HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 02 1991 PC MinutesApril 2, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 2, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs
Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. George
St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Johnson
and Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March
19, 1991 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Benish and Mr. Fritz briefly previewed items to be
included on the April 9th Consent Agenda: Jefferson Village
Sewer Line - Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan and River Heights Retail Center Site Plan.
No action was required.
Agricultural/Forestal District Review: Columbia Gas
Pipeline Easement in Blue Run Agricultural /Forestal
District - The proposed pipeline will traverse 5,344 feet of
Foxport Farm within Blue Run Agricultural District (Blue Run
contains 4,135 acres; review date 6-17-84). Review of this
proposed action is to determine the effect such action would
have upon: (1) the preservation and enhancement of
agriculture and forestry and agricultural and forestal
resources within the district; and, (2) the policy of
Virginia Code Chapter 36, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts Act. Also, review of the proposed action is to
determine the necessity of the proposed action to provide
service to the public in the most economical and practicable
manner. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-1512D.) Deferred from.
the March 26, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. The report explained
that the Commission was being asked to make a recommendation
to the Board on the perceived effect of this proposal upon:
"(1) the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and
forestry and agricultural and forestal resources within the
district; and (2) the policy of Virginia Code Chapter
36...and also on the necessity of the proposed action to
provide service to the public in the most economical and
practicable manner." The staff report concluded: "Staff
has noted that the proposed activity will have a short term
effect on agricultural uses within a district. Conditions
of approval for a special use permit can mitigate these
effects. Long term effects on the District are primarily
April 2, 1991 Page 2
aesthetic, although minimal when considering activities will
occur in the currently existing corridor. With these
considerations, staff opinion is that the proposed activity
does not adversely effect the viability and character of the
district as a whole. Staff has no comment regarding
necessity of the proposed action."
The staff report also stated that the Ag/Forestal Advisory
Committee "noted the understanding that Ag/Forestal
Districts are a mutual undertaking between the landowner and
the County. The Advisory Committee has stated that finding
this gas pipeline to not have a detrimental effect on the
District would violate a perceived mutual agreement between
the landowner and the County protecting the
agricultural/forestal interests of each." The staff report
offered no comment on this perception. However, Mr. Benish
distributed a letter from the County Attorney, Mr. St. John,
addressing this particular issue. Mr. St. John's letter is
made a part of this record as Attachment A.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steven Blain. (He also
introduced several representatives of Columbia Gas.) He
explained the techniques to be used in the construction of
the pipeline. Other comments included the following:
--Columbia Gas is heavily regulated by the federal
government.
--Columbia has received the federal approvals.to build
the project which means that Columbia has demonstrated that
there is an adequate need for the project to justify its
construction.
--The proposed pipeline will supply gas to Virginia
Power's Chesterfield Electricity Generating Unit. It is
cheaper to run the Chesterfield plant with natural gas than
with oil (a savings of $120,000/day which is passed on to
the public).
--No other gas transmission company, with service in
this market, can supply such a need.
--A benefit to the public will be reduced fuel costs.
--Approvals were expedited and are ahead of schedule
because the replacement of oil with an alternative fuel is
consistent with the Administration's energy policy to seek
to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
--Columbia submitted, with its FERC application, a
detailed, site specific, environmental impact study. The
routing was selected based on the environmental impact
study.
--The proposed pipeline follows the existing
right-of-way path which is consistent with the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
--Two alternative routes were examined in an effort to
avoid the ag/forestal district completely. A route to the
south would have required at least eight miles of additional
right-of-way clearing; a northern route would have required
.V.
April 2, 1991 Page 3
an entirely new 65-foot right-of-way corridor, would have
effected three additional agricultural landowners, would add
two additional stream crossings, and would disturb 15
additional acres.
--The proposed routing will require clearing only an
additional 10-foot right-of-way in the ag/forestal district.
--Columbia will maximize the use of the existing 70
foot right-of-way where pipeline is already installed.
(Mr. Blain presented a series of slides which depicted the
construction of the pipeline and the stabilization of the
right-of-way after construction.)
