HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 06 1993 PC Minutes4-6-93
1
APRIL 6, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 6, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson,
Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr.
Tom Blue; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present
were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development;
and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Also present: Ms.
ralen Andersen, Cbnndssioner.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March
16, 1993 were approved as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
Administrative Approval for 456 Reviews - The Commission was
being asked to find that all water and sewer line
extensions, enlargements and reconstruction meeting certain
criteria are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
grant administrative approval to the Department of Planning
and Community Development for review for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan (15.1-456 Review) of such projects within
the county's growth areas.
The Commission discussed this item at length.
Mr. Johnson suggested that the wording "is located within a
designated growth area" be amended to read "is located
within, or to serve, a designated growth area." Staff
agreed that would be appropriate.
Mr. Johnson stated he supported the request, not because it
would reduce the Commission's workload, but because of the
potential impact on reduction of developer costs.
Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about granting administrative
approval. She recalled a time when there had been "an
upheaval in County government over access to water
connections" which had resulted in a Grand Jury
investigation and personnel changes. Though she expressed
confidence in the present staff, she cautioned that staff
can change. She noted that access to water and sewer
services is a tool for controlling growth. She felt the
purpose of the Planning Commission is to "provide an extra
level of citizen scrutiny over projects." She concluded:
"Since it has been working well in the past, I don't see any
reason we should want to change it."
4-6-93 2
Mr. Blue questioned whether the Commission had any authority
to deny these requests in the growth areas.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Board of Supervisors grants
jurisdictional area to all areas to be served by public
water and sewer. He explained: "Those are already defined
and the only place water and sewer can be extended, by
County law, is within those jurisdictional areas, and they
conform, generally, to our growth areas. So a proposal to
extend water or sewer service, or enlarge a line or
whatever, is going to be in accordance with that approval
and it was just, we thought, a somewhat unnecessary layer of
approval that the Planning Commission would need to review
for compliance. The compliance is pretty much already there
unless a developer may be proposing a particular routing
that may be environmentally sensitive or have some effect on
another aspect of the Comprehensive Plan, and in those cases
we would bring that to you...."
Mr. Blue was sympathetic to Ms. Huckle's position, but he
asked: "Why do we have to spend time doing something if we
really aren't going to have any effect on it? It seems to
me these things are going to be technical in nature and even
if we hear them, what are we going to do?"
Regarding the placement of these lines, Ms. Huckle felt that
the "more people know about what is going on in their
district, the better government we are going to have."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Service Authority decides
where lines will be placed based on engineering issues. Mr.
Bowling added: "The Service Authority cannot go outside its
jurisdictional area unless the Board of Supervisors approves
it."
Referring to the line to serve Glenmore, Mr. Blue wondered
if the line can go outside the jurisdictional area in order
to reach another point. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that the
Commission had reviewed that line in terms of the "service
it was providing and making sure it met what the Plan called
for in that service." The Commission had not considered the
specific location of the line. He noted that the whole area
between the urban area and Glenmore is outside the
jurisdictional area, "so the routing is for engineering
reasons, it's not for service to particular parcels until
you get to Glenmore and the Rivanna Growth Area."
Mr. Blue noted that Ms. Huckle's point could be well taken
"if you assume that the people that were doing the routing
were not choosing the best technical route, that they were
doing it for political reasons ... but I'm not sure you'd even
catch that."
.9G 9
4-6-93
3
Ms. Huckle noted: "If somebody knows that somebody is
keeping an eye on this, looking over their shoulder, they're
going to do better than they might if they thought they were
without any kind of scrutiny."
Mr. Blue suggested that language could be added which would
allow any member of the Commission to "call up" a request
before the Commission if he/she chose to do so. Staff
indicated that could be done.
Ms. Andersen felt the idea of "checks and balances" was a
good one. She noted that history has already proven the
opportunity for "mischief" exists." She concluded: "The
idea that as many people as possible can have input and keep
things in line sounds like a good one to me."
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question as to who decides on
the size of a line, Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff
relies on the Service Authority to confirm that the ultimate
growth potential of an area is being met based on an
engineering analysis of the growth area. [He noted that
Glenmore was an exception because the Comprehensive Plan had
specified the size of the line.]
Mr. Nitchmann noted that with administrative approval there
would be no way to make landowners who will be effected by
the placement of the line aware of projects. Mr,. Cilimberg
explained that even now there is no notification required
for 456 reviews. The public would be aware only through
having heard about the plans. Mr. Nitchmann felt that
Commission review would result in more public awareness
since meeting agendas are published in the newspaper. His
primary concern was with getting the proper amount of public
input. He agreed with Ms. Huckle's position.
Mr. Blue agreed that
noted that political
lines which later on
taxpayers.
Mr. Nitchmann had a good point. He
decisions sometimes dictate the size of
are determined to be expensive to
Mr. Johnson agreed with all the comments which had been made
by the Commission, but he questioned how much effect the
Commission would have on these projects. He wondered if
there might be a way to advertise the projects, even with
administrative approval. He noted that "delays cost money."
