HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 18 2001 PC MinutesDecember 18, 2001
1*QW The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, December
18, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were: Dennis Rooker, Chairman; William Rieley, Vice Chair; Rodney Thomas, William
Finley, Tracey Hopper, Jared Loewenstein, and Pete Craddock. Other officials present were Stephen
Waller, Scott Clark, David Hirschman, Joan McDowell, Amelia McCulley, David Benish, Greg Kamptner,
and Wayne Cilimberg.
Mr. Rooker called the meeting to order and established a quorum.
4:00 P.M. MEETING ROOM #235:
Work session: Groundwater Committee Report (Scott Clark)
Mr. Hirschman presented a history of the groundwater committee.
Mr. Hirschman presented the staff report.
He reviewed issues on the County -Wide Scale.
He reviewed issues on the Watershed or Sub -region Scale.
Mr. Rooker asked how they located fractured traces.
Mr. Hirschman replied that they use aerial photographs, which are verified, in the field.
Mr. Hirschman reviewed issues at the Site Scale.
Mr. Rooker asked since trees use water, why would a forest be a better recharge area than a meadow.
Mr. Hirschman replied that effective recharge occurs during the winter. During the growing season,
recharge is not substantial due to plant growth. He said that forested areas have less runoff and are
basically big sponges. It protects the area of saprolite where the water percolates down to the bedrock.
Mr. Evans said that the key is that the root systems tend to break up the soils and create avenues by
which the water can percolate. You can move more water in an undisturbed forest setting.
Mr. Hirschman reviewed the issues of Rural Area Water Supplies.
Mr. Rooker asked how good is the ability to determine the availability of groundwater. He asked if yield
necessarily equated to quantity.
Mr. Hirschman replied that you would get more information than you are currently dealing with now. To
some extent you can generate that information, is it worth anything, I don't know. The program in Loudon
County is very intensive in drilling wells and doing pump tests. They would do pump tests for a third of
the lots.
Mr. Rooker asked what ways are there to develop this kind of information prior to laying out a subdivision.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 1
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
67 4�
Mr. Hirschman said that the best benefit of having this type of program is a great feedback loop to the
design of the subdivision. The timing becomes important, as it must be done before everything becomes
nailed down.
Mr. Evans stated that it is possible to develop a great deal of information on a site by applying geological
reconnaissance. There are also geophysical tools that can be used as well as drilling and test wells.
Mr. Rooker asked if that work could be done at a reasonable cost.
Mr. Evans replied that if you are talking about a major development, it becomes worthwhile. For a single
family dwelling, no.
Mr. Rooker asked if resources were limited, are you better off applying those resources on the larger,
comprehensive plan scale or a site -specific scale.
Mr. Hirschman replied that at the site scale, there is a process in place where a lot of this information gets
approved administratively. He said that that is a question that needs to be asked, perhaps at the
committee level. He asked for feedback from the commission.
Mr. Rooker said that in terms of trying to ultimately get to a point where recommendations by the
committee have an impact, he would ask the committee to look at the various strategies and prioritize
them.
Mr. Hirschman stated that the regional program is ongoing. What we have to consider is adding another
level.
The speaker asked what is the depth you are looking at when you test the groundwater?
Mr. Hirschman replied that almost all wells in the County are between 100 and 300 feet deep.
The speaker verified that they were not going into artesian.
Mr. Hirschman replied no, generally not.
Mr. Rooker asked in terms of developing major groundwater supplies, are there geological tools that
could be used on a County -wide basis.
Mr. Hirschman replied that it would be possible in a 100-acre area, but would be difficult in an area the
size of a watershed.
Mr. Evans stated that one of the goals of the watershed study has been to try to get a handle on it in a
regional way. The study attempts to answer the question "are there areas of dominant recharge that
could be protected?" The answer to that question is yes.
Mr. Craddock asked if the initial drilling of a well was any indication of how long the well would last.
Mr. Hirschman replied that it was not.
Mr. Evans said that it is a moving target. The County needs to be assessing the cumulative effect of land
use changes on adjacent parcels.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any mechanism designed for measuring rates of recharge.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
4 16
Mr. Evans replied that there are tools for measuring permeability of the soil, which is a starting point.
Tools exist, but the work hasn't really been done.
Mr. Hirschman reviewed the tier system.
Mr. Craddock asked how much water is lost.
Mr. Evans replied that when we drill a well, we want to tap water out of the solid bedrock because it
needs to have an opportunity to be purified. The water that's dispelled in a drainfield is at a very shallow
level. Most of it may stays at a shallow level and then discharges into a creek. It is not a simple closed
loop in most cases.
Mr. Craddock asked if when the water goes to the septic plan, is it just put into the river and lost.
Mr. Evans replied that in this area, virtually all of the streams are gaining streams. What goes
downstream is lost.
Mr. Rooker asked if the committee would be making recommendations on strategies to preserve
groundwater in the area.
Mr. Hirschman replied that one could look at the good development practices as those strategies. If you
are interested in the committee doing, we can do it.
Mr. Rooker asked where do you think that we can have the greatest impact in improving groundwater
supply and quality. He asked if we should be looking at a site -by -site basis on a County -wide level.
Mr. Hirschman replied that you have to do both to be effective, both scales need to talk to each other.
Mr. Evans stated that it is important to realize that we don't have one big groundwater flow system. The
level of understanding is such that there probably exists a relatively small number of large-scale flow
systems. There are also a lot of very local flow systems. Your well may depend on the guy upstream
from you not cutting down all the trees.
The speaker said that that raises the issue of land use. How dense of a development can occur?
