on may be threatened and certainly the people's health that
use the river directly. She stated that they were hoping to raise the profile of the river because so
many people seem to be completely ignorant about the fact that they drive over it constantly and
it was not something that they are aware of. There is significant concern about the North Pointe
Development and the fact that there are some really huge grading and siltation issues there. It is
absolutely critical that there will be greater protections, buffer zones, etc. that your report talks
about that should really be paid attention to in order that these areas are protected. She stated
that they appreciate the whole Eco system approach in the report. Again, she stated that it was
critical that stretches of forest and land be preserved. She pointed out that there needs to be a
lot more public education to these critical aspects of bio-diversity and the habitat and the health of
the Rural Area in fact. People just simply don't know that when they clear cut all the land along
their farms or have these deep fence appearances that it was detrimental to the sort of brush
lines and the roadways for the habitat. She stated that there was so much to educate the public
about. Finally, she stated that she hoped that the Commissioners had seen the article in the
"Hook" last week that talks about the fact that they have enough commercial space now that was
empty that equals what is proposed to be developed. In fact it does not even include Albemarle
Square, which is currently about one-half empty.
Kathy Rash stated that she was back to speak for herself. She stated that she was from the
Carter's Mountain Road area of the County. One of the things that she wanted to address in the
report that they put together was on page 18 and 19, which was in regards to wells. In the area
that they live in water is very critical to everyone. In the southern end of the County they have a
tendency to have wells go dry. This year has been very plentiful, but last year it was very, very
tough on them. She stated that it was a good idea to require the well testing that you have
proposed for any and all subdivisions that may be going into the Rural Areas. She stated that
currently the County requires testing for both a primary and a reserve septic site before any
subdivision goes in. She asked why they don't require that for wells also.
Neil Williamson, Executive Director of the Free Enterprise Forum, stated that the public input has
been very significant on this. He stated that he sat in on the Focus Group for the Rural Areas. He
stated that he had some questions and concerns, which came a little bit from that non -committee.
He stated that if you look at the membership, then you realize why it was a non -committee. The
non -committee presented a number of ideas. The Commission has worked through this
document once with regards to concepts. He urged the Commission to be very careful in their
review. A number of concepts were put in to bring out some thinking about whether they want to
go this way. These are not decisions for a non -committee focus, but were brought forward to the
Commission. He asked that they carefully consider these decisions. In addition, he asked the
Commission to raise the goal of the Rural Areas plan. He asked if the over arching goal was the
preservation status quo, preservation of open spaces or the elimination of development in the
Rural Area. Once this question is answered, the balance of the questions that have come up this
evening can be measured against this metric. One area that concerns him a little bit was as
many speakers have said that they have not had an opportunity to fully review this chapter. He
stated that he had looked at the previous Rural Area Chapter that was 7 pages long. He pointed
out that the chapter was now up to 52 pages without the attachments. He questioned whether
that couldn't be presented in a manner that was easier for people to access. He stated that he
did not want to throw away any of the work that was completed, but by using pencils he believed
that they could hit the strategies and objectives better and more people would understand it, and
which be a more user friendly document. He raised the questions that have come up again and
again of why agricultural and forestal are not the top priority in the Rural Areas. The top priority is
now a total of 8 equal and important principles. He asked if the County was no longer willing to
choose what is the most important in the Rural Areas. Do the 8 principles set up an untenable
equality that one must be at one time or the other in direct conflict with the other and how will your
subsequent boards deal with those issues? Finally, he asked that the Commission consider
IVAW some of the commercial aspects of the Rural Area. Recently he understands that the Outdoor
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003
r�
Foundation is allowing limited use of tree top cell towers in easements. That may help someone
in making the financial liability of a farm work. He asked that they be as specific as possible in
Vto.- the entices of ideas to make agriculture financially viable so that they can preserve the Rural
Areas and preserve our heritage.
Valerie Long stated that she was present to make a few brief comments on behalf of the
Charlottesville Albemarle Airport Authority. She realized that some of her comments might be a
little out of context with some of the other comments you have been receiving this evening. The
Airport Authority wanted to take this opportunity, while this proposal was being discussed, to
continue a dialogue that it started with the Planning staff, Board of Supervisors and the
Commission to talk about some of their future expansion issues. She noted that the Authority
wanted to point out how their future expansion plans may intersect with the Rural Areas Plan, and
the Master Planning of the Hollymead Town Center, etc. As many of you may know, the Airport
Authority owns land, a portion of which is in the Rural Areas. The bulk of its property is located in
the Hollymead Neighborhood, which is in the designated growth area, but approximately 80 to
100 of their acres are in the Rural Areas. That area is the land that is west of the main runway.
