Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-08-12
FINAL 7:00 P.M. AUGUST 12, 1998 MEETING ROOM 241, SECOND FLOOR 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). SP-97-41. U.S. Cellular - Red Hill (Signs#76,77&_78). (APPLICANT REQUESTS WITHDRAWAL.) SP-98-18. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62). (DEFER TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1998:) SP-98-22. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62). (DEFER TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1998.) PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to TM46, Ps22&22C for proposed soccer held complex (Hurt InvesUnent and South Fork Land Trust). (DEFER TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1998.) SP-98-24. Mundie Trucking (Signs #43&44). (DEFER TO SEPTEMBER 16, 1998.) ZTA 98-03. Lighting Ordinance. PUBLIC HEAKING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 20. Zoning, Article II, Basic Regularions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle. Virg~ma bY adding a new §4.17, Outdoor Lighting, to require that certain outdoor luminaires (lighting £~xtures) be fully shielded. (DEFERRED FROM AUGUST 5, 1998.) SP-98-03. 360 Communications (Dudley Mountain Site) (Signs #67&68). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct telecommunication tower on approx 100 ac, znd RA, in accord with § 10.2.2.6. This facility is proposed to be located near top of Dudley Mountain. TM89,P18. Located on W sd of Dudley Mountain Rd (Rt 706), approx 1.5 mi SW of Old Lynchburg Rd (Rt 631). (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) Samuel Milier Dist. Approval of Minutes: April 3 and D~cember 4, 1996; February 5 and May 7, 1997: April 8. April t5, July 8 and July 15, 1998. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Certify Executive Session. CONSENT AGEN I) A FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Authorization to-destroy paid tax tickets in accordiance w/th the Library of Virginia's Retention and Disposition Schedule. 5.2 Appropriation: Adult Education Mini Grant. $1,350 ~Form #97068). 5.3 Appropriation: Education, $500 (Form #98006,. 5.4 Appropriation: Federal and State Drug Seized Assets, $58.480.03 (Form #98008}. 5.5 Appropriation: Dry Hydrant Grant_ $1,000 (Form #98009L 5.6 Appropriation:- Crime Analysis Unit Gram. 99-C9169, $36,808 Form #98010~. 5.7 Resolution to deny claim against the County asserted by Matthew Archer. FOR INFORMATION: 5.8 Report of the Long Range Planning Committee, dated July 27, 1998. 5.9 Corr~ariaor~ of D~' 1997,'9°~ 2002,'00° and FY 199°~/99-2002,'0~ Final .~locatSona for lr~eratatc. PiSn-~ai-~- and Urban llig~cccay Syatcn~ ,~bc;:c~Ic Co'avery Projccra. (DEFER TO SEPTEMBER 2. 1998.) 5. I 0 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for May 26. 1998. ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of August 12, 1998 August 13, 1998 1 4. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.9 AGENDA ITEM Call to Order. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Authorization to destroy paid tax tickets ia accordance with the Library of Virginia's Retention and Disposition Schedule. APPROVED. Appropriation: Adult Education Mini Grant. $1.350 (Form #97068). APPROVED. Appropriation: Education. $500 .Form #98006). APPROVED. Appropriation: Federal and State Drug Seized Assets, $58,480.03 {Form #98008). APPROVED. Appropriation: Dry Hydrant Grant, $1,000 (Form #98009). APPROVED. Appropriation: Crime Analysis Unit Grant. 99-C9169, $36,808 (Form #98010). APPROVED. Resolution to deny claim aga/nst the County asserted by Matthew Archer. ADOPTED. DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 2, 1998.) SP-9%41. U.S. Cellular - Red Hill. (Signs#76,77&78). ACCEPTED APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR WITHDRAWAL. SP-98-18. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62). DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1998. ASSIGNMBNT The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. Everyone was present. There were none. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and appropriate persons. Clerk: Clerk: Clerk: Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and appropriate persons. Forward to Melvin Breeden and appropriate persons Forward to Melvin Breeden and appropriate persons Forward to Melvin Breeden and approprmte persons. Clerk: Forward to County Attorney. Clerk: Include on consent agenda for September 2nd. Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg. Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg. 10. 11. 12. 14. 17. SP-98-22. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62). DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to TM46, Ps22&22C for proposed soccer field complex (Hurt Investment and South Fork Land Trust). DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1998. SP-98-24. Mundie Tracking (Signs g43& 44). DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 16, 1998. ZTA 98-03. Lighting Ordinance. ADOPTED ATTACHED ORDINANCE. SP-98-03. 360 Communications (Dudley Mountain Site) (Signs #67&68). DEFERRED UNTIL SEPTEMBER. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. ASSIGNMENT Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg. Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg. Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg. Clerk: Include in memo to Wayne Cilimberg. County Attorney: Update County Code and distribute appropriate persons. Clerk: Prepare minutes and forward to County Attorney. County Attorney: Prepare written record for Board's consideration in deniak Ms, Thomas reported on her attendance at NACO?s annual conference in Portland, Oregon, and her attendance at LGOC. Mr. Mart'm asked if consideration could be given to allowing individuals to transfer their development rights from their mountaintop to their valley land in exchange for putting the mountaintop in a permanent preservation easement. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. /ewc Attachments Distribution list: County Executive and stuff Board of Supervisors Kevin Casmer Wayne Cilimberg Dan Mahon Larry Davis Bill Mawyer Amelia McCulley Bruce Woodzell COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development E1Ia W. Carey, CMC, Clerk ~ August 13. 1998 Board Actions of August 12, 1998 At its meeting on August 12, 1998. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER. 2, 1998. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-97-41 U.S, Cellular - Red Hill (Signs#76.77&78). (APPLICANT REQUESTS WITHDRAWAL.) Accepted applicant's request for withdrawal. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-18. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62). DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 9. 1998. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-22. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62L DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1998, Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to TM46. Ps22&22C for proposed soccer field complex (Hurt Investment and South Fork Land Tmst~. DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1998. Agenda Item No. 10 SP-98-24. Mundie Trucking (Signs #43&441. DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 16, 1998. Agenda Item No. 11 ZTA-98-03. Lighting Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 20. Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle. Virginia by adding a new §4.17, Outdoor Lighting, to require that certain outdoor luminaires (lighting fixtures~ be fully shielded. ADOPTED the attached ordinance to amend Chapter 20. Zoning, Article I1. Basic Regulations. of the Code of the County of Albemarle. Virginia by adding a new §4.17. Outdoor Lighting, to require Memo To: V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: August 13. 1998 Page 2. that certain outdoor luminmres (lighting fixtures) be fully shielded. The Board also requested a review of the waiver provisions after 12 months to see if any changes are warranted. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-98-03. 360 Communications (Dudley Mountain Site) (Signs #67&68). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct telecommunication tower on approx 100 ac, znd RA, in accord with § 10.2.2.6. This facility is proposed to be located near top of Dudley Mountain. TM89,P18. Located on W sd of Dudley Mountain Rd rRt 706), approx 1.5 mi SW of Old Lynchburg Rd (Rt 631). (This site is not located in a designated growth area. I Samuel Miller Dist. DEFERRED action on SP-98-03 until September, to allow staff time ro prepare a written record based on the consensus of the Board to deny the request. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Ms, Thomas reported on her trip to Portland and attendance at NACO's conference. She also reported on LGOC. Mr. Martin asked if the County could consider allowing individuals to transfer their development rights from one piece of property to another when they own a mountaintop area. They would be able to transfer the tights from the mountaintop to the valley land and in exchange put the mountaintop in a permanent preservation easement. Mr. Bowerman said he was nor prepared to make an appointment to the Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Attachment cc: Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzdl Sharon Taylor Dan Malmn File COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk August 13, 1998 Board Actions of August 12, 1998 At its meeting on August 12, 1998, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 5.1, Authorization to destroy paid tax tickets in accordance with the Library of Virginia's Retention and Disposition Schedule, APPROVED. Item No. 5.2. Approptiation: Adult Education Mini Grant. $1.350 ~Form #97068L APPROVED. Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Education. $500 'Form #98006,. APPROVED. Item No.5.4. Appropriation: Federal and State Drug Seized Assets, $58,480.03 (Form #98008). APPROVED. Item No. 5.5. Appropriation: Dry Hydrant Grant, $1,000 Form #98009'}. APPROVED. Item No. 5.6. Appropriation: Crime Analysis Unit Grant. 99-C9169. $36.808 Form #98010). APPROVED. Item No. 5.7. Resolution to deny claim against the County asserted by Matthew Archer. ADOPTED. ewc Attachments pc: Richard E. Huff. II Robert Walters Jackson Zimmerman ]fames Camblos. II1 Roxanne W. White Kevin Castner John Miller Carl Pumphrey APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEA-R: 97/98 NUMBER 97068 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANTS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADULT EDUCATION MINI GRAi~T. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ********************************************************************* I 3116 63348 132100 TEACHER SALARIES $970.00 1 3116 63348 210000 FICA 80.00 1 3116 63348 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 300.00 TOTAL $1,350.00 REVENGE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 3116 33020 330019 ADULT EDUCo MINI GRANT $1,350.00 TOTAL $1,350.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER 98006 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CONTRIBUTION FROM YANCEY PTA. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ********************************************************************* 1 2213 61190 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES $500.00 TOTAL $500.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATIONS $500~00 TOTAL $500.00 TRANSFERS ********************************************************************* REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE S I GNATURE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~/~.._/~/~/~ DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER 98008 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TR3kNSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: DRUG ASSETS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND FEDERAL AND STATE DRUG SEIZED ASSETS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1235 39000 580902 FEDERAL S47,133.67 1 1236 39000 580905 STATE 11,346.36 TOTAL $58,480.03 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1235 51000 510100 FEDERAL $47,133.67 2 1236 51000 510100 STATE 11,346.36 TOTAL' $58,480.03 TRANSFERS ********************************************************************* REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FORESTRY GRANT FOR DRY HYDRANTS. EXPENDITURE NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X GRANT 9800S X COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1510 32040 601315 SAFETY EQUIP./SUPPLIES S1,000.00 TOTAL $1,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1510 24000 240230 FORESTRY GRANT TOTAL $1,000.00 TRANSFERS ********************************************************************* REQUESTING COST CENTER: FIRE/RESCUE APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER 9~010 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FI/ND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE CRIME ANALYSIS GPJkNT. (99-C9169) EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1520 29411 110000 WAGES 1 1520 29411 210000 FICA 1 1520 29411 221000 VRS 1 1520 29411 232000 DENTAL INSIIR_ANCE 1 1520 29411 241000 LIFE INSLrR3tNCE 1 1520 29411 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 1 1520 29411 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT $29,430.00 2,252.00 3,417.00 53.00 103.00 1,000.00 553.00 TOTAL $36,808.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1520 19000 190207 CITY OF CPiARLOTTESVILLE 2 1520 19000 190219 UVA 2 1520 33000 330405 CRIME ANALYSIS GRANT 2 1520 51000 512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TOTAL TRANSFERS $3,067.33 3,067.33 27.,606.00 3067.34 $36~808.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Authorization for Destruction of Paid Tax Tickets SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request authorization to destroy paid tax tickets in accordance with the Library of Virginia's Retention and Disposition Schedule. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden AGENDA DATE: August 12, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Library of Virginia's Record Retention and Disposition Schedule requires paid tax tickets to be retained by the locality for a pedod of five years after audit. At that time, after approval by the Department Head and the Designated Records Officer for the locality, tax tickets can be destroyed but only after authorization from the governing body. DISCUSSION: Staff approval has been received to destroy approximately 40 cubic feet of distribution records, which include paid tax receipts, for the period of July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests authorization from the Board of Supervisors to dispose of the records as indicated above. 98.150 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Adult Education Mini Grant SUB JECT/PROPO SAL~REOUEST: Request approval of appropriation #97068 in the amount of $1,350.00 for the Adult Education Mini Grant. STAFF CONTACT(SI: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: August 12, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes / At its meet'rog on lune 22, 1998, the School Board approved an appropriation for the Adult Education Mini Grant. DISCUSSION: Albemarle County Adult Education has received a grant in the amount of $1,350.00 from JAUNT to provide short term classes for eighteen welfare recipients to prepare them to pass the Virginia Driver's License Written Examination. There will be three sessions between May 25 and August i, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation in the amount of $1,350.00 as detailed on form//97068. 98.148 BO {RD OF SUPERVISORS ALREMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memoraudum DATE: July 15, 1998 TO: Rober~-/-~ucker, Jr., County Executive FROM: Kev~ner, Division Superintendent RE: RequesL for ApproprlaLion At its meeting on June 22, 1998, the School Boa rd approved the following appropriation: o Appropriation of $1,350.00 for the Adult Education Mini Grant. D-tbemarle County Adult Education has received a gran~ in the amount of $1,350.00 from JAUNT to provide short term classes for eighteen welfare recipients to prepare them to pass the Virginia Driver's License Written Examination. There will be three sessions between May 25 and Augus~ 1, 1998. At its meeting on July 13, 1998, the School Board approved the following appropriation: o Appropriation of $500.00 for Yancey Elementary School Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from the B.F. Yancey PTA. This donation is be used to suppor~ the summer program at Yaneey Elementary School. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed on the attachment. xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey ~quest for Appropriation July 15, 1998 Page 2 1997-98 Appropriation Revenue 2-3116-33020-330019 Expenditures 1-3116-63348-132100 -210000 -601300 ADULT EDUCATION MINI GRANT Adult Ed. Mini Grant Teacher Salaries FICA Ed/Rec Supplies $1,350.00 ~970.00 280.00 $300.00 $1,350.00 1998-99 Appropriation DONATION TO YANCEY ELEMENTARy SCHOOL 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditures 1-2213-61190-601300 Donation Ed/Red Supplies S500.00 $50O.00 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #98006 in the amount of $500.00 for Yancey Elementary School. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, I-Iuf~, Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: August 12, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: Yes BACKGROUND: At its meet'rog on July 13, 1998, the School Board approved an appropriation for Yancey Elementary School. DISCUSSION: Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 fi.om the B.F. Yancey PTA. donation is to be used to support the summer program at Yancey Elementary School. This RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation, in the amount of $500.00, as detailed on appropriation #98006. 98.149 - ~ '~ 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ~,ppropriation - Federal and State Drug Seized Assets SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Apprepriation 98008 in the amount of $58,480.03. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden,Walters,Milter, Camblos Ms. White AGENDA DATE: August 12, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X_ ATTACHMENTS: Yes. BACKGROUND: Periodically, the County receives revenues for assets seized in federal and state drug enforcement actions. The proceeds are utilized for additional law enforcement activities. DISCUSSION: This approprialion requests approval of[he receipts and expenditures for federal and state drag seized assets for [he period July 1, 1998 through June 30. 1999 and fund balance from pdor years. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of apprepdation 98008 in the amount of $55,480.03. 98.151 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation Dry Hydrant Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 98009 in the amount of $1,000.00. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.Tucl(er,Breeden,Walters,Pu mph rey Ms. White BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: August12,1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes The Virginia Department of Forestry has awarded a demonstration grant to fund one dry hydrant at the Seven Pines/Spring Hill Farm on Route 712 (Coles Rolling Road). DISCUSSION: A $1,000.00 Virginia Department of Forestry grant will fund the dry hydrant grant. There is no local match. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 98009 in the amount of $1,000.00. 98.153 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Crime Analysis Unit Grant 99-C9169 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 98010 in the amount of $36,808.00. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.Tucke r,Breeden,Walte rs,Mille r,Ms.White AGENDA DATE: Augu~12,1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes / The Department of Criminal Justice Services has approved a grant to establish a crime analysis unit providing multi-agency services. Funding is requested for a crime analyst: crime analysis software, and computer equipment. This position will collect data and assess criminal justice needs for the County of Albemarle, C~ of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia. This is the third year of a three-year grant. DISCUSSION: A $27,606.00 Department of Criminal Justice Sewice's grant and $9,202.00 local match will fund the cdme analyst, The local match is funded by $3,067.33 each by the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia and $3,067.34 by the County of Albemarle. The County of Albemarle's match of $3,067.34 is funded from currant operations in the Police Department. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropdation #98010in the amount of $36,808.00. 98.152 RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM ASSERTED BY MATTHEW ARCHER WHEREAS, MatthewAxcher, by counsel, has asserted a $42,000 daim against the County of Albemarle arising from alleged misconduct of the Albemarle County Police Department in October of 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the claim is not supported by the facts or by law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, denies the claim of Matthew Archer for alleged damages in the amount of $42,000. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of s'__~ to zero at a regular meeting held on August 12, 1998. Clerk, Board of County Supervis(~rs Mr. Marshall Mr. Bowerman Y Mr. Perkins Y Ms. Humphris Y Mr. Martin Y Ms. Thomas Y Aye Nay Y RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM ASSERTED BY MATTHEW ARCHER V~tlEREAS, Matthew Archer, by counsel, l~as asserted a $42,000 claim against the County of Albemarle arising from alleged misconduct of the Albemarle County Police Department in October of 1997; and WItEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the claim is not supported by the facts or by la~v. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thal the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia denies the claim of Matthew Archer for alleged damages in the amount of $42.D00. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vom of to __~ as recorded below, at a meeting held on August __, 1998. Mr. Marshall Mr. Bowerman Mr. Perkins Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Report of the Long-Range Planning Committee July 27, 1998 ..~,~.~:~. ~.,,.,, ~ .. ~,~-~ :. ,', ,, , ~.,.,, .:.-~:~.,?,:~ ~... , . .~.,:2~,.... ~ >St. ,'. ~.-..., .. .~ ....· ............ "~- ...... Monticello High School COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Final Allocations for Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway System- Albemarle County Projects SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Comparison of FY 1997/98-2002/03 and FY 1998/99-2003/04 Primary Plan STAFF CONTACT,S): Messrs. Tucker, H u ff,Cilim bercJ ,Be nish,Wade BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: August12, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~/t ~'''''--'~ The FY 1998/99-2003/04 Pdmary Road Allocation Plan was adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The following information compares the new Plan with the ~-Y 1997/98-2002/03 Plan. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. DISCUSSION: Attachment A is a table comparing planned allocations to Albemarle County on selected projects for the five common years in each plan. The sixteen projects in the table are listed below along with additional comments related to that project. 1-64 Fog Detection System: Alton Mountain fog detection upgrading, 1-64 Rest Area: Rest area sewer upgrade of the rest area near Ivy. Rt. 29: Widening from City line to Rio Road. Project is complete. Rt. 29: Widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Rio Road to S. Fork Rivanna River. Project is complete. Rt. 29: Widening from S. Fork PJvanna to Airport Road. The project is in preliminary er gineedng stage with VDOT. Rt. 29: Bddge replacement at S. Fork Rivanna River. Project total cost increased by approx. $1,000,000. Western Bypass- Total cost increased slightly from $168,428,000 to $168,472,0( 0. Over the five years total allocation to this project increased by $3,150,000. The most significant changes 3ver the common five years occurred in FY 98-99 (the funding decreased from $6,850,000 to $3,747,000) and 20, 11-02 (the funding increased from $4,360,000 to $8,510,000). 8. Rt. 29: Access management study from Airport Road to Greene County line. The funding is for preliminary engineering only. 9. Rt. 29: Improvement to vertical alignment near Rout 641. 10. Rt. 29: Bridge replacement at South Fork Hardware River (southbound lane). 11. Rt. 20: Bridge replacement at Hardware River (Carter's Bridge). 12. Rt. 20: Widening to four lanes from Rt. 53 to Mill Creek Drive. Preliminary engineering only. 13. Rt. 250: Intersection improvement at Route 809 .... J ~ ~ ~ _ ~ c~v ~ '~.~ ~- ' -.f ~ -' ~'" 14. Rt. 250: Connector road to UVA(feur lanes divided). Preliminary engineering only. 15. Rt. 631: W'~ten shoulders improve horizontal alignment, construct turning lanes and install a guardrail. Although this is a secondary road, it is receiving hazard elimination safety improvement funding. The funding for this program is based in the pdmary system. 16. Rt. 682: Install flashing light and gate 0.23 miles south Rt. 250. Although this is a secondary road, it is receiving Hazard Elimination/Safety Improvement Funds. The funding for this program ~s identified in the Primary Plan. Sixteen Albemarle County projects were listed to receive $51,350,000 in funding over the FY 1998-2003 period (five common years of both plans) in the 1997-2003 Plan. Sixteen projects are listed to receive $50,296,000 in funding over the same five years in the 1998-2004 Plan. Three projects were added to this year's Primary Plan final allocation: , Rt. 29 Bypass: Complete third lane northbound and southbound from 1-64 to Fontaine Avenue. $185,000 Rt. 53: Bridge replacement over Buck Island Creek. $1,000,000 Rt. 22: Realign intersection at Route 250. $440,000 RECOMMENDATION: Provided for information only. 98.155 COMPARISON OF FY t997-2003 AND FY 1998-2004 FINAL ALLOCATION PLANS FISCAL YEAR FUNDING PER EACH PLAN (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROGRAM 5 yr period From PROJECT COST ELEMENT 97-03 98-04 97-03 98-04 97-03 98-04 97-03 98-04 97-03 98-04 97-03 9B-04 97-03 t PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN 98-04 97-03 98-04 1-64; Upgrade Fog Detection 500 500 561 .......... 1,561 665 1,696 System Sewer at 300 296 ............... 596 (1,184 3,547 Rest Area 3 NCL to Rio Road 1,000 1,000 710 .......... 2,710 (1,925 21,195 (1) 29: Widening- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J : VVJdening- to Airport Roa, d Replacement 602 ~ 1,000 ~ 2,160 1,088 ~ 509 J ~ 6,95o I Iti' ' (2) ' ,'"* ' ,,i ' '... :,:: ...'~ :. (2) ' ';' ' ' , · ",; ' ,, ';::'i" TOTAL ;;J2',S~o t 8~.6]1:7 9074 ~6i 9427 11443 18(19 1998. 