Staff replied that that's one of the questions on which we are seeking guidance. Perhaps there is an
optimum size for a lot in the County.
Mr. Evans said that it is also important to understand the basis on which these regional studies were
mapped out. Fundamentally there are 5 or 6 geologic regimes in the County that are different in terms of
availability, recharge capabilities, and vulnerability. A one -size -fits -all approach is not equitable.
Mr. Rooker said that it also seems that you could come up with a list of 10 things that should be done on
a County -wide basis.
Mr. Evans replied that he would like for us to immediately do that.
Mr. Rooker said that if there are certain things that are considered extremely important, it would be
worthwhile to establish that priority.
Toms said there are lots of different kinds of forests in the County. He asked if it is known whether the
different forest types vary much in terms of groundwater quality.
Mr. Evans replied that he did not have that information, though he would like to.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 3
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
SUO
Tom said that it potentially influences agricultural/forestal industrial uses, and others.
Mr. Rooker asked what he wanted to get from the commission today.
Mr. Hirschman replied that there is a lot of detail that we need to continue to work on. What we need to
know if the concept is going in the right direction.
Mr. Rooker replied that we are always better off not reinventing the wheel. He said that it might be helpful
to look at the programs around the state.
Mr. Hirschman replied that upon review, those programs are costly and are not perfect.
Mr. Hirschman stated that where we are now is very much the product of a methodical process.
Mr. Loewenstein said that there are a number of policy recommendations at the end of this document.
He said that he would like to hold another couple of work sessions to look at the policy recommendations.
He is not sure that the committee is expecting anything concrete from us at this time.
Mr. Hirschman replied that the committee is basically on hold now.
Mr. Rooker stated that it would be helpful for the committee to prioritize this list. He said that he thought
items 6 and 2 could be done.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that some of those are actually discussed more specifically in the report.
Mr. Rooker said that he was talking about recommendations for things that should be implemented by the
County. Items 2 and 6 wouldn't take a lot of additional resources. He said that the studies referred to in
Item 1 would be useful.
Mr. Hirschman stated that the Board would like to see those happen, but it is a matter of resources.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a good list of what the studies would yield.
Mr. Hirschman replied that we would learn a lot in the first year. It would help us to know what questions
we are trying to answer.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the scale is very important. He doesn't want the County to end up with some
very generic statements that do not address any specificity at the design level.
Mr. Rooker said that Item 3 is something we've talked about in other contexts.
Mr. Hirschman asked if it would be helpful to have a work session that concentrated on the
recommendations.
Mr. Loewenstein replied that he thought that would be useful.
Mr. Hirschman stated that the meat of this is 4 and 5.
Ms. McDowell said she had scheduled January 22"d for the next session.
Mr. Loewenstein said he thought that Mr. Rooker was right about Item 6, but even that can generate
some discussion. He said that he does not want to make any of these too easy. He wants to make sure
we adequately cover each item.
err► Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 4
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
577
Mr. Hirschman stated that we could go through each recommendation in the next report.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not want to see the County get bogged down. He would like to see the
recommendations prioritized for implementation.
Mr. Hirschman thanked the commission for attacking this issue.
6:00 P.M. MEETING ROOM #241:
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Review of the Board of Supervisors Meeting
Mr. Cilimberg approved the rezoning with amended proffers to guarantee that if Radford Lane, project
would take connection to Radford Lane. The exceptions included automobile service stations. Clifton Inn
approved. Seven Oaks Farm approved. Tomlin Tower was approved for a height of 10' above the tallest
tree.
Consent Agenda
SDP 2001-110 Fontaine Research Park Clinical Office Building Preliminary Site Plan -Request to
waive requirements of Section 4.2 Critical Slopes, request to reduce loading space requirements per
Section4.12.7(b), and to allow parallel parking of loading spaces per Section 4.12.6.5 and a request to
+*,,. allow for one-way circulation per Section 4.12.6.2. (Francis MacCall)
SDP-2001-102 Branchlands Retirement Village Critical Slopes Waiver Request - Request to waive
the provisions of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, pursuant to Section 4.2.5. (Karl Guiler)
SDP-01-107 Dunlora Pool Expansion Minor Amendment - Request for a waiver of 18-5.1.16, pool
setbacks from property lines and nearest dwellings. (Karl Guiler)
Approval of Minutes — October 9, 2001, October 16, 2001 and October 23, 2001.
Mr. Rooker asked if any commissioner wished to pull an item from the consent agenda.
Mr. Loewenstein moved for approval of the Consent Agenda as proposed.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Items Requesting Deferral
SP-2001-047 Albemarle Baptist Church (Sign #93 & 94) — Request for special use permit to allow a
church in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for churches in the
Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 1 E, contains 6.239 acres, and is located in
the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on the northeast corner of Hydraulic Road (State Route 743) and
Roslyn Ridge Road (State Route 1390), approximately 1.5 miles northeast from the intersection of
Seminole Trail (U.S. 29 North) and Hydraulic Road (State Route 743). The property is zoned Rural Areas
District (RA). (Steven Biel) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 15, 2002.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 5
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
IS ?
Mr. Rooker recused himself from this item.
Mr. Rieley opened the public hearing, there being no comment, the hearing was closed.
Mr. Thomas moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral to January 15, 2002.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with Mr. Rooker abstaining.
SP-2001-052 John Decarlo (Sign #91 & 92) - Request for special use permit to allow in accordance with
Section 30.3.5.2.1(2) 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, described as Tax Map 26 Parcel 33, contains 75.3 acres, and is located in the White Hall
Magisterial District on Route 810 at its intersection with Route 673. The property is zoned RA Rural
Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Scott Clark) REQUEST
DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 15, 2002 DUE TO AN ADVERTISING ERROR.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing, there being no comment, the hearing was closed.