Ms. Huckle again stated she felt public scrutiny and public
input are very important. Regarding the issue of cost, she
wondered how much the "upheaval" she had mentioned earlier
had cost the County.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff now has administrative
approval of most subdivision submittals. He asked how the
4-6-93
4
Commission would want staff to handle such submittals in
those cases where a 456 review is involved.
Mr. Nitchmann felt it was desirable to have as much public
input as possible and that it was the Commission's
responsibility to review these projects.
Mr. Keeler asked if the Commission would want to review
those instances where the lines are to serve existing
development.
Mr. Nitchmann stated his concern was about new lines. He
indicated he felt it was important to ensure that new lines
are sized so that they can accommodate future growth.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that a third criteria could be added
which would grant administrative approval for "other than
trunk lines and sewer inteceptors." He stated these are the
lines which 'open up growth areas."
Ms. Huckle was in favor of no change in the process. She
noted that the Commission is not overburdened and wondered
about the "impetus" for the proposed change in procedure.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that until recently the Commission
had reviewed all subdivisions, including those which may
have involved the extension of utilities. In approving
those subdivisions the Commission understood that extension
of utilities would be required and those extensions were
found to be in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan simply
by the approval of the subdivision. With the recent change
granting staff administrative approval of subdivisions,
staff will have to bring the utility element of subdivisons
to the Commission for review when there is a line extension
involved.
Mr. Grimm felt Mr. Cilimberg's suggestion that staff be
granted approval of all except main trunk lines was a good
one. He noted that "other items which happen within the
jurisdictional area are really technical topics that "we are
really not qualified to be dealing with from a decision
point of view."
Ms. Huckle questioned the need for a Planning Commission if
it was not going to serve as a "watchdog for the public."
Mr. Nitchmann indicated he had no concerns about the
extension of lines to serve existing development.
Mr. Blue stated he could agree with the modification which
would call for Commission review of trunk lines only.
Mr. Grimm expressed no concerns about administrative
approval for lines that are within the growth areas.
'5Ia
4-6-93 5
However, he felt it was very important to get as much public
input as possible on the extension of large lines to new
growth areas.
Ms. Andersen stated she felt very strongly about keeping
"close tabs on this kind of thing." She did not want to
leave the door open to something which might not happen if
public scrutiny were available.
Mr. Blue described a situation where a non-profit public
utility project, which was for the good of all the public,
was delayed for several years because of too much publicity.
Mr. Johnson challenged anyone to describe a situation
whereby a line is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and "we have any authority or any expertise to make any
comment."
Ms. Huckle felt it was simply a question of information.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the present approval process for water
and sewer line extensions was in conflict with the recently
granted administrative approval process for site plans and
subdivisions.
Mr. Keeler responded: "I think it could be questioned." He
could recall no instances in the review of an individual
site plan or subdivision (within a designated growth area)
where there had been any dispute about "where utilities were
coming from." Mr. Keeler continued: "If you subscribe to
the notion that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that
public utilities be provided in the growth areas and that
the jurisdictional map is set up that way, the least public
utility that would be involved would be the Albemarle County
Service Authority Water Distribution and Sewage Collection
System, because you have to have those, that's the bottom
line. I think there can be a big argument as to where main
lines and transmission lines that are owned by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority are located within growth areas or
go from one growth area to another. But in regards to site
plans and subdivisions, we're just talking about
distribution and collection systems of the Service Authority
which is the bottom line of the network."
Mr. Jenkins asked how the proposal could be modified so as
to address the trunk lines. Mr. Keeler noted that the
language in the Zoning Ordinance divides "these two." He
stated the one that staff needed for the approval of site
plans and subdivisions would be "water distribution and
sewage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority." He explained that the heavy-duty lines
(interceptors and trunk lines) would fall under the
provision of "public water and sewer transmission main or
4-6-93 6
trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations, and the
like, owned and operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority."
Mr. Jenkins wondered if that could be incorporated in this
proposal. Mr. Keeler responded: "If you want to separate
the two, I think that anything the Service Authority does
ought to be considered consistent with the Plan because they
can only operate in those areas where the Board of
Supervisors allows them. You have expressed concern about a
major line going into an area that might be too big or too
small, depending on your viewpoint, and those are the ones
that I understood from your conversation, to be the ones
that you want to look at, and those are owned by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority."
Mr. Blue disagreed with Mr. Keeler's statement. He stated
that "it doesn't happen like that all the time." He pointed
out that the line which serves Glenmore is a Service
Authority line.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that staff do some further checking
with the Service Authority and with the Rivanna WSA, make
the changes suggested by the Commission, and then bring the
item back for action at a later date.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that the Consent Agenda item
related to administrative approval of 456 reviews be
deferred for two weeks. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion
which passed unanimously.
Mr. Blue asked staff to check to see who actually owns some
of the lines which serve the outlying areas.
Ms. Andersen asked if staff could also identify privately
run systems.