135(~ 90296 (1,054 (1) Project completed. (2) Preliminary engineering only. ( ) Negative number. ':~"~ ARD OF SUPERVISORS 2571 Old Lynchburg Road ON ]'~~""~'"~ No~h G~den, Vkginia 22959 August 8, 1998 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntke Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Proposed Communication Tower for Dudley Mountain To Whom it May Concern: It has come to our attention that the Board of Supervisors is to consider a request to construct a 100-foot communication tower on top of Dudley Mountain in Albemarle County. We wish to emphatically state our opposition to the construction of this proposed tower. The quality of life for nearly all residents and visitors of Albemarle County will be diminished by the marring of our beautiful moumain views in this scenic part of the Commonwealth:of'Virginia. Dudley Mountain, at o~er 16.00 feet, is the most visually pronunent peak in Albemarle County, save Carter's Mountain, the ridge of which has already been degraded by over a dozen communication towers. In addition, the explosion in the construction of communication towers poses a real threat to native and minatory songbirds (see attached copies of reports from Birder's V~orld, August 1998, and from Audubon, May-June 1998). The Cornell Laboratory estimates that the national impact on North ganerican songbirds may ultimately exceed 5 million birds killed annually through collisions with the ever-increasing maze of mountain-top communication towers. Please support the citizens of Albemarle County who wish to maintain the very scenic beauty of our county that so makes Albemarle such a desirable place to live and raise families. Richard A:. Christc~ph; MI) Nortk Garden; ~Virginia Sincerely, Jan Moffatt Christopl~ North' Garden; 'Virginia · Why Birds Hate Se/nfi/d f you spend a lot of time using a cellular phone or watching television, you may be pahaed to find is ap- lng kill thousands of birds every ye~ Tdevision broadcasters and wi~- less telephone firms often build ~eir towers on ridges and mountaintops, where ~ey act ~ steel obstacle courses for ~grating bkds. The bit& =e often decapitated by ~e th~. taut ~y wires on nH tuw~s. Now ~e Feder~ Co~i- cations Commission~which regula;es · e di~t~-television md ce~ular-phone ~dus~es~ about to make it easier for :owers ;o be built in enwronmentally sensidve ~eas. One of tke most si~ificant studies. conduced ~ Wisconsin. shows that be- ~een 1957 md 1994 a s~gle 1.000-foot television tower caused the death of 121.560 bkds. representing 123 specxes. Surveys in Florida ~d New York Mve also fo~d high mort~des. Accor&g ~o &e FCC's esr~mares, there are already 75.000 towers across the co~. "It is not far-fetched ro predict that annual rower kills across North America will soon exceed five million songbirds a year;' savs Bill Evans, a biologist at the Cor- ndl Laboratory of Ornithology. Under pres- the cellular- phone and digi- tal-television ~n- dustries, however, the FCC has proposed rules thac would circumvent state and cai review of rower sitings and would let the /ndustries erect 1,000 more rowers over the nex~ year. The Audubon Society has called upon the FCC to first conduct an environmental-impact study. "It is vi- ta/ that the environmental effects be studied and understood:' says Daniel R Beard, senior vice-pres/dent for public policy of the National Audubon Society. --John Dillon But lynx lure may work its magic long a~cer Weaver completes his study While visiting IMPOVERISHED ISTHE SOUL unstkred by me voice of the male bullfrog when firs~ it breaks the silence of the May twilight. The deep, isa call from earth's distant past, ages before the dinosaurs, when the first amphibians staggeredout of Devonian seas to domin~e the land for 70 milEon years. The bullfrog occurs naturally in the eastern has also been introduced into the West and other nations, where it is trashing native ecosystems. The diet of this, our largest frog, frogs, birds-~basically, any moving objec~ it green, but a few are ~ even sky blue. Don t look ina of ~ 1950s horror movie. FEOV CREATURES ARE MORE stimulating ~o what Rachel Carson called our "sense of won- der" than the roughly 136 beetles of the family Lampyriaae, which flash over North American meadows and flaroens o~ soft as fireflies, or lightning bugs. Each species has a pattern of flashes so dis- flashes, but females of some species mimic chemicals can't be synthesized, fireflies are cai Company of St. Louls, Missour which virtual[y all i~ suppliers are children. Tiqe poet David McCord aptly described fireflie; as "little lanterns sailing by,/Like but not too high." Children should ~e sen1 Justice for Endangered Waterfowl /[ GILEE~Niines report from /~ Defenders of Wildl/fe stated that ~L ~.a man who used a golf club to kill an endangered None 'Ha~vai/an Goose wkile on a course in Maul was fined $4:,000, given a si×-month suspended jail term, and ordered to perform 300 hours of community service. The survival of the Nene, Flawaii's state bird and once on the brink of ex-traction, currently depends on inteusive captive breeding and reintroduction programs :i![~0 to fou; m dlion s~ngb rds annua ~e~th~ught to be more dan~rous, the ~fi~ fncident s~ows th~ massive kills Occur at smaller towers an alarming ~['sfn~these sho~er towers are ~ ~rol~rating. Researchers are ~;~dy ~ ~etermtne ways ~ reducfng ali~ at these towers. Conta~: Amer- ~ Bkd Conse~ancy, ~5d 24tfl Stree~ ~W;~Su[te 400, WaShin¢on, D:C. 20037 (202-778-9666 fax 202-778-9~8: e- l. abc~abcbirds.or~). ge ~ize- and of Brax~l and Argentina. ers, offe~ inc~edlble bi~d~g ~on~ ~e most modem Br~ ~d Argen~a ~es ~ f~en~y people, good roa&. ~d ~ce~ent For ~pec~ bkd~ ~d m~elom s~em, I Br~ ~d Argen~a. NO~ERN AR6ENTINA, Novem~be~ 1-1~. 1998 PlNgNA[, CHAPIDA, Septe~er 2-~, 1998 ~UI [~Sg, Septe~er 9-22. 1998 SOUT~g~P~ 8P~L, Oc~be 11-25, 1998 ,sold cea USATUBA P~E-TgI~ O~t&,~ ?-ls, 1998 N~THEgERN 8~ZIL, l~u~ 19-Feb~ 5, 1999 A~PA ~I~S~OH, F&ma~ 3-13, 1~ * ~H~ONIIN 8~ZIL, A~ 1-22, 1999 * Mm G~osso ~tTa F~R~TA, ~p~e~er 8-21. 1999 ' ~0~la~ ~HB[, O&ober 10-24. 1999 ~ UBAffiBA PRE.TRIg October 6-12. 1999 * Post O~ce Box 33008. Aasfin. ~ 78764 800/328-~ (8368) S12/328-5221 F~ 512/328-2919 VEN~l.com w~.ventb~d.com CSTr~201499&50 David P. Bowen'nan CharlotteY. Humphris Fon-e~ R Mm~hall, Jr, COUNTY OF Al IqEMAS! F Or, ce of Board of SuI:~'~ors 401 Mclntire Road Chaflottes~le. Vh'ginia 22902-4596 '(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 August 4, 1998 Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Edward R. Slaughter, Jr. Woods, Rogers & Hazelgrove PO Box 2964 Charlottesville, VA 22902-2964 Re: SP-97-41 - U.S. Cellular - Red Hill. Dear Mr. Slaughter: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 4, 1998, requesting withdrawal of the above-referenced petition. This item has been removed from the August 12. 1998 agenda. If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, /9 E1 . C y, C~ /ewc CC: V. Wayne Cilimberg Bill Fritz AmeLia McCulley Larry Davis I EDWARD R. SLAUGh'TEP~JR. 804 295-8300 INTEI~Sr: eslaught~woodsrogers.com WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE[ Attorneys at Law August 4, 1998 BY HAND Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 In Re: United States Cellular S.P, 97-41: Red Hill Dear Ms. Carey: On behalf of the Applicant, United States Cellular, I hereby request that the above- referenced application, which is to be considered by Board of Supervisors on August 12, 1998, be withdrawn from consideration. This application is being withdrawn as a result of the position adopted by Martin Marietta Materials, Ine, the owner of the property for which the special use permit was sought, in its letter of December 16, 1997. A copy of that letter is enclosed with this letter, In that letter, Martin Marietta Materials stated its intention not to allow the construction of a cellular tower on its property. Martin Marietta Materials' position was in clear violation of its agreement with United States Cellular. Nevertheless, United States Cellular delayed its application before the Board of Supervisors in an effort to resolve the situation with Mart'm Marietta Materials. Unfortunately, no resolution of this matter has been reached and United States Cellular is forced to withdraw its application. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, WOODS, ROGERS &; HAZLEGROVE, P.L.C. Edward R. Slaughter, Jr. CC: Mark Gartley (w/o encl.) Dave Klumb (w/o encl ) Brace Deerson, Esq. (w/o encl.) CVL#OO17682.WPD E O. Box 2961 / Lewis & Clarke Square, Suite 300, 250 West Main Street / C~arlottesville, Virginia 22902-2964 804 295-8300 / Fax 804 295-3390 / Telex 4930661 LAW UI Internet .-- mail@woodsrogers.com Offices also in Danville and Roanoke, Virginia and Washington, D. C. Martin Marietta Eastern District 9513 Hull Street Road. Suite A Richmond, Virgtma 23236-1475 Telephone (804) 674-9F, 17 December 16. 1997 Mr. Mark Keller McKee-Carson 301 East High Street Charlottesville. VA 22902 Dear Mark: From the beginning of our conversations, we expressed to you our relationship with our surrounding neighbors and our desire to not adversely effect that relationship. After numerous conversations with the key members of the neighborhood, they clearly were against the locating ora cellular tower on any piece of our property. We themfom believe it to be in our 'best interest to stop all activities as they relate to such a location. Martin Marietta has assured our neighbors that them will not be a tower located on any properttes controlled by Martin Marietta. Based on our concerns we request that you remove the pending application with the county of Albermarle entirely, Martin Marietta cannot afford for this application remain on the schedule. By copy of this letter to Mr. William Fritz of the County Planning Department, the County will be made aware of our position concerning this matter. Martin Marietta hopes you understand our position and respect our concerns. Sincerely, R. Michael Bloebaum Virginia Area Production Manager RMB :jlt'tm Cc: Mr. William D. Fritz WOODS, ROGE & HAZI,EGROVE Attorheys at Law BY HAND May 5, 1998 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: United States Cellular S.P. 97-41; Red Hill Dear Ms. Carey: Following up on our conversation of yesterday, I hereby request on behalf of the Applicant that the public hearing by the Board of Supervisors in connection with the foregoing matter be deferred until such later date as the Board has available on its calendar. As I explained, our firm has only recently been retained by the Applicant. Upon being retained, I asked Mr. Bill Fritz, the Planner in charge of this matter, to furnish me with a letter stating that the application was no longer pending - in light of a letter from R. Michael Bloebaum of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Martin Marietta), the property owner, to Mark Keller, representing the Applicant, dated December 16, 1997. A copy of the letter was sent to Mr. Fritz. The letter stated Martin Marietta was no longer in favor of the application. Upon making a tentative determination that the matter is still pending, Mr. Fritz referred the matter to Mr. Greg Kamptner, an Assistant County Attorney. We received Mr. Kamptner's verbal opinion only last week confirming that the application is still pending. In seeking this deferral, my client desires further to address the concerns which have been raised by the Planning Commission, the Planning and Community Development Department, and Martin Marietta. [ shall look forward to receiving a response to this reques~ as soon as conveniem. With thanks for your assistance, Yours sincerely, Edward R. Slaughter, Jr. ERSjr/wrm ce: Mr. Mark Gartley (By Facsimile & First Class Mail) Mr. Bill Fritz (By Hand} P. O. Box 2964 Lewis & Clark Square. Suite 300. 250 West Main Street '~04 295-8300 Fax 804 295-3390 [nte~net - maii@woodsrogers,com BO AP.D David P. Bowervaan Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superv~ors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-.4696 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Augusu 7, 1998 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins Whim Ha~ Sally II. Thomas ARROWI~EAD CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA BASS, DAVID H BROWN, JFJ~kvNE R CROWN ORCHARI) COMPANY DUNN, EDDIE N & NANCY S HOUCHEHS, VIRGINIA T & LEWIS D HOUCHENS, DAVID B OR SUSAN W HYDER, THOMAS W MARTIN M3~RIETTA MATERIALS MOORE-COLL, TERRENCE W OH J~NET G PHILLIPS, ?ED L OR MA~Y PEGGY PLUM, SHIRLEY A. S L WILLIAMSON COMPANY THOMAS, ELIZABETH F TURNER, BEVERLY LAINE WALKER, JOPLN T JR & ALICE F WOLFE, JOHN F JR & JOAN H WOOD, LEROY T JR OF ESTER H WOODSOH, GEORGE WRIGHT, WILLIAM W OR ANN A RE: SP-97 41 U.S. Cellular - Red Hill Dear Sir or Madain: This letter is uO Notify you as an adjacent propersy owner that the above-referenced petition has been withdraw/] by the applicant. Therefore, this petition will no~ be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 12, 1998. If you have any quessions, please do no~ hesitate uo con~act the undersigned. cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg Bill Fri5z Sincerely, ~ W. Carey, Clerk / / Printed on recycled paper AFFIDAVIT DATE - August 7, 1998 I. Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. E a . Ca ey, ClerkJ Board of County Su pe/~,4sors / Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 7th. day of August, 1998. Notary Public My commission expires FILE: SP-97-41 - U.S. CELLULAR - RED HILL QUERY ON FILE CISPLAN BY JFARRAR USING ADJOWNERS ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 1306 HAMPTON STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22901 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRE S S 3: ADDRESS4: ADDRES S5: ZIP5: 22959 08800000002100 WOODSON, GEORGE C/O LEWIS WOODSON 3167 RED HILL DEPOT RD NORTH GARDEN VA TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ~ ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22205 08800000001900 f WRIGHT, WILLIAM W OR ANN A . / 721 N HUNTINGTON STREET ~g/ ARLiNGTON VA 09/09/97 PAGE 4 NUMBER OF PRIMARY RECORDS RETRIEVED FROM THE FILE: 30654 NUMBER WHICH MET THE SELECTION CONDITIONS: 21 (0%) END OF QUERY ON FILE CISPLAN BY JFARRAR USING ADJOWNERS · :ADDRESS1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22959 10000~00002400 WALKER, J~HN T JR & ALICE F RT 1 BOX 624 NORTH GARDEN VA TAXMAP/PARCEL: 088000000018B0 ADDRESS 1: WOOD, LEROY T JR OR ESTER QUERY ON FILE CISPLAN BY JFARRAR USING ADJOWNERS ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22959 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22959 100000000027H0 PLUM, SHIRLEY A. RT 1 BOX 627 NORTH GARDEN, VA TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22901 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22959 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS1: ADDRESS2: ADDRES S3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22959 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22959 100000000024A0 ~ S L WILLIAMSON COMPANY INC ~/ff× 1230 RIVER RD CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 100000000029C0 THOMAS, ELIZABETH F 3103 RED HILL ROAD NORTH GARDEN VA 100000000027E0 TURNER, BEVERLY LAINE RT 1 BOX 628-N NORTH GARDEN VA 10000000002300 WALKER, JOHN T JR RT 1 BOX 629 NORTH GARDEN VA 09/09/97 PAGE 3 ~UERY ON FILE CISPLAN BY JFARRAR ;rAXMAP/PARCEL: 100000000027D0 ADDRESSI: HOUCHENS, DAVID B OR SUSAN W ADDRESS2: RT 1 BOX 628M 'ADDRESS3: NORTH GARDEN, VA ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22959 ADDRESSI: ? Dr)RESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS 5: ZIP5: 22959 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESSI: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22959 USING ADJOWNERS 09/09/97 100000000029A0 HOUCHENS, VIRGINIA T & LEWIS D 3103 RED HILL ROAD NORTH GARDEN, VA 100000000027G0 HYDER, THOMAS W 2617 DUDLEY MT ROAD NORTH GARDEN, VA PAGE 2 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 23236 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 23236 088000000013B0 MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS INC C/O JEFF PANNEBAKER 9411 HULL STREET ROAD, SUITE A RICHMOND VA 0880000b{)01300 MARTIN-MAI~ETTA CORP CONSTRUCTI0~ AGGREGATES 9411 HULL ~T..RE~T ROAD SUITE RICHMOND VA TAXMAP/PARCEL: 088000000017A0 ADDRESS 1: MOORE-COLL, TERRENCE W OR JANET G ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: RT ! BOX 637 NORTH GARDEN, VA 22959 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS !: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: 100000000027A0 PHILLIPS, TED L OR MARY PEGGY 2644 DUDLEY MOUNTAIN RD NORTH GARDEN, VA ~SP~.7~! U s CELLULAR (RED HILL) ~?E4Xlq~NER- BiLL FRITZ PC - OCT 28 BOS - NOV 12 RETURN TO JANICE - OCT 8 'QUERY ON FILE CISPLAN BY JFARRAR USING ADJOWNERS 09/09/97 PAGE 1 QUERY SELECTION CONDITIONS: t.