Mr. Finley moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral.
Mr. Rieley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
SP-01-76 Verulam Farm Limited Partnership (Crown Communication) PWSF (Sign #30 & 31) -
Request for special use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless facility with an 89-foot tall
steel monopole (approximately 7 feet above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet), 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 14131 contains
approximately 1.046 acres and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Dick Woods Road
(Route 637), at the Ivy Exit off of Route 64. The property is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and EC (Entrance
Corridor). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Areas 3. (Stephen Waller) APPLICANT
REQUESTS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL.
Mr. Rieley moved to accept the applicant's request for indefinite deferral.
Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
SDP 01-109 Vintage Market Site Plan Waiver with Sketch Plan - Request for site plan waiver approval
at the Vintage Market (Citgo) for the addition of 13 new parking spaces and interior alterations to the
existing building on 1.9 acres zoned RA. The property, described as Tax Map 102 Parcel 27C is located
in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Scottsville Road [Route # 20] approximately 5.5 miles south of the
intersection with 1-64. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4. (Karl Guiler)
APPLICANT REQUESTS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL.
Mr. Thomas moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral.
Mr. Rieley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Ms. Hopper joined the meeting.
Deferred Item:
. Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
579
SP-2001-048 Regional Public Safety Radio Project (Peters Mtn.) (Sign #77 & 781- Request for
special use permit to allow a 110-foot tall lattice, self-supporting, emergency communications tower with
antennas extending up to approximately 125 feet, ground equipment and a 12-foot by 32-foot equipment
shelter, on 2 acres zoned Rural Areas (RA). The proposal is being made in accordance with Section
10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for micro -wave and radio -wave transmission and relay
towers within a 60-foot by 60-foot lease area. The property, described as Tax Map 50/Parcel 1 D, and is
located on Peter's Mountain Road approximately 4.5 miles from the intersection with Turkey Sag Road
(State Route 640). This site is located on Peter's Mountain in the Rivanna Magisterial District and
designated as Rural Area 2 by the Comprehensive Plan. (Stephen Waller) DEFERRED FROM THE
DECEMBER 11, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. Waller presented the staff report.
Mr. Rooker said the photo simulations include a monopole. He asked if that was being presented as an
option.
Mr. Waller deferred to the applicant to answer that question.
Mr. Rooker said it appears the applicant is going to present the additional information we requested. We
have also asked that the applicant present some of that information visually. He invited the applicant to
address the commission.
Mr. Campagna stated that they have provided the additional information requested at the November 27th
meeting. He said that Mr. Morgan would be giving a presentation on the technical information and Mr.
Weaver would present the viewshed analysis.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was a remedy for the interference of a cell phone. He asked for information
regarding that issue during the presentation.
Mr. Rooker verified that what is presented in the photo simulations are options for this tower.
Mr. Campagna replied that was correct. Our current feeling is that any one of those four will work from a
technical standpoint.
Mr. Waller said it would also be appropriate to create the language for the condition should the
commission decide on a particular type of tower.
Mr. Campagna asked if the commission wanted the viewshed analysis or the computer presentation first.
The commission agreed to see the viewshed analysis first.
Mr. Tex Weaver, Department of Planning and Community Development, presented the viewshed
analysis.
Mr. Rieley asked if he made any distinction between the trees on the ridge and at lower elevations.
Mr. Weaver replied that he averaged it all together, but he did note that the trees in the higher elevations
tended to be somewhat stunted in growth compared to those at the lower elevations.
Mr. Rooker asked if he had compared this to the viewshed analysis that the Piedmont Environmental
Council provided.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
.56"
Mr. Weaver said his understanding was that they used a 75-foot tower whereas we used a 110-foot
tower. They used a three -meter elevation, we used 5 feet. Their digital data was based on USGS, at a
scale that is not comparable to the one we used.
Mr. Rieley stated that in general, these appear very similar. He said that it was very useful information.
Mr. Morgan introduced his presentation.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Morgan to review the photo simulations for the public.
Mr. Morgan discussed the Piney/Whitlock combination in comparison with the Piney Mountain site alone.
He compared those alternatives to the coverage given with the Peter's Mountain site.
Mr. Morgan reviewed the redundancy issue.
Mr. Rieley asked if the coverage that's coming from both of these is mottled, not complete.
Mr. Morgan pointed out that this was redundant coverage with an outage at Carter's Mountain to show
the redundancy of the two sites in the urban ring and the city of Charlottesville. He said that no system
has complete redundancy. As you add sites, you actually create holes in your coverage due to destructive
interference.
Mr. Morgan reviewed the Piney -only design costs, which amount to $532,739 in additional cost. That cost
includes microwave and simulcast equipment. The primary contributor to the additional cost is the extra
redundant link. It does not include purchase or lease costs for the Piney tower. There would be an
additional cost for field verification.
Mr. Morgan reviewed the Piney/Whitlock combination design costs, which amount to $1,590,462 in
additional cost. That amount assumes the Piney and Whitlock towers remain at their current heights. The
cost includes a 20-foot extension for the Whitlock tower to allow the microwave path.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was redundancy for the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Morgan replied that it did not. He said that it did not include the cost of the Whitlock tower
modifications.
Mr. Thomas asked what the height of the Whitlock tower would have to be.
Mr. Morgan replied 155'.
Mr. Thomas asked how tall the tower was currently.
Mr. Morgan replied 145'. He stated that the tower extensions come in 20' segments.