--Normal agricultural use of the right-of-way (on Dr.
Young's property) may resume after construction activities
are complete.
--Columbia has agreed not to begin construction until
after Dr. Young's calving season is complete (June 1st).
--The proposed route is preferred over the alternatives
because it has less impact on agriculture and forestry in
general.
--The legislative history for the Agricultural/Forestal
Districts Act supports a distinction between an underground
pipeline and the type of project the act was intended to
discourage.
Mr. Blain concluded: "We agree with the logic of the staff
report, that you have two specific findings to make --a
recommendation to the Board in terms of the issuance of a
special permit and the findings as to the effects that the
project will have on the agricultural district. ... We
respectfully request that you make a finding that because of
the nature of the project as an underground pipeline and the
manner in which the pipeline will be constructed, it will
have a negligable effect on agriculture and forestal
resources and on agricultural and forestal resources in the
district. For similar reasons, we ask you to find that the
project will have no adverse effects on the policies of the
Agricultural Districts Act and, finally, considering the
alternatives, the project serves the public in the most
economical and practical manner. It furthers our nation's
energy policy to reduce dependence on foreign oil and it
assists Virginia Power in reducing energy costs which
translate directly to benefit to the consumers."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about service to "other
markets," Mr. Blain stated he was not aware of other markets
which will be served by this loop, though the existing two
pipelines will service other markets besides the
Chesterfield plant in the eastern part of the state. Mr.
Bob Collick (Columbia Gas) stated that term referred to
"anything that might develop in the future which might
require gas to be transported through this system."
April 2, 1991
Page 4
Regarding the pollution level of
not familiar with these figures,
oil does contain sulfur dioxide
natural gas.
No. 2 oil, Mr. Blain was
but he stated that No. 2
at greater levels than
Mr. Blain stated there are no other pipeline routes which
could provide this capacity.
Mr. David Roop (Virginia Power) explained how rates are
determined and attempts that have been made to keep rates
down in the past.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission
and expressed opposition or concern about the proposal:
--Ms. Eleanor Santick (Citizens for Albemarle) read a
statement of opposition. See Attachment B.
--Ms. Sally Thomas (League of Women Voters). See
Attachment C. She urged the Commission to act on this part
of the proposal, but to defer action on the special permit
until after the Board has acted on this part of the request.
--Ms. Sherry Buttrick (Piedmont Environmental Council).
She stressed the significance of the County's action on this
request for three reasons: (1) 60,000 acres in the County
are in the agricultural/forestal district; (2) This is the
first case under this section of the Code and therefore
could be precedent setting; and (3) Effect on the future
perception of the agricultural/forestal program and its
success as a land preservation tool. She asked that the
Commission specifically delineate its finding according to
the provisions outlined in the Code.
Dr. Hal Young, the property owner most effected by the
pipeline, addressed the Commission. He stated that Columbia
Gas had assured him, in writing, that they will address all
his concerns as he has requested. His primary concern was
that construction not be commenced "before June 15th...and
not be started after September 1st." His ideal dates for
construction were June 15th through September 1st. Dr.
Young confirmed that Columbia has offered to reduce the
right-of-way through his farm (from 90 feet to 80 feet) and
it will be even less in the barn area.
Mr. Steve Murray, Chairman of the Agricultural/Forestal
Advisory Committee addressed the Commission. He stated the
Committee's argument was with the intent of the law. He
quoted from Chapter 36 of the Code of Virginia which states
that the ag/forestal district is "to protect and enhance
agricultural and forestal land as a viable segment of the
Commonwealth's economy...." The Committee does not consider
this proposal to either "protect or enhance" Dr. Young's
property. The Committee also felt that Dr. Young had a
April 21 1991 Page 5
"mutual contract with the County of Albemarle and his
neighbors for a significant time period.1° The Committee had
also been concerned about the disruption of Dr. Young's
operation. The Committee also felt changes in an
ag/forestal district should be made at the time the district
comes up for review and "not in the middle of the time
period for which the district was established."
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. St. John to comment on his letter
regarding the concept of an implied contract between the
County and the landowners in the ag/forestal district
(Attachment A).