ZTA-93-02 Radio Towers - The Board of Supervisors has
adopted a resolution of intent to delete wording in the
following zoning ordinance sections which will result in
requirement of a special use permit for all tower
structures: 10.2.1.6; 12.2.1.6; 13.2.1.6; 14.2.1.6;
15.2.1.8; 16.2.1.11; 17.2.1.11; 18.2.1.11; 19.3.1.6;
20.3.1.6; 25.2.1.2; 5A.2.1.2; 22.2.1B.17; 23.2.1.7;
21.2.1.35; 27.2.1.11; 28.2.1.20; and 30.3.5.1.1.5.
The ZTA was the result of a Resolution of Intent adopted by
the Board of Supervisors on March 3, 1993 "to amend all
applicable sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to require a special use permit for all towers, whether
multi -legged or monopole."
4-6-93 7
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He pointed out that
the proposed amendment "excluded multi -legged tower
structures from that category of use." He could not recall
definitively why that had been done, but he did recall that
a local electric company was "trying to get a certain
voltage exempt from consideration as a transmission voltage,
but it was clearly a transmission line, it was not a
distribution line." He felt that could be the reason "why
that language is in there."
Mr. Keeler explained the situation as follows: "What's
occurred now is the following: There are 2 cellular
telephone companies operating in Albemarle County. One is
categorized by the State Corporation commission as a public
utility. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the
individual cells are actually a distribution system as
opposed to a broadcast or transmission -type system. So what
you have is one of the two phone companies can locate
monopole towers as a matter of right. If they go locate
multi -legged towers they have to obtain a special use permit
and in any case, where the other phone company comes in,
there is a special use permit requirement. So our
provisions are simply out of date. The Board had chosen to
pursue an amendment that would, by striking the word
'multi -legged', it would simply exclude tower structures
from the by -right category and, therefore, in all cases, a
special use permit would be required. The question came up,
during the Board hearing, and Ms. Patterson said that this
would not effect ham radio operators because a ham radio is
considered to be an accessory use to a single-family
dwelling, nor would it effect any of these new mass
structures that are going up for cable TV at a dwelling.
The purpose here is to treat all towers by special use
permit."
Mr. Johnson asked if the main concern was the size and
orientation of towers. Mr. Bowling responded: "The main
problem was that you've had one type of tower that didn't
require a special use permit and one that did." Mr. Keeler
agreed that the primary reason towers are addressed in the
Ordinance is related to size and orientation. Mr. Johnson
suggested that as staff considers the issue further they
should visit the University's Engineering Department
He felt getting into physics in the
definition might clarify and "be more amenable than to where
you are just talking structure rather than definition of
use.,,
Ms. Huckle felt this seemed like a straight -forward request
and would be fairer since all would be playing by the same
rules until a more elaborate study can be done.
a,13
4-6-93 8
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Sherry Lewis, an attorney representing Centel Cellular,
addressed the Commission. She felt a lot of issues need to
be addressed as staff deals with what will probably
ultimately be a complete overhaul in the regulations. She
noted that it had been her impression (having attended the
Board of Supervisors hearing), that the Board had not
articulated "any certain rationale at this time for
requiring a special use permit for all towers in rural
areas." (This was her main concern.) She felt that had been
an "easy way out" at the end of a meeting. She felt the
discussion had not "come naturally to that conclusion." She
agreed that the Board had wanted to assure equal treatment
to each of the two cellular companies. She questioned
whether adopting a "blanket special use permit" for all
towers was really what was needed at this time. She noted
that staff had originally proposed that towers less than 100
feet would be by -right. She felt this would be less
burdensome for staff and it had been her impression that the
Board had been leaning towards this proposal right up to the
very end of the discussion. She agreed that the 100-feet
was probably an arbitrary figure, but felt that, in reality,
it was the larger towers which should be of concern. She
stressed it was not her intent to question the integrity
of the Resolution which was passed, but she did feel it was
passed hastily and felt the issue needed more comprehensive
consideration. She concluded that it was her feeling that
if a special permit was needed for all towers, then there
was a deficiency in the ordinance.
Mr. Johnson suggested that Centel Cellular offer to staff
its expertise on the subject of towers, including offering
its own suggestions as to how the issue should be handled.
Mr. Gary Grant, a propery owner on Rt. 662 near EArlysville,
expressed his support for the Zoning Text Amendment. He
felt the Supervisors had wanted to "nip it in the bud" so
that it can be looked at more comprehensively.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle noted that one Supervisor had felt there was no
difference in multi -legged and monopole towers. She
expressed support for the proposed amendment until more
definitive criteria can be established.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that staff will be adding this issue
to its work program. He welcomed input from those companies
involved and admitted that staff was "out of its league" in
terms of the technical aspects of towers.
13e4
4-6-93
9
NOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ns. Huckle, that
ZTA-93-02 to require special use permits for all tower
structures, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:25 p.m.
v g&E
V. Wayn Cilimberg cretary
DB