Mr. Thomas verified that the Whitlock tower was in Louisa County.
Mr. Morgan replied that was correct.
Mr. Finley asked if the alternative poles types given for the Peter's Mountain site would be the same in
terms of cost.
Mr. Campagna replied that the monopole and lattice tower is the same. To go to a forestry type tower or a
tree tower would incur an additional cost of approximately $3,000 per foot.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
591
Mr. Loewenstein verified that the figure given in the previous slide was the net increase after backing out
of Peter's altogether.
Mr. Morgan replied that was correct.
Mr. Finley asked if there was some estimate of what the Whitlock modifications might cost.
Mr. Morgan replied that the rough estimate is approximately $20,000. There would also probably be some
foundation work required.
Mr. Morgan brought up interference issues. He said that there are interference issues with any band that
you implement. The interference that has been discussed is called in -band or A -band interference.
Mr. Thomas asked if this was a bad investment because of the interference situation. He asked if it could
be remedied inexpensively.
Mr. Morgan replied that it was not a bad investment. He said that everyone should be looking at
remedying this issue. He said that Richmond and Henrico had no interference with their systems.
Mr. Rooker asked if Nextel was operating in those areas.
Mr. Morgan replied that they were. The issues are what frequencies do they have. Specific channels may
vary. The combination of the channels is also an issue. As far as mitigation goes, there are a number of
mitigation techniques. RCC is working closely with Anne Arundel County to mitigate issue that they have
in their area.
Mr. Rooker asked when did they install their system.
Mr. Morgan replied that their system is 15 years old.
Mr. Rooker asked if you are substantially less likely to have those problems with a new system.
Mr. Morgan replied yes, but technically speaking, depending on the type of interference, the difference is
primarily due to the advancement of subscriber units themselves.
Mr. Rooker asked if Nextel was swapping bands, why do some of the articles indicate it may cost the
localities money.
Mr. Morgan replied that the articles don't get into some of the issues of swapping. If they don't have the
frequencies and it requires another user group to swap bands that's where it becomes tricky.
Mr. Rooker said he thought they were talking about obtaining additional frequencies from the FCC in
exchange for banding in some of their 800 MHz.
Mr. Morgan replied that was the ideal situation, but there are a number of issues to overcome.
Mr. Rooker verified that the stronger the signal from our system, the less likely it is to be overpowered by
a cell tower.
Mr. Morgan replied that was correct, keeping in mind it is a very complex issue.
Mr. Finley asked what overpowering meant.
Mr. Morgan replied that it meant more of it and a higher concentration of it. Simulcast provides intense
coverage in overlapping areas.
1#4wr Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 9
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
•igo
Mr. Rooker stated that a more intense signal is less likely to be interfered with.
Mr. Morgan said that every band has interference. The interference issue has received more coverage
than any other issue in public safety. That should help mitigate the problem.
Mr. Morgan showed all of the 800 MHz systems in the Commonwealth. He said that only one has
reported the interference, which is Newport News.
Mr. Thomas asked him to comment on the Roanoke County and Roanoke City systems.
Mr. Morgan stated that the system had been in place for 12 years and has been recently updated to the
latest technology. They recently regionalized their systems.
Mr. Thomas asked if the merging of the two systems went well.
Mr. Morgan replied that all reports were very good.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Morgan to identify other systems, which have been operating successfully for
a long time.
Mr. Morgan identified Arlington County in 1991, Chesterfield in 1988, and Virginia Beach, implemented in
the mid to late 1980s. Suffolk has been in use for 8 years, and Norfolk for over 10.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was any correlation with the landscape.
Mr. Morgan replied that the success of those systems is not dictated by one attribute. Attaining the
desired coverage is easier with a flatter landscape.
Mr. Morgan discussed other frequency designs. He said that any frequency band chosen would likely
require a Peter's Mountain site. The availability of frequencies in other bands is scarce. It is much more
difficult to mitigate the interference with a VHF system. He said that the interference is likely to come from
much farther away.
Mr. Rooker asked if people were migrating from 150 to 800 MHz.
Mr. Morgan replied all the time.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone was migrating from 800 to 150.
Mr. Morgan replied that he had never been involved in a case. He stated that all of them have migrated
at one point from VHF to a higher band coverage. Virtually all users have had some interference.
Interference is an issue in any band, especially VHF. He discussed trunking features and functionality.
The applicant requests approval for Peter's Mountain as the best design. He said that the design provides
the best overall coverage, the best coverage redundancy, the best signal emission, multiple signal
trajectories and range, and is the least costly alternative.
Mr. Rooker asked if the proposed statewide emergency broadcast system would have any impact on this
system.
Mr. Morgan replied that most of us are in the dark about what the state is planning. The State has been
pursuing a VHF high band system. Those proposals were just received two weeks ago. There are
inherent problems in what they've asked for. The state does have quite a few 800 MHz frequencies that
they have requested to keep.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 10
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
S93
Mr. Rooker said that the stated goal was to develop a system that would allow the state police to
communicate with local jurisdictions. He asked if the local jurisdictions are on 800 MHz, how would they
accomplish that with VHF.
Mr. Morgan stated that the majority of the state is on another band than 800 MHz. Interoperability
between vendors is also an issue. There are some products being developed to try to bridge that gap. If
you are going to provide that level of coverage, you will have to provide coverage that overlaps.
Mr. Rooker verified that this is not a system that would replace the local systems.
Mr. Morgan replied that is very unlikely. The channel capacity the state has could not handle that on a
continuous basis. He said that networking the systems could work.
Mr. Rooker asked him if he could foresee a statewide system that would replace the local systems.