Regarding the implication of a contractual relationship, Mr.
St. John stated: "I believe that is directly contrary to
the law. There couldn't possibly be a contractual
arrangement here. ... In the meetings that I attended --and
I attended Planning Commission meetings and all of the Board
of Supervisors' meetings --nothing was mentioned of this
idea. Once you adopt that idea, that would mean that the
governing body --you are advisory to the governing body and
so is the Committee --the governing body has to make this
decision under the Code and there are two things that you
have to decide. You first have to determine, in the words
of the Code, what the effect of this action is upon the
preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry
within the District --whether it's detrimental to the policy
of this chapter; and second, to determine the necessity of
the proposed action to provide service to the public in the
most economical and practicable manner. This is a
governmental decision you have to make and the statute gives
you the criteria for that decision and if that decision is
foreclosed by a contract, that would mean the governing body
has contracted away its legislative power and that is
contrary to the Constitution of Virginia and to the enabling
act. You have to be free to apply these criteria to this
decision. You cannot say that some time ago you contracted
away your freedom or power to make this legislative
decision. ...." Mr. St. John further explained that the
landowner does get benefits for placing his land in an
ag/forestal district--e.g. landuse taxation, immunity from
nuisance suites, immunity from any kind of county zoning
regulation which restricted normal farming operation. He
concluded: "I don't think that this going to set a
precedent in the sense that I get the feeling we're talking
about. Every case you decide is a precedent to any case
that follows with exactly the same facts. But that doesn't
mean that you can take the position here that no matter what
these facts are, we got to deny this because approving it
would be a precedent. That is the essence of being
April 2, 1991
Page 6
arbitrary and capricious. If.you don't apply the criteria
but just say that because this is the first case, 'we're
going to deny it because to do otherwise would be a
precedent . "'
Mr. St. John advised the Commission that their action needed
to be carefully spelled out.
Mr. Benish reminded the Commission that its action should
state its finding in terms of (1) impact to agriculture and
forestal activities and the District; (2) policy of Chapter
36 of the Code of Virginia; and (3) the necessity of the
proposed action to provide a public service in the most
economical and practicable manner (Va. Code Section
15.1-1512D). Mr. Benish again summarized the findings of
the staff report.
Mr. Rittenhouse also summarzied the findings of the staff
report. He concluded that he viewed this application
somewhat differently than others because this existing
utility corridor pre -dates the establishment of the
ag-forestal district. He felt this was "an important aspect
of the uniqueness of the application."
Mr. Grimm also noted that the Marine Resources Commission
has approved the construction techniques, the Corps of
Engineers has given approval and FERC has determined there
to be a need for the project. He also noted there was a
well -documented case for the protection of the environment
and a need for the product.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was willing to support the
application. He stated he agreed with staff's assessment of
the proposal. He felt a positive action on the proposal
would not "compromise the intent of the ag/forestal
concept." He stated: "I think this is a unique application
and it doesn't pre --suppose that we would look favorably upon
the establishment of any use... in any agricultural -forestal
district. In my mind, the important difference is that this
is a pre-existing utility corridor and we're contemplating
utilization of the corridor that's already in place. We're
not talking about intrusion of a new and different use into
the district."
Referring to the terms "protect and enhance" and
"unreasonable adverse effect" which appear in the
Ag/Forestal Act, Mr. Grimm noted that this would be a
temporary disruption and there eventually be a "healing and
re -vegetation" of the area that will be disturbed. He also
noted that only 1/2 acre of woods would be permanently
removed. He did not think that constituted an "unreasonable
adverse effect" on the District.
April 2, 1991 Page 7
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Columbia Gas Pipeline Easement in
the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District be found: (1)
To be in compliance with the policy of Chapter 36 of the
code of Virginia; (2) Not to have an adverse effect on the
agricultural and forestral activities in the District; and
(3) That a need for the service has been documented, and
that it recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval. This determination is based on the following:
1. The utility corridor preceded the establishment of
the Agricultural/Forestal District;
2. The proposed project would substantially utilize
the existing corridor;
3. Due to the underground character of this use, the
impact to agriculture and forestry is primarily temporary.