This is the area that its current Master Plan identifies for expansion of aviation activities. They
are in the process of updating the Master Plan right now. They are starting to engage that
process and are working with members of the community and the Planning staff to do that. They
anticipate that their Master Plan will continue with the recommendation to expand their aviation
activities into this western area that is in the Rural Areas. In addition, they are looking into their
need to acquire additional land to support the expansion of the Airport's activities. Therefore,
they are starting to think about how their future expansion will intersect with the Rural Areas Plan
and the Hollymead Town Center. She pointed out that the Authority really wanted her to raise
this issue with the Commission this evening so that they can continue this dialogue and sort of
digest these issues. She stated that there would be many more meetings regarding these issues,
but the Authority just wanted to raise these issues. She stated that they appreciate the
Commission's consideration of this.
Scott Smith stated that he lived in the Carter's Mountain area. He stated that most of what they
were talking about was an economic issue. They have talked a lot about the economic rights of
landowners. Those include the rights of landowners being displaced by property tax increases
associated with commercial development. It is important not to lose sight of that. He stated that
it was also important that if development is unpreventable due to property rights and divisions
rights that the commercial developers not come in and take advantage of that fact and that they
have to pay the real costs of their development. He suggested that if it was possible under
existing law that there should be some sort of division tax that kicks in automatically if someone
buys property with the purpose of developing it into a subdivision like configuration. Perhaps that
division tax could also be used as a way of funding tax benefits to working farms and working
forestal operations that they are suppose to be encouraging. He stated that if central water and
sewer systems are to be pursued in developments in the Rural Areas, particularly if they will be
supervised by municipal authority, that those costs must be absorbed in some way by the
developer. All of these costs are not taken into consideration by the existing plan. He asked that
the Commission do everything possible to make sure that the people who benefit by the
reconfiguration of Rural Area subdivisions pay for it at every turn. As much projected cost as
possible should be absorbed by the people who are going to benefit and profit by that change.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were other speakers. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
He stated that there would be many more of these. He thanked everyone very much for their
thoughtful comments and patience in waiting. He stated that their comments were an important
part of this process and would certainly be taken into account as they move along. He stated that
there would be other opportunities for the public to weigh in.
In summary, the Planning Commission held the first public hearing on CPA-03-06, Rural Areas
Section of the Comprehensive Plan, to receive public comment on the proposed draft plan. The
Commission received comments and suggestions from the general public regarding the draft
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003 11 __
plan. After the first of the year the Commission will take what they heard at this session and begin
talking about that in work sessions more specifically geared to the sections as they exist now.
The Commission would then make changes to the draft plan based on the comments received
from the public. A subsequent public hearing will be held after these changes are made.
Old Business:
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business:
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any new business.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he would like to give his official farewell address. He stated that he
could not resist making a couple of comments. He asked that the Commission think about the
following comments:
Work is needed on local guidelines for national/regional chain building types (in commercial
settings). There should be a continuing dialogue developed between the ARB, the PC, and
the Board of Supervisors regarding this issue. He suggested that a study be done to develop
these local guidelines.
Expand efforts to encourage and to support historic preservation in Albemarle.
Schedule periodic (at LEAST yearly) special meetings or private retreats for PC Members, to
discuss (among other topics) goals, procedure, and general approaches to future work with
specific types of cases. These retreats should include key staff persons also.
Always keep open minds. You will be more effective in your work if you remain flexible
regarding new ideas and concepts. There's an old adage that states: The nice thing about
yam,,. standards is that there are so many of them from which to choose." Standards should not
become too rigidly defined or too inflexibly applied. In my view, occasionally the best
approach may be one NOT specified in rulebooks!
1 have enjoyed greatly my four terms of office on the Planning Commission, including 3
chairmanships. My work has been made much easier by my colleagues on the PC, by the
County staff, and by large numbers of citizens who take the time to participate in some way in
their local government's planning processes. All of you have been superb, and I will always
be grateful for your support and your varied expertise. I feel very fortunate to have learned a
great deal from so many fine people during all these years, and I know I leave the PC and the
County in highly competent hands.
on
Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission owes a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Loewenstein and Mr.
Finley and it would not be the same without them. He thanked them both for their contributions to
the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg thanked Mr. Finley, Ms. Hopper and Mr. Loewenstein for their tremendous
contributions to the Planning Commission. He stated that staff appreciated all of their hard work
and that they would all be missed.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Planning Commission has no items scheduled for December 23,
2003, December 30, 2003 and January 6, 2004. The next regularly scheduled meeting is
Tuesday, January 13, 2004.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to the January 13, 2004 meeting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003 90 r7
m
V. Wayne Cilimberg
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 16, 2003