Mr. Morgan replied that he could not.
Mr. Rieley said he would like to see the direction of the two microwave transmitters from the Peter's
Mountain site on the viewshed map.
Mr. Campagna pointed out the directions.
Ms. Hopper said she thought that either Piney or Whitlock was not currently is use. She asked if Mr.
Morgan knew the correct information.
Mr. Morgan replied that the Piney tower is not being used. The microwave dishes on the tower are not
currently in use.
Mr. Rooker said the County should look into getting the dishes removed from the tower.
Mr. Morgan presented the photo simulations.
Mr. Rooker asked how far away the camera was.
Mr. Morgan replied that, roughly speaking, we were 200 feet away.
Mr. Rooker asked for the distance to the nearest public road.
Mr. Campagna replied that it is about 4 miles to the intersection of Peters Mountain and Turkey Sag. He
said that was driving distance.
Mr. Morgan presented photos of the tower site from various distance views using the balloon.
Mr. Rooker thanked Mr. Morgan and Mr. Campagna for their presentation. He said that the land use
issues would argue against this tower, but the public safety is also a strong concern brought forth in the
comprehensive plan. We have to take into consideration the safety issues.
Mr. Thomas said that the safety issues have been well explained, as well as the necessity for the
redundancy and for the tower to be placed on Peter's Mountain. The visibility issue for the land use is
very minimal. He said he would support the tower at this time.
Mr. Finley said the presentation tonight removed any doubts from this mind. He asked what type of tower
would be built.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 11
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
s9q
Mr. Rooker said that assuming this is approved tonight, we should focus on the conditions.
Mr. Rieley thanked the applicant for their informative presentation. It is clear that a new system is needed
very badly. One of the foundations of our decision has to be the acknowledgment that the evaluation of a
public safety tower need not meet the same standards as a commercial application. This does not mean
that we can or should make the decision without regard to its impact on the scenic and historic site. This
proposal seems to have been based solely on signal strength and cost. This proposal is the best one
from that perspective. Our task is not to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one system over another. The
board has responsibility for that. Our recommendations should be limited to the land use issue. He said
that the viewshed analysis and the photo simulations did not reassure him. They showed a significant
impact on the historic and scenic landscape. These viewshed studies should have been done as a part
of an attempt to site this in the most effective way to begin with. The ways this proposal was developed
and brought before us has been disappointing. The proposal was developed without the involvement of
people who represented historic and scenic values. The County needs to take these values just as
seriously in its own projects as it does on proposals by others. Despite these concerns, he will support
this application if its visual impact can be reduced. Safety ultimately ends up trumping other concerns. If
we say that this is a site that we have to do the best we can with, we should focus our attention on
making this better from a visual impact perspective. He said he is not satisfied that we have done all we
can at this point. He said he would like to see the height reduced to the absolute minimum. We should
check to see if the paths can be cleared for the microwave dishes that would still allow screening. We
should take a long view on this issue.
Ms. Hopper said she agreed with Mr. Rieley. She said the photos in the packet were accurate in regard to
the balloons. The visibility is higher than what we have typically found acceptable, but the competing
interest of emergency safety outweighs that issue. We do need to mitigate the visibility as much as
possible. She asked if we could go to a lower height.
Mr. Morgan replied that the current height is the lowest height based on two reasons. The elevations of
the microwave dishes are at the heights required by the microwave vendor to establish path reliability.
The additional height of the tower is based on the 800 MHz antenna placement.
Mr. Rooker asked if you bring down the antenna, at what point do we lose coverage.
Mr. Morgan replied that it has been a long time since we examined that issue. He said that that's the
height we were given by Motorola to guarantee coverage reliability.
Mr. Rieley stated that all of this analysis has been done in the absence of the significance of the historic
resources. The analysis is done solely from a radio propagation perspective. There needs to be some
compromise in this. A small margin of adjustment in the top of the tower is a large percentage of the
visibility.
Mr. Campagna stated that we have attempted to take that into consideration and have constantly made
the lowest height possible a requirement. We are willing to do what we can to mitigate those issues.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the commission pass on a recommendation that someone in planning,
focusing on preservation issues, participate in this process with the ECC to make sure we are achieving
the least visibility while maintaining adequate coverage.
Mr. Rieley said he wanted to see what the obstacles were to making a path if the tower were lowered by
10'. What is the cost? Is it overwhelming or marginal? He would like to see the information provided in
empirical terms.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 12
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Morgan said some propagation analysis had been run at lower heights. He said
he believes that information can be provided between now and the time this goes before the Board. This
application is not entirely controlled by the County. It is the City that is most negatively impacted by an
alternative.
Mr. Craddock asked if his suggestion was covered in condition 1.
Mr. Rooker said he thought his request went beyond that.
Mr. Craddock asked if the Director of Planning would approve that.
Mr. Rieley said he thought that the Board of Supervisors would have the approval on that issue.
Mr. Rooker said that he was not suggesting that it come back to the commission. We need to make sure
there is someone who is representing values other than pure engineering values who has a part in
providing that information.
Mr. Rieley asked that it be done early enough that there can be comment on it before it goes before the
Board.
Mr. Craddock verified that historic resources wouldn't hear this before the Board meeting.
Mr. Rooker replied that was his understanding.
Mr. Finley stated that the closest road is about 1.5 miles, and closest registered historic structure is 3
miles. He asked what difference would a height reduction of 5 feet make.
Mr. Rieley said he thought it would make a big difference. He said that if the tower is sticking up beyond
the trees by 20', 5' would '/4 of that height.
Mr. Finley said he thought that coverage should take priority.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Board should have that information before them when making their decision.