The area can revert to pre-existing conditions;
4. The temporary impact of construction may be
adequately minimized through conditions attached to the
approval of a revised special permit;
5. The long-term impact of this particular use is
expected to be negligible and will not affect the viability
and character of the District;
6. Approval of construction techniques by the Marine
Resources Committee and the Corps of Engineers;
7. FERC determination of need;
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle noted that she was also in favor of the proposal
because gas is less polluting than oil.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-90-111 Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation -- The
applicant is requesting a permit to construct 6 miles of
underground natural gas pipeline on many parcels of RA,
Rural Areas zoned land. This new pipeline will be within
the existing Columbia rights -of -way; however, they must
acquire an additional 20' of permanent rights -of -way and 10,
of additional construction easement. Within the Blue Run
Agricultural/Forestal District they will acquire only an
additional 10' of permanent right-of-way. This request
requires the crossing of the floodplain of Blue Run and a
tributary of Happy Creek. The parcels involved are: Tax
Map 35, Parcel 31; Tax Map 36, Parcels 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9B1,
10, 1, 13, 14, 19, 23, 24A, 24, 26 and 27; Tax Map 50,
parcel 48, and Tax Map 51,'parcels 3, 4, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C,
21, 22B 22C, 22. All parcels are in the northeastern -most
fr
April 2, 1991 Page 8
area of Albemarle County stretching from Rt. 20 near the
Orange County line eastward to the Louisa County line near
Rt. 860. All properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
pipeline will cross Rt. 20 and Rt. 231 which are Entrance
Corridors. This is not located within a designated growth
area. (RA II). DEFERRED FROM THE MARCH 26, 1991 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report
concluded: "Staff opinion is that due to the presence of
the existing line this use will not result in a substantial
detriment to properties and will not change the character of
the district in which it is located. Therefore staff
recommends approval subject to conditions."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the dates for construction
("window of opportunity") referred to in condition No. 4
were different than what had been requested by Dr. Young.
[Note: Earlier in the meeting Dr. Young had requested that
construction take place between June 15th (not before) and
September 1st (not after), i.e. he requested that the
construction begin between June 15th and September 1st.]
Mr. Rittenhouse also asked about "compaction" after
construction, i.e. would it "leave a track?" Mr. Fritz
deferred to the applicant, but noted that he had noticed
some localized "ridges".
Mr. Steve Blain again represented the applicant. He
explained the "natural compaction" process which is followed
after the construction of the line. Regarding the use of
herbicides, he explained that is left to the discretion of
the landowner. (A representative of Columbia explained that
the "ridges" being discussed were inches high, not feet. He
also noted that Columbia has an agreement with Dr. Young not
to leave any ridges and the ground will be returned to flat
terrain.) Mr. Blain asked that Condition No. 2 be deleted.
["The 10-foot temporary easement shall be allowed to return
to its natural state or will be replanted in indigenous
trees the number and size of which are to be selected by the
individual property owner."] He explained that Columbia has
already reached agreements with property owners (though not
written agreements), and those landowners are satisfied as
to the restoration of their properties. If the condition
could not be deleted, he asked that it be re -worded to refer
to a mutual agreement between Columbia and the landowner.
He felt leaving the condition as proposed, could open up
that agreement and allow landowners to have "a tree of their
choice." Regarding herbicide use (condition No. 3) he noted
that the County Engineer does not make that choice, but
rather folinws the recommendation of the Soil
0
April 2, 1991 Page 9
Conservation Service. Mr. Blain also felt the wording of
Condition No. 4 was too restrictive in terms of construction
dates. He noted unforeseeable problems such as weather
conditions, approvals, etc. He stated that if construction
could not be completed, the area could be stabilized and
fenced for the winter months. He stated: "If vegetation
doesn't get in in the fall, we could return or compensate
him for spring re -seeding. That's how we prefer to address
that." He also noted that No. 9 (related to removal of
structures) did not mean that a fence could not be removed
temporarily. (Staff had confirmed this earlier.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
Dr. Young again addessed the Commission. Regarding the
leaving of a "ridge" he stated that Columbia had assured him
that no ridges will be left on his farm. He stated he
preferred to maintain the line himself with bushhogging and
without herbcides. He noted that Columbia contacts each
landowner on this issue. Mr. Young's greatest concern was
with the dates of construction. He again stated his ideal
dates for construction to take place were June 15th through
September 1st. He also stated that he had been assured by
Columbia's environmentalist that construction does not begin
when heading into winter. He also noted that construction
will begin on his farm so there should be no problem with
things getting "backed up" as referred to by Mr. Blain.