-TAXPAR ='08800000002100';'08800000002200';'08800000004200' 2. -TAXPAR ='088000000018B0';'088000000017A0';'08800000001300' -TAXPAR = '088000000013B0';'08800000001900';'08800000002000' -TAXPAR =' 10000000000200';' 10000000002300';' 100000000024A0'. 5. -TAXPAR = '10000000002400';'100000000027D0';'100000000027E0' 6. -TAXPAR = '100000000027G0';'100000000027H0';'100000000027A0' ': 7.-TAXPAR ='100000000029F0';'100000000029A0';'100000000029C0' 8~ -TAXPAR = '00000000000000' [ OR2OR30R4OR5 OR6 OR7 OR8 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDILESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS& ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 08800000002000 / ARROWHEAD CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA C/O M B WOODS ARROWHEAD - THE CABIN RT 1 BOX 253 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22903 08800000004200 BASS, DAVID H 1864 ANCHORAGE FARM CHARLOTTESVILLE VA TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS 5: 100000000029F0// BROWN, JEANNE R Xd/_t RT 1 BOX 594 NORTH GARDEN, VA ZIP5: 22959 -TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22924 10000000000200 CROWN ORCHARD COMPANY P. O. BOX 299 BATESVILLE, VA TAXMAP/PARCEL: ADDRESS 1: ADDRESS2: ADDRESS3: ADDRESS4: ADDRESS5: ZIP5: 22903 08800000002200 DUNN, EDDIE N & NANCY S 2919 MORGANTOWN RD CHARLOTTESVILLE VA AFFIDAVIT DATE - May 7, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. Board of C;~n~ Supervisors Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 7th day of May 1998. v [qotary Publi~ My commission expires ~ C0a~ F.~m~.~~2 ~[d~(7 ~TL FILE: SP 97-41 - U. S. CELLULAR - RED ItlLL David ~ Bowetrnan Charlotle 5( Humphris Fon'est R. Marshall. Jr. COUNTY OF AIREMAI~I F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfim Road Charlottesville, V'm2inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5848 FAX (804) 296-5800 May 7, 1998 Charles S. Marlin Waltex E Perkins White Hall Sall~ H, Thomas ARROWHEAD CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA BASS. DAVID H BROWN, JEANNE R CROWN ORCHARD COMPANY DUNN. EDDIE N & NANCY S HOUCHENS. VIRGINIA T & LEWIS D HOUCHENS, DAVID B OR SUSAN W HYDER. YHOMAS W MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS INC MOORE-COLL, TERRENCE W OR JANET G PHILLIPS, rED L OR MARY PEGGY PLUM~ SHIRLEY A. S L WlLLIAMSON COMPANY INC THOMAS, ELIZABETH F TURNER, BEVERLY LAINE WALKER, JOHN T JR & ALICE F WOLFE, JOHN F JR & JOAN H WOOD, LEROY T JR OR ESTER lq WOODSON, GEORGE WRIGHT, WILLIAM W ORANN A RE: SP-97 41 U.S. Cellular - Red Hill Dear Sir or Madam: Tiffs letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner that the above-referenced petition has been deferred by the Board of Supervisors until Wednesday, August 12, 1998. The petition is described as follows: SP 9741 U.S. Cellular - Red Hill (Signs #76,77&78) - Proposal to construct a 200-foot telecommuni- cation tower w/associated support facilities on portion of 319 acs znd RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.6]. TM88, P18&ISA. Property located on N sd of Rt 708 (Red Hill Rd) approx 1 mile E of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail Rd.). Samuel Miller District. This meefmg will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclnfire Road, Charlottesville. Virginia. Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate m contact me. V. Wayne Cilimberg Bill Fritz Printed on recycled paper WOODS, ROGERS &HAZI .EGROVE rc A ttorgeys at Law May 5, 1998 BY HAND Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 05-06-9 8F 2:50 BOARD OF SUPERVISOR3 Re: United States Cellular S.P. 97-41; Red Hill Dear Ms. Carey: Following up on our conversation of yesterday, I hereby request on behalf of the Applicant that the public hearing by the Board of Supervisors in connection with the foregoing matter be deferred until such later date as the Board has available on its calendar. As I explained, our firm has only recently been retained by the Applicant. Upon being retained, I asked Mr. Bill Fritz, the Planner in charge of this matter, to furnish me with a letter stating that the application was no longer pending - in light of a letter from R. Michael Bloebaum of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Martin Marietta), the property owner, to Mark Keller, representing the Applicant, dated December 16, 1997. A copy of the letter was sent to Mr. Fritz. The letter stated Martin Marietta was no longer in favor of the application. Upon maldng a tentative determination that the matter is still pending, Mr. Fritz referred the matter to Mr. G-reg Kampmer, an Assistant County Attorney. We received Mr. Kamptner's verbal opinion only last week confirming that the application is still pending. In seeking this deferral, my cliem desires further to address the concerns which have been raised by the Planning Commission, the Planning and Community Developmem Department, and Martin M~etta. I shall look forward to receiving a response to this request as soon as convenient. With thanks for your assistance, Yours sincerely, Edward R. Slaughter, Jr. ERS jr/wftu cc: Mr. Mark Gartley (By Facsimile & First Class Mail) Mr. Bill Fritz IBy Hand) 1Z O. Box 2964 Lewis & Clark Square, Suite 300,250 West Main Street Cl't~rlottesville, Virginia 22902-2964 804 295~8300 Fax 804 298-3390 Internet - mail~oodsmgers.com Offices also in Danville Roanoke and Richmond. l~rginia David P~ Bowerman Rio ChaHo~ Y. Humphfis COU~ OF ai~E~_e 401 Mclniire Road Charlottesville. Ylrginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 May 7, 1998 Charles S. Marlin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thom~ Mr. Edward R. Slaughter. Jr. Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove PO Box 2964 Lewis & Clark Square, Suite 300 Charlottesville, VA 22902-2964 RE: SP 97-41 - U.S. Cellular - Red Hill /ewc CCi Dear Mr. Slaughter: At its meeting on May 6, 1998, the Board of Supervisors granted your request to defer the above-referenced petition. This petition has been deferred until Wednesday, August 12, 1998. This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241. Second Floor, Count~ Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to comac~ me. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Charlottesville Cellular Partners V. Wayne Cilimberg Bill Fritz Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowermma Charlotte ¥. Humphris Forrest P~ Marshall, ,Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARi' .E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, V~r~'mia 22902-4.596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 February 3, 1998 Charles S. Mart~n Waiter E Perkins Sally H. ~omm Mr. Mark Keller c/o McKee Carson 301 East High Street Charlottesville. VA 22902 RE: SP 97-41 - U.S. Cellular - Red Hill DearMr, Keller: This letter is ro notify you that the above-referenced petition has been rescheduled for public hearing by the Board of Supervisors for WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1998. This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me ewc Sincerely, / / CC: Steven W. Blaine Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Charlottesville Cellular Parmers V. Wayne Cilimberg Bill Fritz Pdnted on recycled paper David P Bow~'man Charlo~ Y. HumpNis Forrest R. Mamhall, &'. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Offic~ of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Chadott~-dlle, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296.-5800 February 3, 1998 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas ARROWHEAD CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA BASS, DAVID H BROWN, JEANNE R CROWN ORCHARD COMPANY DUNN, EDDIE N & NANCY S HOUCHENS, VIRGINIA T & LEWIS D HOUCHENS, DAVID B OR SUSAN W HYDER, THOMAS W MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS INC MOORE-COLL, TERRENCE W OR JANET G PHILLIPS, TED L OR MARY PEGGY PLUM, SHXRLEY A. S L WILLIAMSON COMPANY 1NC THOMAS, ELIZABETH F TURNER, BEVERLY LAINE WALKER, JOHN T JR & ALICE F WOLFE, JOHN F JR & JOAN H WOOD, LEROY T JR OR ESTER H WOODSON, GEORGE WRIGHT, WILLIAM W ORANN A RE: SP-97 41 U.S. Cellular - Red Hill Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you as an adjacent properly owner that the above-referenced petition has been rescheduled for public hearing by the Board of Suparvisors for V/EDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1998. The petition is described as follows: SP 9%41 U.S. Cellular - Red Hill (Siun #76~77,& 781 - Proposal to construct a 200 foot telecommunication tower with associated support facilities on a portion of 319 acres zoned IRA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.61 Property, described as Tax Map 88, Parcels 18 and 1SA is located on the north side of Route 708 [Red Hill Rd.) approximately one mile east of Route 29 IMonacan Trail Rd.) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m.. Meeting Room//241, Second Floor. County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. /ewc cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg William D. Fritz l:~inted on recycled paper AFFIDAVIT DATE: February 3, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. Board of County Supervisors / Given undermyhandinthe CountyofAlbemarle, State of Virginia this 3rd day of, Febrttary, 1998. Notary l~blic My commission expires FILE: SP 97-41 - U. S. CELLULAR - RED HILL ,,1~$049802222 ~C WO BAT BOO ~OBi/00/ lak'pho~,~/'lDD (804) ~77 -2~ 00 · Febraary 3~ 1998 Ms. Ella Catty Clerk, Albemarle County Board of $tlpcrvi~ora 401 Mclutire Read Charlott~svilk, Vi%4nia _.22902 De~r Ms. Carey: This is in response m Bill Fritz' inquiry as to the sta~ of the Board of Supervisors mere'lng for ~ l~i~n~nced ~pccial use pcm~ O~ bcMlfofour client, wc r~cl~t a continued deferral. We suggest an available date i~ lae Ivlarch or early' April, l~t will leave it up to the Board to select a daIe tha~ suits its agend~ SWB:elo cc: Mr. Mark Oartley Mr. William Fritz McGutREWOODS BATI ,E &BOOTHE Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charloaesvitle. Virginia 22902-1288 Telephone/TI)D(804)977-2500 · Fax(804)980-2222 Steven W. Blaine Writer's Direct Dial 804/977-2588 February 3, 1998 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: SP 97-41; United States Cellular This is in response to Bill Fritz' inquiry as to the status of the Board of Supervisor's meeting for the referenced special use permit. On behalf of our client, we request a continued deferral. We suggest an available date in late March or early April, but will leave it up to the Board to select a date that suits its agenda. Very truly yours, SWB:elo cc: Mr. Mark Gartley Mr. William Fritz ALEXANDRIA . BALIIMORE ' BRUSSELS · CHARLOTTESVILLE - JACKSONHLLE · NORFOEK - RICUMOND ' TYSONS COR~ER - WA$1111~GTON. DC · ZI~R1EH October 30. 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept, of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville_ Virginia 22902-4596 {804} 296-b823 Mark Keller c/o McKee Carson 301 East High St Charlottesville. VA 22902 RE: SP 97-41 U.S. Cellular - Red Hill Tax Map 88, Parcels 18 and 1SA Dear Mr. Keller: The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on October 28. 1997, unanimously recommended denial of the above-aoted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This petition was recommended for denial due to the Following reasons: the impact on tile Mountain Resource Area without findings on possible alternative sites makes tbis request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance; alternative locations have not been fully explored; impact to adjacent agricultural/forestal districts. lu tile event that the Board should approve tile special use permit, fl~e Commission, by consensus, expressed support for the recommended conditions of approval and also unanimously approved a waiver of the requirement for a site plan and a wmver to allow a reduction in setback. Please be advised that tile Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting oa November 12. 1997. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of file Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Siucerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Senior Planner WDF/jcf },5_L-~ _9 8 >'~ 2: L2 '~S¥- Ella Carey Charlottesville Cellular Partners Martin Marietta Materials, lnc Martin Marietta ggregates Eastern District 9513 Hull Street Road, Suite A Richmond, Virginia 23236-1475 Telephone (804) 674-9517 December 16, 1997 Mr. Mark Keller McKee-Carson 301 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 P annin9 DepL Dear Mark: From the beginmng of our conversations, we expressed to you our relationship with our surrounding neighbors and our desire to not adversely effect that relationship, After numerous conversations with the key members of the neighborhood, they clearly were agmnst the locating ora cellular tower on any piece of our property. We therefore believe it to be in our best interest to stop all activities as they relate to such a location. Martin Marietta has assured our neighbors that there will not be a tower located on any properties controlled by Martin Marietta. Based on our concerns we request that you remove the pending application with the county of Albemarle entirely. Martin Marietta cannot afford for this application remain on the schedule. By copy of this letter to Mr. Will/am Fritz of the County Planning Department, the County will be made aware of our position concerning this matter. Martin Marietta hopes you understand our position and respect our concerns. Sincerely, 1L Michael Bloebaum Virginia Area Production Manager RMB:jmm Cc: Mr. William D. Fritz This report has been modified since the Planning Commission meeting to included discussion of the Natural Resources Extraction Overlay District. This site is located within the Natural Resources Extractiou Overlay District and, although verbally presented to the Planning Commission, this information was not included in the original written report provided to the Planning Commission. The modifications to the report are indicated in bold. STAFF PERSON: WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: NOVEMBER 12, 1997 SP 97-41 US CELLULAR [RED HILLI Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 200 foot self supporting lattice tower to provide improved cellular phone coverage for southern Albemarle County. Currently, US CeIlular's service is available in the area. However, significant areas of weak signal or even no signal exist. The specific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. This tower is located on an unnamed hill located west of the quarry at Red Hill. This unnmned hill is located south of Gibson Mountain and west of Dudley Mountain (the quarry ts on the southern end of Dudtey Mountain). Petition; Proposal to construct a 200 foot telecommunication tower with associated support facilities on a portion of 319 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.6] and NR, Natural Resources Extraction Overlay District, Property, described as Tax Map 88, Parcels 18 and 1SA is located on the north side of Route 708 (Red Hill Rd.) approximately one mile east of Route 29 (Monacan Trail Rd.) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Character of the Area: The location for the proposed tower is on an unnamed hill located between the Red Hilt quarry and Route 29. This unnamed hill is at a lower elevation than Dudley Mountain. The property immediately to the west is located within an Agricultural/Forestal District. Attachment D is a topographic map that shows the location of the proposed tower, nearby house structures, the quarry and rite railroad. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 1,000 feet ASL, Above Sea Level. The peak of the mountain is at an elevation of 1,070 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower, is approximately 1,000 feet (0.2 miles) distant and approximately 260 feet lower in elevation. Approximately 10 houses are located within 2,000 feet (0.6 miles) of the proposed tower. No existing towers are located in the area. The nearest identified existing tower site is located on 1-64 at Camp Holiday Trails. This tower is owned by 360 Communications and is located approximately 4.5 miles to the north. The nearest US Cellular Facility is located on Castle Rock, 6.6 miles to the southwest. The towers on Carter's Mountain are located 7 miles to the east. RECOMMENDATION: Staff'has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is unable to recommend approval. Planning and Zoning History_: None available. Comprehensive Plan: Staffnotes that in order to construct the proposed tower clearing for access and the provision of electrical service will be required. Therefore, these impacts, in addition to the impact of the tower itself, have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff can identify no provision in the Comprehensive Plan which prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communications. This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan and the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Currently~ the Land Use Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application are: Entrance Corridor, Mountain Resource Area and Critical Slopes. [Staff notes that this site is not subject to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District contained in the Zoning Ordinance. All review based on impact to the Entrance Corridor is due to the coutent of the Open Space Plan.] The Entrance Corridor is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. Critical Slopes are addressed by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The methods for protection and potential allowable impacts in the Mountain Resource Areas are currently being reviewed in detail by the Mountain Protection Committee. Although detailed standards for potential allowable impacts are not completed, staffhas determined that protection of an identified resource, the mountain areas, is still appropriate. In an et~brt to provide a comparison of the impacts caused by location within the Mountain Resource Area verses location outside ofresoume areas while remaining on this property, the applicant has provided a cross-section depicting the changing height of the tower. [Attachment E] Information as to the impact of locating outside of the Mountain Resource Area on another parcel is not available. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is in part "to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic aud historic, architectural and cultural resources includiug preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose" and "to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism". The ARB has not reviewed this request se no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. This tower will be visible from the Entrance Corridor District, primarily from locations south of the site. Without additional information staff is unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. Most of the unnamed hill is designated as critical slopes in the Open Space Plan. However, the location of the proposed tower is near the crest ora ridge of the unnamed hill and no disturbance of critical slopes will occur for the construction of the tower. The provision of access to the tower will cross areas of critical slopes. The mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan starts at the 800 foot contour. The proposed to,vet is at an elevatiun of approximately 1,000 feet ASL. The Open Space Plan states that, "Mountains are a major open space system recommended for protection in the Rural and Growth Areas" (page 27). In addition the plan states "Resources associated with mountains include critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters." (page 5) Relocating the tower to a lower elevation w/II require the tower height to be increased to maintain the same coverage objective. Based on the information provided by the applicant, relocating the tower out of the Mountain Resource Area (while remaining on this property) will require the tower to be increased from 200 feet to 544 feet. At this height the tower would have to be lit and using a guyed tower becomes more likely. The Open Space Concept Map "is intended to serve two functions: to guide open space decision-making in the County as a whole, and to provide a starting point for the ongoing identification and protection of Rural Area open space resources" (page 2). The location ora tower in the Mountain Resource Area will permanently alter the visible appearance of the resource and, without additional guidance as to acceptable unpacts in the Mountain Resource Area, staff opinion is that locating towers in the Mountain Resource Area is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Staff is unable to provide comment as to the potential impacts if this tower were relocated outside of the Mountain Resource Area on a different parcel. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in three sections: 2. 3. 4. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. [copy attached] Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board &Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed tower is located approximately 100 feel from the nearest property line and does not comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is on a flat area below the peak and the site is entirely wooded. These trees will provide excellent screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information these trees are approximately 50 feet tall. (Staff opinion, based on a field visit is that the trees in the area of the tower are approximately 70 feet tall.) Based on the information from the applicant, the top of the tower will be approximately 150 feet above the tree line. This will offer opportunities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff does note that the applicant has worked with CFW Wireless to provide collocation on this tower which would eliminate the need for a second new tower in this same general area. However, this height will increase the area of visibility of the tower. The impact on reduction of the tower height on the US Cellular network is unknown at this time. The proposed tower is located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest dwelling on adjacent property. Based on staff review this tower ~vill be visible from dwellings located to the west of Route 29 and south of the site. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the tower is under the height standard for lighting, but staff has included a condition limiting lighting unless required by the FAA or other federal officials. This tower does nol penetrate the Airport Overlay District. The visibility of the tower from residential property may be considered a detriment. However, staff is not able to determine if the detriment is substantial. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts. Staffis unable to determine if the impact of this proposal will create a substantial detriment to adjacent property. The applicant has not submitted evidence that the impact from this development will not be substantial. thai the character of the district will not be changed thereby. In determining the impact on the character of the district staffhas taken into consideration the character of the district as described in the Comprehensive Plan Open Space Plan. A.topographic map is attached to this report which shows the location of dwellings, the railroad and the quarry. The quarry ts primarily visible from Route 708 and on Route 29 south of the site. However, the sound of the quarry is audible from a considerable distance. Staffprovides this comment simply to indicate that the area is already impacted by nonagricultaral or forestal activity. This site is zoned NR which permits limited quarrying activity on this site by-right. In fact this site has been used as a quarry in the past as an abandoned quarry is present on the site. Use of thls site for quarrying operation would be a change in the character of the area. Staff does not consider the location of a tower on this site as an obstacle or catalyst to use of this property for a permitted natural resource extraction use. The property immediately to the west is located in an Agricultural/Fomstal District. Staff opinion is that approval of this request would have no adverse impact on the use of the adjacent property for either agriculture or forestry. The allowance of other users on this tower would serve to reduce the total number of towers in the area and may alleviate the need for the construction of additional towers, beyond this request..Staff has considered this tower as a stand alone facility. This will result in a change in the appearance of the area. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas and have not in the opinion of staffresulted in a change in the character of the Rural Areas to this point. Since the adoption of the Open Space Plan no towers have been approved within the Mountain Resource Area except within the existing tower farm on Carter's Mountain and the recent approval for CFW on Piney Mountain. Staffopinion is that although a tower will change the appearance of the area, it will not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, limited activity for the installation of access/electricity, and no impact on this or other property for any by-right agricultural/forestal use. In considering the character of the district staffhas considered that this request is within the mountain resource area which has a largely undeveloped character. This requesl would change the character of the district in that it permits development within the mountain resource area which is not supported by the Open Space Plan. Based on the impact to the mountain resource area staff opinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections t.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment F). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision ora public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance. "To facilitate the creation ora convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal may not be contributing to an attractive community because of the potential visual impact to the entrance corridor and mountain area designated in the Open Space Plan. Therefore, staff opinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 oft he Ordinance. with the uses permitted bv rieht in the district, The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses, other by-right uses available on this site or by-right uses on any other property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.I 2 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general wel£arq The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general welfare by previding increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". [n order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequent? emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoninc, Ordinance Section 4.10.3.1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements". By the requirements of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of 200 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately I00 feet from the closest property line. Staff opinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a condition requiring approval ora tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure (such a condition is proposed by staff for this reques0. This condition protects the public safety. Relocation of the tower is an option. However, relocation would result in a taller tower and the construction of the tower in an area of critical slopes. Staffhas historically supported requests for modification to allow towers to be located closer to the property line than the height of the tower when no option to relocate exists. In previous applications denial of the modification request would require relocation of the tower to areas of critical slopes or to areas which would require a substantially taller tower. In this case denial of the modification would have these negative results. Staff opinion is that the negatlves of relocating the tower outweigh the waiver and therefore, staff is able to support a reduction in the setback requirement. Section 704(a)(7/fo/(i)(IB of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any stare or local government or instrumentali _ty thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the, provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staff opinion is that the County has no ban or policies that have the effect of banning personal wireless services or facilities and that decisions regarding the approval of facilities to provide service is done on a case-by-case basis. Staff offers as support for this statement the following evidence. Since 1990 the Board of Supervisors has acted on 15 requests m~d has approved 1 l of these requests. Staffdoes not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staffdoes not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staff in an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction of a tower. Alternate sites for the construction of a new tower have not been discussed. Potential collocation sites investigated included the existing power lines located approximately 1 mile south this site. The applicant is currently investigating the propagation patterns which would be achieved by locating on this power line. However, at the time of the preparation of this report no information is available. Staffopinion is that this collocation option on the power line to the south has not been exhausted. No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in southern Albemarle. Waiver ora site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The text of Section 32.2.2 is attached. Fhe Commission may waive the drawing ora site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. The site review committee has reviewed the request for a site plan waiver. Based on this review staff is unable to identify any purpose which would be served by requiring the submission of a site plan. Staffrecommends approval ora full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions: I. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. Provision of one parking space. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: I . The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4. 1,4,4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. 3. The tower will provide collocation opportunities in an area identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: 1. This site is within the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. This impact m~i~y be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance. 2. Options for alternative sites have not been exhausted. 3. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. While staffhas not identified the vistial impact created by the tower as a substantial detriment to the existing nearby residential area, staff cloes note approval of this request will introduce a new tower to an area of nearby residential development from which the tower will be visible. Staffopinion is that the impact on th~ mountain resource area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the iOrdinance and therefore, staff is unable to recommeud approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request, staff has provided conditions of approval In the event that the Board chooses to cleny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provision~ of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staffto return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that the impact on the Mountain Resource Area without findings on possible alternative sites makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request staff offers the following recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 200 feet. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as re minimize visibility from the ground. Staffapproval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area. The tower shail be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes. Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled ~Proposed Cellular Antenna Site "and initialed WDF October 16, 1997 and on untitled topographic map initialed WDF October 16, 1997. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration of the Federal Communications Commission, transmissmn structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts. 10. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidance that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with any other wireless telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site. l 1. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. 17. report shall state the current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service. The tower shall be of lattice type construction. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. Access road shall be gated. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to permit the tower as requested by the applicant: A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower approximately 100 feet from the property line. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan waiver. A waiver of the drawing ora site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2. subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. Provision of one parking space. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B ~ Tax Map C ~ Applicants Information D - Topographical Map E - Cross Section showing alternative tower site F - Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. A:\SP9741.RPT CeD CASTLE SP 97-41 U.S. CELLULAR (RED HILL) TOM SP 97-41 / / U.S. CELLULAR (RED HILL) ! 6nd therefore makes th special commercial use. and stand 200' or less ridge is at elevation 1070', The toos of the trees are at eleYatio~ ~2d"; ~ust.below the tower top which itself is at a lower elevation than some of the quarry operation. DESCRIPTION OFREQUEST:('Plcasc attach additionalin£onnation as needed) Request to be allowed to install a wireless communications tower and antennae along j;---- ~n a reasonable place to ~ ~ate rather obscure, but ~ loc~ lhe tower is PrODosed to be located at elevation 1000' AMSL [~ in height. Assuming the trees on the ridge are 50' tall and the with affiliated ground-based improvements near the top of a ridge adjacent to Route 29 South on the property owned by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.. known as R~d Mill Quarry. The subject 3roperty and adjacent lands are zoned RA. Ihe tower and associated ~mprovements will be located on a leased tract of land roughly a quarter acre in size. The tower is proposed at 200' or slightly less in height, to be placed a minimum of it's height from any property line. The exact site is a remote location behind the old quarry and on the back side of the ridge from 29. The top of the tower w~ll be only slightly above the mountain top to allow for clear sight lines UP and down the corridor. JUSTIFICATION: (Please attach additional in£ormation as needed) The need for adequate cellular service in the 29 5outh corridor is evident ~iven both t_his rerLugst and thr~e preceeding aJll2]lx:ationq ?ut for_th by cFu ~nmm, n~raf~nnq ~n the precinct. This application calls for a tower location on the same property as the active Red Hill Quarry ooeration. The character of the area was of utmost concern when selecting a location in thls area. The quarry represents an existing industrial- type use which has a stronq visual presence from almost all vantage points, lt's activities and impacts are present on Dudley Mountain UP tn elevation 12~0 AMS[. Although the mountains in this precinct include land above the 800' elevation and it is felt that the quarry is already recoqnized as a compromise of the visual scen OFFICE USE ONLY TAX MAP/PARCEL: 4. _- - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, REQUESTED UNDER ORDINANCE SECTION: EXISTING USE: PROPOSED USE: HISTORY: [] SP~: [] VAs: [] ZMAs and Proffers: [] Letter of Authorization ATTACHPIENT C - IATTACHI~ENT C I 5 I IATTACHMENT F ] 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1. Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1. Chapter 11. Article 8. As set forth in section 15.1427 of the Code, this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and m plan for the future development of conununities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new communny centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilities: that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth: that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land be preserved: and that the growth of the cormnunity be consonant with the efficient and economical use of public funds. (Added 9-9-92) Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. for the purposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the future development of the commmfity, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the off icial zoning map adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: 1.4.1 To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; 1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets: 1.4.3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.4.5 To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; 1.4.6 To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire. flood, panic or other dangers; 1,4.7 To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92} 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities: (Added 11-i-89; Amended 9-9-92) I ATTACHMENT F I t.4.10 To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia: and (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) .4. I 1 To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92) 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the connnnnity, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resources: and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land. the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended 11-l-89) 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zonfl~g ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is ro be encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area: where services and utilities are available and where such developmem will not conflict with the agricultural/forestal or other rural objectives; and development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are m be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and lfistoric resources and where only limited delivery of public services is intended. (Amended t 14-89) SP 97-41 U.S. Cellular - Red Hill - Proposal to construct a 200-foot telecommunication -tower with associated support facilities on a portion of 319 acres zoned PA. Rural Areas [10.2.2.6]. Property, described as Tax Map 88. Parcels 18 and 18A is located on the north side of Route 708 (Red Hill Road) approximately one mile east of Route 29 (Monacan Trail Road) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area. 10-28-97 5 Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request based on the following findings: --The site is within the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Open Space Plan. This im pact may be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. --Options for alternative sites have not been exhausted. -There is an existing reasonable use of the property. Staff concluded: "Staff opinion is that the impact on the Mountain Resource Area without findings on possible alternative sites makes this reouest inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore staff is unable to recommend approval of this request." Should the Board choose to approve the request, the staff report included 17 recommended conditions of approval. Approval would also require Commission action on a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 to allow location of the tower approximately 100 feet from the property line. and a waiver of a drawing of a site plan, tn accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2, subject to two conditions. Staff answers to Commission questions included the following; --Using the maps on display, Mr. Fdtz pointed out the locations of existing towers. or sites which have been approved, and also other sites which have been proposed, but not approved. --CFW has expressed an interest in co-location on this tower. US Cellular is not opposed. --The quarry can be seen from Rt. 29, from the south. The quarry is disturbing land above the 800-foot level. --Referring to the line of sight drawn on the cross section, from top of tower to Rt. 29, drawn in with a 50-foot tree canopy, Mr. Tice agreed with staff that the tree canopy is probably closer to 70-feet. and could, at maturity, be 80-90 feet. Mr. Tica noted that if [he "strip representing the 50-foot tree canopy" were moved to represent 70-80 feet canopy, the entire line of sight would be obstructed by the trees. Mr. Fdtz said he was not concerned about this difference because (1) a higher tower would kick in requirements for lighting; and (2) the presence of foliage does not completely obstruct line of sight and any obstruction would only be for a small section. (The applicant's representative Mr. Blain, later confirmed Mr. Fdtz's statements regarding the tree canopy.) --Mr. Nitchmann. referring to staff's statement that alternatives have not been exhausted, asked staff to define "exhausted." Mr. Fdtz said he had received no information from the applicant which says "they can't co-locate on these power lines." No information has been received which explains how the applicant determined that ce- location would not work. --Regarding staff's statement that this tower would not have an adverse impact on the activities within the ag/forestal district, Mr. Tice asked if staff's assessment had also included an evaluation of the second objective of ag/forestal districts, i.e. ~mpact to "valued natural and ecological resources, essential open space for clean airsheds. 