Mr. Rooker said that we are suggesting that the Board have that information. He said it might be helpful to
focus on the conditions of approval.
Mr. Loewenstein said he has been in a quandary about this issue for a while. There have been some
points missed regarding the whole issue of historic district designation. The historic district in this case is
the entire Southwest Mountains. He pointed out that a lot of the information we've been presented is done
on the basis of software analysis. He said that he would not be willing to support a tower that significantly
impacts the character of this district. He is still not fully convinced that there might not be alternatives. He
said that he is not able to support this proposal at this time. He said he thinks there is a way to balance
this land use with the existence of the historic district.
Mr. Rooker most of us share many of those feelings. At the end of the day, he is convinced that any
alternative would provide a less effective system at a significantly higher cost. Every independent expert
who has looked at this has said that Peter's Mountain was the best site. He asked to discuss the
conditions.
Mr. Rieley said he would like to see if we could develop a framework that would allow for specific
information to be brought forward for public scrutiny.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 13
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
•
Mr. Rooker said he thought that was best conveyed as a specific direction rather than a condition. We
should look at the conditions and then provide a directive of additional information to be provided to the
Board.
Mr. Thomas ascertained that the Board of Supervisors will review this petition at its January 9, 2002
meeting.
Mr. Finley stated that the Commission does not want the request for additional information to cause any
further delay.
Mr. Rooker asked to discuss the conditions and provide instruction for further information as a
recommendation to the Board. He suggested reviewing the conditions individually.
Mr. Kamptner amended condition #4 to read as follows:
• Only the two proposed whip antennas and required grounding rods shall be allowed to extend above
the top of the pole. In no cases shall those attachments extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
top of the pole.
Mr. Rooker said that one question we might pose is if its possible to lower the tower height somewhat and
increase the antenna heights. It would seem to be less objectionable to have a longer antenna vs. a taller
tower.
Mr. Rooker said that in other applications we've approved we require the color of the tower and
equipment to be brown. He asked if the commission wished to express an opinion on the type of tower.
Ms. Hopper said she had heard discussion about whether brown is the right color. Brown might make it
even more prominent. Perhaps we should leave that to the staff.
Mr. Kamptner said that this tower is different because it extends above the treeline.
Mr. Rooker stated that there might be some differentiation based on the type of tower. He said it seemed
the monopole was the best choice.
Mr. Rieley said that there have been studies done on this. A dull brown is the least visible. The key is a
dull color above the tree line.
Mr. Rooker asked if everyone was in agreement with the monopole.
Ms. Hopper replied that she is not sure, it seems in the pictures that the lattice tower is the least visible,
but in reality, they are often more visible.
Mr. Thomas said that in looking at the lattice tower, the dishes are not quite as noticeable.
Mr. Rooker stated that you can see the lattice towers for miles away. He can't imagine that a lattice tower
that is 12' at the base would be less visible than a monopole.
Mr. Rieley said that in practice a lattice tower is more visible. A single pole is replicating the trees.
Mr. Craddock said that the only difference would be when you are at the pole.
Mr. Rooker stated that we were talking about visibility from a distance. The commission came to the
consensus to recommend a monopole. The color would be specified as a dull brown color. He said we
should specify for the monopole that it be of the minimum diameter necessary to perform its function.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 14
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
58*7
Mr. Rooker would like that diameter examined between now and the Board of Supervisors meeting. He
said that we have been approving commercial towers at 30".
Mr. Campagna replied that the dimensions given were correct for a 110' monopole at the Peter's
Mountain location.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would like that verified
Mr. Rieley stated that this information should be brought forward early enough for additional examination.
Mr. Campagna said that he would do that.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding the requirement that the tower be no greater than 36" in the condition.
Mr. Finley said that the language should be changed from tower to pole throughout the conditions.
Mr. Rieley asked if the FAA required it to be lit, would that trump this condition.
Mr. Rooker said he thought they would be required to come back and seek a modification.
Mr. Kamptner replied that they would have to get the condition amended.
Mr. Thomas said his understanding was that it already meets FAA regulations.
Mr. Campagna stated that both independent analyses indicated that lighting on the tower would not be
required, but we have asked for an official ruling from the FAA.
Mr. Cilimberg said that this is a standard condition.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like a condition added that requires the applicant make all reasonable
efforts to obtain approval from AT&T to implement strategies to reduce the visibility of the current AT&T
site on Peter's Mountain. He said that recognized that was not under the control of the applicant. He
suggested gaining the aid of our senators.
Mr. Rieley suggested that "a tree planting plan, of native species, which could include white pine, short
leaf pine and others, be developed and reviewed by the ACE Coordinator". He asked that that be done
within a 200 radius of the tree.
Ms. Hopper noticed that the tower removal condition was removed. She asked if any others had been
removed.
Mr. Rooker said that was the only condition that might be reasonably applicable that was not included.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the bonding should be included in that.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were any other conditions recommended.
Mr. Rieley suggested that we discuss the directives.
Mr. Cilimberg said it would be best to make the directives part of the motion.
Mr. Rooker recalled two things, the propagation analysis which shows the impact on signal of height
reduction of the tower and antenna in increments of 5 feet down to the tree tops, and the possibility of
lowering the tower and increasing the height of the whip antenna.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 15
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
Mr. Rieley said that the other was if we could make the microwaves nest into the tree canopy while
maintaining the dish path.
Mr. Rooker requested additional information on the potential for reducing the diameter of the tower.