Ms. Buttrick asked that the Commission give strong
consideration to the landowner's requested construction
dates since that will minimize the disruption of his
agricultural operation.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle expressed disappointment that the applicant "is
already trying to get out of some of the things which he has
promised." She felt the conditions suggested by staff
should be adhered to.
The Commission's discussion centered on two main issues:
the construction dates and the request for deletion of No.
2.
Regarding the dates, Mr. Rittenhouse compared the
applicant's request for a five month period vs. Dr. Young's
request for a 2 1/2 month period to achieve 2 weeks' worth
of construction. Mr. Rittenhouse also noted that the
condition, as written, gave staff the authority to extend
the actual 2 week construction time, within the "window of
opportunity" but not to change the dates of said "window."
It was determined that Dr. Young's dates (June 15th to
September 1st) meant that construction could not begin
April 2, 1991 Page 10
before June 15th nor could it begin after September 1st,
though if it did begin on September 1st, it would last until
September 15th, thus the actual period was 3 months rather
than 2 1/2. Dr. Young confirmed this was correct. Mr.
Collick (Columbia) expressed concerns about delays in
approvals which could effect the beginning of construction.
The target date for commencement was June 15th. It was
ultimately decided that the dates in Condition No. 4 would
be changed to June 15, 1991 to September 15, 1991.
There was considerable discussion about the request for
deletion of condition No. 2. Though the applicant
repeatedly assured the Commission that agreements had
already been reached with landowners, the Commission was
reluctant to eliminate this condition because of the desire
for some assurance that the applicant be required to enter
into an agreement with the property owners regarding
right-of-way replanting. Mr. Blain felt that this condition
was "imposing upon the applicant an element to a private
agreement between a landowner and the utility company." Mr.
St. John agreed and cautioned against "taking elements of
private agreements and turning them into governmental law."
Ms. Ada Zites (Columbia environmentalist) read from the FERC
(Federal Environmental Regulatory Commission) manual which
requires that that such agreements be entered into with
landowners. After discussion of various amended wordings
for No. 2, it was finally agreed this concern was addessed
through the FERC regulation, which requires agreements with
property owners, and would therefore be covered in condition
No. 10--["Compliance with Environmental Management and
Construction Standards and practices plan as described in
FERC Docket No. CP-90-1513-000.11] It was also decided
condition No. 7 would be amended to read: "Department of
Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit, to
include restoration of 10-foot temporary easement." Mr. St.
John also noted that if Columbia did not adhere to this FERC
requirement, the landowner would have legal recourse.
Regarding the construction dates in No. 4, it was clarified
that these dates referred only to construction on Dr.
Young's property and were the result of consideration of the
perculiar aspects of his agricultural activity which is also
in an agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-111 for Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Construction shall be performed within the existing
easement, a new permanent 20-foot easement and a 10-foot
temporary easement except on Tax Map 35, parcel 31 where
construction shall be performed within the existing 70-foot
easement and a new 10-foot permanent esement;
/o
April 2, 1991
Page 11
2. If herbicides or other agents for the control of foliage
are proposed the applicant shall submit for approval a list
of proposed herbicides or other agents and the proposed
method of application to the County Engineer. In any case
where a property owner objects to the use of such method the
applicant shall employ other methods for the control of
foliage subject to property owner approval;
3. Construction on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31 shall not commence
prior to June 15, 1991 and shall be completed by September
15, 1991. Such construction period shall not be more than
15 consecutive days. The Director of Planning and Community
Development may extend the construction period due to
unforeseen delays in construction which may include but are
not limited to: inclement weather or other acts of God;
but, shall not authorize activity before or after the
aforesaid calendar date;
4. Approval by all federal, state and local officials of
stream crossing and wetland areas;
5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road
crossings;
6. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit to include restoration of 10-foot temporary easement.
7. Method of vegetative stabilization of the easement on
Tax Map 35, Parcel 31 shall be determined by the property
owner and Department of Engineering;
8. No structures shall be removed on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31
for the construction of the pipeline;
9. Compliance with Environmental Management and
Construction Standards and practices plan as described in
FERC Docket No. CP-90-1513-000.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed for 10 minutes.
Before proceeding, Ms. Buttrick asked that the record show
that her remarks "did not in any way want the record to
indicate that we felt when folks sign up for an ag/forestal
district or when we encourage folks to sign up for an
ag/forestal district, that in any way is there a contract
made which would obviate the discretionary capacity that
this (Commission) has and what we were trying to emphasize
in our statement was that this application sets a precedent
lr/
April 2, 1991 Page 12
for exactly the reason that the specific facts of this case
will be looked at very carefully. That's why we wanted so
much to emphsize that the specific facts of the case were
important for determining the findings."
Review of Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District - The
existing district is located in the vicinity of Hatton,
Warren, and Scottsville and contains 2,874 acres.
AND
Review of Totier Creek AgriculturalfForestal District - The
existing district is located in the vicinity of Keene,
Esmont, and Scottsville and contains 6,071 acres.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending approval with the suggestion that the time
limit be increased to ten years. Regarding combining the
two districts, the staff report stated: "Staff has no
problem with combining the two districts except that, at
this time, part of the Hatton district lies just over one
mile from the core. Unless additional property is added to
the district in that area, combining the districts would not
be legally permissable."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Piedmont Environmental Council, spoke
in favor of the renewal of the districts.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal
District be recommended for continuation for an additional
10 years. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed
unanimously.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Totier Creek
Agricultural/Forestal District be recommended for
continuation for an additional 10 years. Ms. Huckle
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Addition to the Free union Agricultural/Forestal _Distict -
Consists of three parcels totalling 512.670 acres located
northwest of Free Union, west of Rt. 671. The existing Free
Union district contains 1,424.610 acres.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report.
April 2, 1991 page 13
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle moved that the addition to the Free Union
Agricultural/Forestal District be recommended for approval.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-91-04 Faith Mission Home - Request for expansion of the
existing church building to include sanctuary, foyer and
restrooms on 9.203 acres zoned Rural Areas. Tax Map 3,
parcel 1S is on the west side of Route 6-1 at the Greene
County line. White Hall Magisterial District. Not in
designated growth area. (Rural Area I).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Eugene Slaybaugh. He
offered no additional comment.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about 25% slopes. She asked
how this application can be distinguished from others so
that approval of a waiver could be justified.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he had taken the position that he
would rely on the Engineering Department's comments in these
cases and in this instance Engineering has stated they can
support the request. He felt that reliance on the technical
analysis of the Engineering Department prevented an
arbitrary consideration by the Commission.
Mr. Fritz noted that Engineering had stated their concerns
dealt with issues covered by the building code, sidewalks,
and roof drains.
Mr. Keeler noted that this could be distinguished from other
cases because it is a building which existed prior to the
critical slopes provisions. He also stated there is no
other area on the property which is less than 25% slope.
(He added that the critical slopes provisions have a special
exemption (for single family dwellings) which allows
building on 25% slopes if there is no other area on the
property on which to build.)
Mr. Keeler suddenly realized that this application was
exempt from the requirement for a waiver. He quoted: "Any
structure which was lawfully in existence prior to the
effective date of this ordinance and which is non -conforming
solely on the basis of the requirements of 4.2 may be
expanded and enlarged, extended, modified and/or
reconstructed as through the structure were a conforming
structure...."