Mr. Rieley stated that that issue dovetails with the height of the tower.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval with conditions as follows:
Findings by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation shall be submitted to the County before this special use permit is exercised. Should
the facility be determined to have adverse effects on historic properties, based on findings of the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR) cell pole review, the Emergency
Communications Center shall seek methods of mitigating those effects, subject to the approval of
the Director of Planning and Community Development. When making this determination the
Planning Director may consult with the DHR for further assistance in achieving acceptable means
of mitigation.
2. Antennas, dishes and all equipment installed at this facility shall be limited to those that are
necessary for establishing the public service radio system. This facility shall not be used for the
provision of personal wireless communications services.
3. The top of the pole shall never exceed 110 feet above the ground level, or 1,804 feet tall as
measured Above Sea Level (ASL).
4. Only the two proposed whip antennas and required grounding rods shall be allowed to extend
above the top of the pole. In no cases shall those attachments extend more than fifteen (15) feet
above the top of the pole.
5. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The pole, antennas, microwave dishes and all other equipment attached to it shall be
painted a non -reflective, dull brown color that reduces its contrast with the sky;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
C. All ground equipment, utility building, concrete pads, and pole shall be dark brown in
color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan Peter's
Mountain Site Plan and Elevation
d. The mounting structure shall be a monopole of the minimum diameter necessary to
perform it's function and no greater than 36" at the base and 18" at the top.
No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided herein:
a. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only.
b. 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.
c. 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.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation
of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist,
specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be
removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be
submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction
or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
16
�t
•
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 pole and equipment
pad. 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.
The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and
Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility,
the Director of Planning with assistance from Planning staff shall review the revised plans to
ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final
revisions of the construction plans.
The applicant shall make all reasonable efforts to obtain approval from AT&T to implement
strategies to reduce the visibility of the current AT&T site on Peter's Mountain.
10. A tree -planting plan of native species, which could include white pine, short leaf southern pine
and others, shall be developed within the 200-foot buffer. The planting plan shall be subject to
the review of the ACE Coordinator.
11. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use for wireless telecommunications 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.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6-1 with Mr. Loewenstein voting no.
Public Hearing Items
SP-2001-049 Thomas Harris (Sign #79) - Request for special use permit to allow a public garage/auto
repair shop in accordance with Section 10.2.2.37 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for a public
garage. The property, described as Tax Map 08 Parcel 35A, contains one-half acre, and is located in the
White Hall Magisterial District at 6929 Markwood Road % mile north of Davis Shop Road. The property is
zoned RA Rural Areas District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Joan
McDowell)
Ms. Hopper left the meeting.
Ms. McDowell presented the staff report.
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant was able to use the garage at this time.
Ms. McDowell replied that he is using the garage, but he is not using it legally. He has never had a
certificate of occupancy and he also needs zoning approval.
Mr. Rooker stated that he is currently operating in violation.
Mr. Kamptner stated that by Mr. Harris filing an appeal of the notice of violation, that stays our ability to
enforce the zoning violation. The BZA's final decision will be adopted on January 9th. The BZA agreed to
put that case on hold while Mr. Harris pursued a special use permit.
Mr. Rieley asked what the BZA's December 4th decision.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 17
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
Mr. Kamptner replied that they voted to uphold it, but that they will not adopt the decision until January
9th.
Mr. Rooker asked if that was a new decision.
Mr. Kamptner replied that they will adopt written findings in January.
Mr. Rooker asked if the BZA had heard a case having to do with the property twice or only once.
Mr. Kamptner replied that this was the second appeal and the second time that the BZA has upheld it.
Mr. Rooker asked why the BZA had to reconsider it.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the first decision is still pending in court.
Mr. Rooker verified that they have an appeal sitting in court with respect to the first BZA decision.
Mr. Finley verified that the applicant could keep working until January 9tn
Mr. Kamptner said that the stay will lift when the BZA issue its written decision, on or about January 9tn
Mr. Loewenstein asked how easy will it be for the conditions to be enforced given the past history of the
property and the number and complexity of them. In connection with that, are we to understand that the
applicant was not really interested in pursuing this at a lower scale? He asked if that should even be
considered. He asked where that condition came from.
Mr. Rooker said that it is the staff's recommendation.
Mr. Loewenstein said that the difference is so significant, it seems hard to understand why we would
approve something at that level that the applicant may have no intent of pursuing. He asked again how
easy it would be to enforce the conditions.
Ms. McCulley replied that on one hand, we run that risk with any application. She said that she really
don't know how to answer that.
Mr. Finley asked questioned the five -car limitation.
Ms. McCulley replied that the limitation to the number of vehicles waiting repair is standard. She said that
there are 3 bays, which could store cars at night.
Mr. Craddock asked how many of those 20-25 cars were actually being worked on.
Ms. McCulley said that he does own a large number of vehicles. The vehicles seem to be in different
states of repair. Some are having some major restoration work, others, it's hard to tell.
Mr. Rieley asked if all zoning and building violation had been eliminated.
Ms. McDowell replied that she had not been out there since December 61n. According to the applicant's
attorney, he has done some more cleanup since that time.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
18
Mr. Mike Hallahan, representing the applicant, said that he has been operating repair service since the
144. late 1980's. He said that the problem started in 1994 when he applied for a permit with the County. He
spent over $20,000 out of pocket making the required corrections, after which the County denied the
permit. Ms. McDowell has said that there were 18 conditions, there are two that the applicant does not
agree with. He does not agree with #11 which requires a limit of 5 vehicles. He has made significant
cleanup efforts since December 6th. The only things left on the property are some bricks by the creek
which are for structural improvement. Limiting the applicant to 5 vehicles will severely curtail his business
One of the conditions requires a shielded fence around the property. He requests that 12 cars be
permitted. He feels that is reasonable, particularly with the fence.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that Mr. Hallahan said that the existing zoning violations had been corrected. Staff
does not recommend approval until all the violations have been eliminated. He asked him to consider
taking a deferral on this until such time as these issues are eliminated with staff. He suggested having the
property inspected and then returning to the commission.