12
April 2, 1991 page 14
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-91-04 for Faith Mission Home be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Expansion shall be limited as shown on site plan dated
February 11, 1991;
2. Administrative approval of site plan;
3. Entrance shall be upgraded in accordance with the
comments of the Virginia Department of Transportation;
4. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations.
SP-90--102 Centel Cellular - Request to construct a 300'
monopole tower for mobile communications on 36.4 acres zoned
Light Industrial. Tax Map 56, parcel 94 is on the south
side of the C & O Railroad behind Acme Visible Records.
White Hall Magisterial District. Designated growth area
(Crozet).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Landess. He
stated the applicant was in agreement with the staff report.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he explained that the
10-foot antennae could be either whip or dish or both. He
explained that Centel will own the 2-acre piece of property
which will "be divided off the remaining acquisition of the
property." This tower will serve an area from Crozet to
Farmington. The service building at the base of the tower
will not be visible from the road or other properties. FAA
will require that the tower have a light. The applicant has
obtained FAA approval of the site.
It was determined the service building will be 12'x241x10'.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Jake Casey, representing Cellular One, addressed the
Commission. He answered Mr. Jenkins' earlier question and
stated that Cellular One would be making other requests.
(Note: Cellular One had been denied a permit previously.)
Ms. Andersen hoped that the Board of Supervisors, in
consideration of this application, would recall their
reasons for denying the Cellular One application.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
April 2, 1991 Page 15
Commission discussion focused on the issue of whether or not
the applicant could be "required" to allow other users
(possibly competitors) to use the tower, even if it is
required to design the tower so that this would be possible.
Mr. Rittenhouse recalled that this issue has come up before
and he felt the Commission and Board needed to address the
policy issue of "stand alone towers" designed for multiple
users. It was agreed that requiring the towers to be
physically designed to accommodate other users was
meaningless if a tower owner could not be required to allow
other users on the tower. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that no
policy issue has been developed to "effectively cluster
towers together or to cluster antennae on a given tower."
Mr. Jenkins suggested that other localities' handling of
this issue be studied. Mr. Keeler recalled that this
problem has been discussed in past years but no solutions
have been arrived at because of legal considerations
involved in trying to force a private enterprise to make its
property available to others. Mr. St. John felt the
issuance of the special permit could be conditioned upon the
requirement that other users be allowed on the tower. He
did not think private enterprise was a consideration because
this is a special use permit and a condition which
reasonably promotes the public welfare is permissible.
However, he was uncertain as to the practicalities, e.g.
establishment of a price, etc.
It was finally decided that this was an issue which needs to
be dealt with, but could not be addressed with this
particular application.
Comparing this application to the one for Cellular One, Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that this request is different because
of its location (in an industrial zone), visibility, etc.
Ms. Andersen also recalled that a comment had been made at
the Cellular One review regarding the necessity of this type
of service. Some had felt it was not an essential service.
Mr. St. John noted also that there had been no public
opposition to this request.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated the Commission's only latitude in
considering this application is defined in the Ordinance.
However, he hoped that these minutes would communicate the
Commission's concern to the Board over the policy issue. He
stressed that there would continue to be similar requests.
Mr. Grimm noted that the tower will be in an industrial zone
and there was no public opposition. He felt these were
positive aspects which had not been present with the
previous application.
April 2, 1991 Page 16
Ms. Huckle also noted that a pole tower is not as offensive
as some of the broader towers. Ms. Huckle also suggested
that this tower be restricted to whip antennae only (no
dishes). She noted that Mr. Landess had stated that the
tower could accommodate either type. (Mr. St. John pointed
out that the applicant had not said that the two types of
antennae were synonomous.)
Mr. Jenkins suggested the possibility of limiting the height
of these towers, which would result in more towers, but they
would be less visible.
Mr. Rittenhouse disagreed with the staff report regarding
this being an essential service. He felt the Commission was
obligated to consider essential services in a different way
than services which result from private enterprise and
provide a "more convenient" service for a segment of the
population. He did not feel this was an essential service.
Mr. Cilimberg stated staff's position in this regard had
been related to emergency situations.
Ms. Andersen felt "we are on the threshold of the age of the
cellular phone" and therefore it is very important that the
policy issue be addressed. She feared that in the absence
of a policy discriminatory actions were possible.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that he would support the
application, based on the ordinance and those
characteristics of the proposal identified in the staff
report. However, he strongly urged that the Board of
Supervisors proceed with the development of a policy on
stand-alone towers. He stated he was uncomfortable with the
broad scope of the issue as opposed to the narrow scope of
this particular application.
Ms. Andersen stated she would support the request, but she
was uncomfortable with the implications.
Mr. Grimm moved that SP-90-102 for Centel Cellular be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 300 feet;
2. No lighting except for that required by a federal
agency;
3. Department of Engineering approval of tower design to
ensure that in the event of structural failure that the
tower falls within the leased area;
4. Tower is to be designed to accommodate additional users;
KI
April 2, 1991 page 17
5. Staff approval of additional (future) antennae
a installation. No administrative approval shall constitute
or imply support for, or approval of, the location of
additional towers, antennae, etc., even through they may be
part of the same network or system as any antennae
administratively approved under this petition;
6. Staff approval of subdivision plat as shown on
Attachment C.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the visibility of dishes
which can be placed on the tower.
The motion for approval passed, (4:1), with Ms. Huckle
casting the dissenting vote.
SP-91-03 The Gardens Partnership - Proposal for a commercial
recreation center within the Gardens Shopping Center zoned
C1. Tax Map 45, Parcel 104 (part) is on the east side of
Route 29 approximately 2,000 feet north of Rio Road.
Charlottesville Magisterial district. Designated growth
area (N2).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ken Evans. He offered
no significant additional comment. He expressed no
opposition to the suggested conditions of approval. In
answer to Ms. Andersen's question, he stated he had
researched other similar facilities and confirmed that those
establishments offered the sale of alcoholic beverages. In
response to Mr. Ri'ttenhouse's question about the importance
of the sale of alcohol, Mr. Evans responded that it was a
very important aspect of the business and was critical to
its success. He noted that even children -oriented
facilities (e.g. Chuck--E--Cheez) serve beer and wine. He
stressed that this was not a bar.
Ms. Huckle questioned whether what was described met the ABC
requirements for the sale of wine, i.e. a sit-down dinner
atmosphere. Mr. Fritz explained that regardless of any
conditions imposed by the County regarding alcohol sales,
the applicant would still have to meet ABC requirements and
if he cannot he will not be issued an ABC license.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
/r
April 2, 1991
Page 18
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about the sale of alcohol
in a shopping center environment. He did not like this
"mix" in a commercial area. He felt this was different than
a bowling alley setting to which it had been compared.
Ms. Huckle agreed. She did not think that a "family"
establishment such as this, where small children would be
present, should offer alcoholic beverages.
Ms. Andersen agreed. She felt it was against "(her) own
better judgment." She also felt that such a use was sending
mixed messages in that the Police Department has said that
the sale of alcohol should not be a problem while at the
same time it encourages people not to drink and then drive.
Mr. Grimm felt that it was unique that the Police
Department, which is very much aware of alcohol problems,
feels that alcohol sales should not present a problem in
this particular application. Based on the Police
Department's comments, Mr. Grimm stated he could support the
application.
Ms. Huckle stated that the person with whom she had spoken
at the ABC Board had had great reservations about this
situation.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated his concerns were with the mixed uses
in the same building and the potential friction with
shoppers. He was not convinced this was good planning.
It was noted that Sabarro's, in Fashion Square Mall, serves
alcoholic beverages. Mr. Rittenhouse felt that was
different because Sabarro's is a restaurant -style
environment. He also felt that the comparison to
Chuck-E-Cheez was not accurate because that is a
parent/small child type of establishment.
Ms. Huckle moved that SP-91-03 for The Gardens Partnership
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based
on the feeling that the sale of alcoholic beverages was not
appropriate in this setting.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed (4:1) with
Commissioner Grimm casting the dissenting vote.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
11:40 p.m.
W.
0