Mr. Hallahan asked what timetable he suggested.
Mr. Rooker replied the timetable that would be necessary to complete the correction of the violations.
Ms. McDowell added that the approval of the special use permit would create violations.
Mr. Rooker asked if he can cure the existing violations.
Ms. McDowell replied that he could remove the outside storage and scale down the number of vehicles,
but the approval of the special use permit would create violations.
Mr. Rooker stated that staff does not recommend approval until all zoning and building violations are
eliminated. The question is if those violations could be eliminated.
Ms. McDowell replied that he might have already done that. She said that the bigger issue is with all of
these conditions of approval. The may or may not be able to comply with the scaled down operation.
Mr. Loewenstein said that he is assuming that in order to verify that the violations have been abated, the
zoning department would have to take care of it.
Mr. Rooker replied that is correct. He said he would not feel comfortable approving this application until
the violations are cleared.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that there is still the question of whether or not a lesser operation is going to
be satisfactory to the applicant.
Mr. Thomas ascertained that three vehicles would fit inside the building. He pointed out that is 9 cars
right there, 5 outside, 3 inside and 1 on the lift.
Mr. Rooker suggested the applicant consider taking a deferral to abate the violations. He asked how long
the applicant would have to wait to come back if the application was denied.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he would have to wait one year. What you are really dealing with is having a
clean project and then dealing with the particulars. He pointed out that the applicant has said he is
agreeable to all but two of the conditions. He noted that everything the applicant is doing there is in
violation. The applicant and staff would like to know if 12 vehicles are acceptable to the planning
commission.
Mr. Loewenstein replied that each decision has to stand on it's own merit. It is clear that the violations
need to be abated, but we cannot guarantee a decision on the conditions at this time.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
19
cd(? oil
Mr. Finley asked where the number 5 come from.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was typical of rural area garages.
Mr. Kamptner stated that in looking at other application, five was the maximum number of vehicles
allowed to be stored outside.
Mr. Rooker again suggested that the applicant consider a deferral.
Ms. McCulley said that the building violation cannot be cured until the use decision is made. The zoning
violations all relate to the use and none of it is allowed. She does not know how far to take this.
Mr. Rooker asked what staff was referring to on page 5. If they are all addressed by this application, we
should not take a deferral.
Mr. Kamptner asked what the violations were.
Ms. McDowell pointed them out.
Mr. Rooker said that if the violations are completely intertwined with the requested use, we should go
ahead and hear it.
Mr., Cilimberg stated that that was the way it was understood. This permit will remedy some of the
violations and not others. He said that perhaps Ms. McCulley could address what would still need to be
remedied.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that Ms. McCulley suggested that the violations are so intertwined, they cannot be
separated.
Mr. Hallahan stated that the property had never been used as a junkyard. He suggested that perhaps it
would be best to take a deferral for another inspection.
Mr. Rooker replied that it would be fine to take a deferral.
Mr. Cilimberg asked which other condition the applicant disagreed with.
Mr. Hallahan replied that was conditions #6, which would include fixing a hail dent or repairing a broken
light.
Mr. Rooker stated that we need to save this discussion until this application came back.
Mr. Hallahan requested deferral to January 15tn
Mr. Craddock asked what happened to the BZA issue in the interim.
Mr. Kamptner replied that they would make their decision on January 9tn
Mr. Finley said he hopes we are not putting this man out of business.
Mr. Rooker said he was going to continue to operate. He does not lose anything by maintaining the status
quo for four weeks.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001 20
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
.543
Mr. Cilimberg said that he could detail those conditions he's concerned about so that they can be
addressed when he returns.
Mr. Rooker said it would be appropriate for the public to have an opportunity to comment at that time
Mr. Dolman Morris is concerned about a letter he received from VDOT. He said that there is a blind spot
in the road going South toward Rt. 810. He stated that the applicant has three bays, but one of them is a
paint shop.
Mrs. Sylvie Morris said that she could stand on her deck and hear the noise late at night from his shop.
She is also concerned about the blind spot in the road. She expressed her concern about the paint shop
and the air quality in the neighborhood.
Mr. Finley asked how long she had lived there.
Mrs. Morris replied 22 years. She said that his father's garage is where his brother lives now.
Mr. Michael Wood has been a resident for 46 years. He said that he opposed the operation of a public
garage in this area. Businesses such as this end up being eyesores. The noise and traffic become a
problem 24 hours a day/7 days a week. Normally there are junk cars and car parts scattered about. This
area is not zoned for business like this. We will be opening the doors for all other people to follow suit.
Our rural character is fading fast.
Mr. David Holzapple said that within the last two months his wife has nearly had two accidents on that
road in the blind spot. He said that the commission needs to take into consideration the safety of others.
There being no further comment, the hearing was closed.
Mr. Loewenstein moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral.
Mr. Rieley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Old Business
Mr. Cilimberg said that Mr. Benish had provided copies of the Hollymead center plan. He will follow up
with color copies of the plans.
New Business
Mr. Loewenstein thanked Mr. Rooker for his service to the County and wished him the best in his new
role with the Board of Supervisors.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00
Recorded and transcribed by Lynda Myers, Recording SE
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 18, 2001
Draft Minutes — Resubmitted 2-5-
21
,5q0