10-28-97 6 watershed protection, wildlife habitat as well as for aesthetic purposes." Mr. Fritz said the staff report does address aesthetic impact, but not ecological impact because the ground area being disturbed fs very small. --Mr. Finley asked if the tower were moved to the 800 feet elevation level. "what legitimate reason would there be to deny it?" He said it appeared the visibility would be about the same, except from the far south and north. Mr. Fritz agreed you would see more of the tower farther away-from the north and south The Commission could determine that a 200-feet tower within the mountain resource area would not have a substantial detriment on adjacent properties, but the Commission may determine that a 540-foot tower does have a substantial detriment on adjoining property. It could also have an impact on the setback modification. He said a move to a different level would require a re-evaluation of the request and would be an entirely different review. --Ms. Huckle asked if there is an existing road to this proposed site, Mr Fdtz said there is not an existing road and trees will have to be removed to construct an access road. Staffs recommended conditions of approval include conditions which wilt minimize the impact of the road. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Blain. (He was accompanied by Mr. Mark Gartley and Mr. Mark Keller.) His comments included the following: --US Cellular is licensed to do business m Albemarle County and part of the license includes the 29 South corridor, which is currently experiencing poor service. --Propagation studies performed by the applicant help to determine the locations where towers are needed. Mr. Blain had visual aids which showed how propagation studies are used to locate target areas. He also had visual depictions of existing service levels and proposed service levels. --This area has no co-location options. --He described other sites which were considered. --Issues considered when determining sites include: the target area to be served. finding a landowner who is willing to allow a tower; the impact to cultural and historical resources; the visual impact to surrounding areas: and local ordinance requirements. --Trying to serve the target area while at the same time causing little visual impact presents a real dilemma. --This site is in an area zoned for stdp mining as a permitted use. The applicant feels this use is as consistent with the Open Space Plan as a by-right use. --He presented photos showing the visibility of the tower from different locations. --The applicant feels that if the Commission will balance the existing zoning, which allows mining, with the applicant's efforts to locate a tower here, it will reach a favorable ruling. For the record, Mr. Loewenstein asked if the applicant has exhausted all the potential useful sites in this area which would achieve the same desired service level? Mr. Blain responded affirmatively. He added that though it may be possible that there is another site that would provide the same coverage, the applicant has "bent over backwards to find the most viable site and the one with the least impact." 10-28-97 7 Mr. Nitchmann asked how far down on the slope the tower could be placed if service to the east is not a concern. Mr. Blain said it could possibly be lower, but the service to the east would be lost. Mr. Tice asked if, in its consideration of sites, any thought was given to possibly two shorter towers, instead of one tall tower. Mr. Blain said the applicant knows towers are not preferred structures in the County, so if the service can be achieved with one tower. half as many people will be impacted. Mr. Tice asked if the quarry site was considered. Mr. Blain responded affirmatively but said it was not suitable because active blasting is taking place. There was a brief discussion of co-location requirements. Mr. Fritz said co-located antenna must typically be 20 feet lower and 9 or 10 antennae on a tower is not unusual for a single user. He said he is not aware of any tower with 9 or 10 different users. Ms. Huckle asked about the status of the County's plans to hire a consultant to help find tower sites. Mr. Cilimberg said the Request for Proposal (RFP) is presently being prepared and must be reviewed by the County attorney. He said the clock is running out on this request so a consultant will not be hired in time to be of assistance on this proposal. Public comment was invited. The following neighboring property owners expressed opposition to the request: Tucker Johnson (directly across Rt. 29 from the proposed site); Montgomery Woods: Michael Crawford; and David vanRoijen. Their reasons for opposition were as follows: --Visual impact, --The location of the quarry is not a good argument. The quarry is not visible from any of the ag/forestal properties, Also, the quarry re-seeds its sites and makes them attractive when they are not longer in use. A tower will be there forever and is an eyesore. -There are histodc properties (Moorland -1890 and Anchorage - 1830) very close by, --The County needs to show its support for ag/forestal districts (adjacent to this property to the west) by protecting this land. -The neighbors were not canvassed. Neighbors were told by the applicant that the application would be withdrawn if there was strong neighborhood opposition. All neighbors signed a document expressing their opposition. -The property has very steep terrain. It will be impossible to construct a road without significant environmental degradation. --An access road will make the property more accessible to trespassers. --The tower should be located with the quarry (on Dudley Mountain). (Mr. Crawford, m response to Mr. Tice's question to him. said he would be less opposed to the tower if it were located on Dudley Mountain. close to the quarry.) t0-28-97 8 --Co-location on this tower (by other users) would resull in multiple maintenance buildings being constructed. --Isn't the County trying to stop the proliferation of towers? There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice asked if the conditions of approval incorporate read standards from the proposed Mountain Protection plan, including that the road cannot exceed 16% grade. Mr. Fritz responded: "No it does not." Ms, Huckte thought the maximum had been 15%. Mr. Kamptner said the recommendation in the Mountain plan" is a 16% average, but within any 300 feet segment it can be up to 20%." The plan has not yet been adopted. Ms. Huckle said she has many problems with this request. If approved it would be the first tower in a Mountain Resource Protection Area. (Ms, Tice pointed out that a recently approved tower on Piney Mountain is in a Mountain Resource Area, but there were already several existing towers on the mountain.) Ms. Huckle said that some of the people in the Hardware Ag/Forestal Distdct are already concerned and are questioning the reason to make a commitment to protect agricultural land if the County is not going to reciprocate by protecting land adjacent to the District, She said she does not feel the applicant has explored all the options. She pointed out that the County's aesthetic resources are some of its most valuable--they are what make people want to come to this area. She said she could not support the request. Mr. Tice said he is in a "quandary" on this request. He agreed With Ms. Huckle about being careful not to set a precedent that could open up the Mountain Resource areas to similar uses when there may be other alternatives. He also agreed that there are aesthetic impacts on the ag/forestal districts. However, he said there is little doubt that towers are going to be constructed on Rt. 29 south, whether this tower or some other, in ~he very near future. Even with the understanding that the same level of coverage cannot be expected in a mountainous area as in an urban area. there is still a considerable gap in coverage. Considering the significant use of Rt. 29, it is reasonable to assume there will be more than one tower, so the question is "where is the most appropriate place?" He said he was not convinced all the alternatives have been explored by the applicant. He said the site does have some favorable aspects. It is in a natural resource extraction area, and even though the possibility that this site would be quarried is very slim, it is certainly an area of intensive site disturbance. He felt that this characteristic could distinguish this site from other proposals which might come forward in Mountain Protection areas, i.e. in order to use this site as precedent, other sites would have to have the same extraction site argument. He wondered if there might be another site, closer to the quarry on Dudley Mountain, that may be out of the active quarrying activity but closer to the disturbance area. He concluded that he still had not .made up his mind He was concerned about the impact on the ag/forestal district and areas with conservation easements. 10-28-97 9 Ms. Huckle pointed out that people who live in this area have said that though their cellular service may not be perfect, it does exist and they can use their cellular phones. She said she feels the precedent issue is a s~gnificant one. She said a better decision could be made after the consultant is available to advise the county. Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed with many of Mr. Tice's comments. He said he is concerned about visual degradation, an ~ssue which is encountered with all tower requests. He said the applicant has not presented evidence which convinces him that all options have been considered. He said he is concerned about mountain resource and open space protection and about eadier comments that the county needs to suppod minimum land uses in land adjacent to ag/forestal districts. The County needs to show that it appreciates the commitments which landowners make when they put their land in ag/forestal districts. He said he believes, also, that there are significant histodc resources in this area which would be impacted. He concluded that he feels a denial would not cause the applicant an "immense hardship" with the knowledge that the request could be resubmitted after the County's consultant is on board. He said he recognizes there is a need for cellular service in this area. but he is uncertain as to the best way to achieve that service. Mr. Finley asked what procedure would be followed if the applicant were to come back with alternative proposals and staff after rewew, finds them even less satisfactory than this site. Mr. Fritz said: "If the review is deferred by the applicant, prior to Board review. for the purpose of submitting additional information, staff would review that additional information and revise the report accordingly. It would then be up to the Board of Supervisors to either hear the request or refer it back to the Planning Commission for further evaluation." Mr. Nitchmann said he does not feel all options have been fully explored. He said he understands that technology is driving the need for cellular towers, "but at some point the cellular companies are going to have to step back and ask 'how perfect does perfect have to be?' You can't expect things to work as well in mountainous areas. It may be possible to use shorter towers that will improve service, though it may not provide optimum service." He concluded that he could not support the application. Ms. Washington said she was concerned about the impact on the ag/forestal district. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved. Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-41 for US Cellular (Red Hill) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial for [he following reasons: --Applicant has not provided evidence that all possibilities have been explored: --Agreement with findings in staff report: and --Impact to ag/forestal distdct and conflict with the purposes of the ag/forestal district. --Lack of staff findings on alternatives sites. 10-28-97 10 The motion for denial passed unanimously, In the event the Board should recommend approval of the request, Mr. Kamptner asked the Commission to act on the waivers for a reduction in setback and requirement for a site plan, and also on the recommended 17 conditions. Ms. Huckle asked why a 75-foot width is needed for the road. Mr Fritz said that is the maximum which can be disturbed and includes all the side slopes, grading, etc. The road itself would not be 75-feet wide. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved. Mr. Finley seconded, that a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 be approved for SP 97-41 US Cellular (Red Hill) to allow the tower to be located approximately 100 feet from the property line. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a waiver of the drawing of a site plan be granted for SP 97-41 US Cellular (Red Hill) ~n accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2. subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Provision of one parking space. The motion passed unanimously. It was the consensus of the Commission that the 17 recommended conditions of approval attached to the Special Permit be approved (as stated in the staff report dated 10-28-97). No changes were suggested to any of the conditions. (No formal motion was made on the conditions,) Mr. Tice left the meeting at this point, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 98-03 Outdoor Lighting Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: ZTA 98-03 Outdoor Lighting Ordinance STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Scala; Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: August 12, 1998 ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ,// The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on ZTA 98-03 on June 10, 1998, and deferred action untit August 12, 1998. They directed staffto prepare a proposal (which was approved by the Board on June 17) to assemble a task force to specifically address areas of concern and to propose revisions to the ordinance within the framework of the original resolution of intent, The task force's revisions were presented to the Board at a work session August 5, with public review/hearing scheduled for August 12. SUMMARY: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance with minor changes on April 14, 1998. That draft of the ordinance (April 20 draft) required that all outdoor luminaires installed or replaced after the adoption of the ordinance be fully shielded if equipped with a lamp equal to or exceeding 3,000 lumens. The ordinance has been revised, based on meetings with the task rome (ATTACHMENT - DRAFT; Aug~{t 6, 1998): 1. Due to enforcement concerns, for sinnle family and other uses which do not require a site plan in residential and Rural Areas districts, now only high intensity discharge lights (including mercury, metal halide, high and Iow pressure sodium), will require shielding, regardless of lumens output. That means halogen, incandescent and fluorescent lights for single family residences will not be regulated, but memury vapor yard lights, for example, will require a shield. Enforcement will be simplified because no measurement of lumens will be necessary. The original shielding requirement (for luminaires equipped with alampof3,0001umensorgreater~ mmainsin place for commercial, industrial muiti-familyand other uses which require a site plan. 2. All the lighting requirements in the zoning ordinance have been consolidated in this new section 4.17 except the industhal performance standard for glare (4.14.3), (which includes welding glare, for example). The site plan requirement (32.7,8.2) has been changed to read that outdoor lighting must now comply with 4.17, The parking lot reqairement (4.12.6.4) has also been changed to read that parking lot lighting must now comply with 4.17. ]'he existing % footcandle limit (for parkinq lot liqhtinq spitiover onto reads, residential and Rural Areas districts) is not being chan.qed at this time, other than it is being moved to 4.17. 3. The definition of "fully shielded luminaire" has been replaced by "full cutoff luminaire.' The concept remains the same: no light maybe emitted above the horizontal plane. All lights must be mounted horizontally - no tilting. The exception is that decoralNe f~tures (such as architectural streetlights) are now permitttd if they meet 'full cutoff optics.' This means that, although shielded, a reflective globe usually permits a slight amount of uplighting. 4. The deflnilion of outdoor luminK~re is specifically written to exclude internally illuminated signs. Thus, a floodlight which is directed at a monument sign, for example, is an outdoor luminaire: but a sign with internal fluorescent illumination is not, 5. Exem~ons have been added for holiday decorative lighting; lighting of the Virginia or American flag; sensor lighting; replacement of inoperable lamps and components; and replacement of a damaged luminaire which is one of a matching group. The intent is that wholesale replacement of a group of luminaires would comply with the ordinance. DISCUSSION: The intent of this ordinance has always been to simply require that all new outdoor lighting be fully shielded. This ordinance meets that intent, with a change to the residential requirement which will allow more practical enforcement, and a change to allow certain decorative fixtures, Any other ligh~ng issues (a retroactive ordinance regulating existing lighting, footcandle requirements, etc.) may be addressed at a later date through a committee with community-wide representation. Since the last draft, revisions have been made to: the definition of decorative luminaire {4.17.3), the flag exemption language (4.17.6.c), and the equivalent wattage language (4.17.4.a.2). These revisions were discussed with the Board at the August 5 work session. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZTA 98-03 as recommended by the task force. Staff also recommends review of the ordinance (specifically the waiver prowsions) after 18 months, te see if any changes are warranted. 98.156 DRAFT: August 6, 1998 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS. OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, tlmt Chapter t8, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV. Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 4.12.6.4 Lighting. Sec. 32.6.6 Untitled Sec. 32.7.8.2 Untitled. By Adding: Sec. 4.17. Sec. 4.17.1. Sec. 4.17.2. Sec. 4.17.3. Sec. 4.17.4. Sec. 4.17.5. Sec. 4.17.6. Outdoor lighting, Purpose. Applicability. Definitions. Standard. Modification. waiver or variation. Exempt outdoor lighting and related acts. Chapter 18. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.12.6.4. Lighting. Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall comply with the requirements of section 4.17 of this ..... sba'2 .....................,_j ~ot candl [Amended 6 14 89) Sec. 4.17. Outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting regulations are set forth in sections 4.17.t. 4.17.2, 4.17.3, 4.17.4, 4.17.5 and 4A7.6. These regulations are in addition to the performance standard perminin~ to ~lare set forth in section 4.14.3 of this chapter. Draft: August6, 1998 Lamp. The term "lamp" means the component ofa luminaire that produces light. A lamp is also commonly referred m as a bulb. Lumen. The term "lumen" means a standard urdt of measurement of luminous flux. Luminaire. The term "lmrdnalre" means a complete lighting unk consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the components designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. A luminalre is also commonly referred to as a fixture. Outdoor luminaire. The term "outdoor luminalre" means a lmminaire which is permanently installed outdoors including, but not limited to, devices used to illuminate any site, structure, or sie;n, except. that it does not include an internally illuminated sign. Sec. 4.17.4. Standards. The following standards shall apply to each outdoor luminalre: _Except as provided in section 4.17.6. each outdoor lumLnaire subiect to these outdoor lighting reeulations shall be a full cutoff lumina/re or a decorative tuminaire with full cutoff optics. For each outdoor lurninai~e subiect to these outdoor lighting regulations pursuant m section 4.t7.2.a. whether alamp emits three thousand (3.000) or more in/rial lumens shall be determined from the information provided by the manufacturer of the tamp including, but not limited m, information on the lamp or on the lamp's packaging materials. For each outdoor luminaire subiect to these outdoor lightine regulations pursuant m section 4.17.2.a. the following rated lamp wattages shall be deemed to emit three thousand (3,00131 or more initial lumens unless the zoning administrator determines. based upon information provided bv a lamp manufacturer, that the rated wattage of a lamp emits either more or less than the three thousand__~ 3.000) initial lumens: Incandescent lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or more watts. Quartz halogen lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or more watts. Fluorescent lamp: thirty-five (35) or more watts. Meremw vapor lamp: seventy-five (75) or more watts. 3 Draft: August 6, 1998 Metal halide [amp: forty (40) or more watts. Hi_gh pressure sodium lamp: forty-five (45) or more watts. Low pressure sodium lamp: twenty-five (25'} or more watts. If a tuminaire is equipped with more than one lamp, the lumens of the lamp with the highest initial lumens shall determine the lumens emitted. The spillover of lighting from parking area luminaires onto public roads and proper~ in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half (½) foot candle. Sec. 4.17.5. Modification, waiver or variation. A modification, waiver or variation from the standard set forth in section 4.17.4 may be granted by the commission, as provided herein: a_. The commission ma,/modify, waive or var'/the standard set forth in section 4.t7.4 in a particular case, and the commission may impose conditions on such a modificatio~ waiver or variation which it deems appropriate to further the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations, in either of the following circumstances: 1__ Upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest, or that alternatives proposed by the owner would satisf~ the purposes of these outdoor lightin~ regulations at least to an equivalent degree. Upon finding that an outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required for a baseball, softball, football or soccer field cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the field for its sale use, as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for that type of field and activiW or other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable. Prior to considerin~ a request to modify, waive or vary, five (5) days' written notice shall be provided to the o~v~er, owner's agent or occupant of each abutting lot or parcel and each parcel immediately across the street or road from the lot or parcel which is the subiect of the request. The written notice shall identi~ the nature of the request and the date and time the commission will consider the request. 4 Draft: August 6. 1998 See. 4.17.6. Exempt outdoor tightin~ and related acts. The followin¢ outdoor ti~hting and related acts shall be exempt from the requiremems of these outdoor liEhting regulatiorm: a_. Lighting which is not subiect to this chapter by state or federal law. b_ Construction, agricultural, emergency or holiday decorative lightin¢ provided that the lighting is temporary, and is discontinued within seven (7) days upon completion of the pro~. ecl or holiday for which the lighting was provided. Lighting of the United States of America or Commonwealth of Virginia flags and other non- commercial flags expressing constitutionally protected speech. Security lighting controlled by sensors which provides illumination for figteen (I 5) minutes or less. The replacement of an inoperable lamp or component which is in a himinaire that was installed prior to the date of adoption of section 4.17. The repIacement of a failed or damaged tuminaire which is one of a matching group serving a common purpose. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 32.6.6(j) Untitled. Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and photoffraph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminalre. Sec. 32.7,8.2. Untitled. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of section 4.17 of this chapter ........ Draft: August 6, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meetin~ held on August 5, 1998. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Mr. Marshall Mr. Bowerman Mr. Perkins Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Ms. Thomas Aye Nay 6 ORDINANCE NO. 98-18(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER_ 18, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 4.12.6.4 Lighting. Sec. 32.6.6 Untitled Sec. 32.7.8.2 Untitled. By Adding: Sec. 4.17. Outdoor lighting. Sec. 4.17.1. Purpose. Sec. 4.17.2. Applicability. Sec. 4.17.3. Definitions. Sec. 4.17.4. Standard. Sec. 4.17.5. Modification, waiver or variation. Sec~ 4.17.6. Exempt outdoor lighting and related acts. Chapter 18. Zoning Article Il. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.12.6.4. Lighting. Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall comply with the requirements of section 4.17 of this chapter. (Amended 6-14-89; Ord. 98-18(t), 8-12-98) Sec. 4.17. Outdoor lighting. Outdoor light/ag regulations are set forth in sections 4,17.1, 4.17.2, 4.17.3, 4.17.4, 4.17.5 and 4.17.6. These regulations are in addition to the performance standard pertaining to glare set forth in section 4.14.3 of this chapter. (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12~98) Sec. 4.17.1. Purpose. 3?ne purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations are to protect dark skies, to protect the general welfare by controlling the spillover of light onto adjacent properties, and to protect the public safety by preventing glare from outdoor luminaires. To effectuate these purposes, these regulations regulate the direction of light emitted from certain luminaires, and limit the intensity of light on certain adjacent properties, as provided herein. (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98) Sec. 4.17.2. Applicability. Except as provided in section 4.17.6, these outdoor lighting regulations shall apply to each outdoor luminaire installed or replaced after the date of adoption of these regulations which is: Located on property within a commercial or industrial zoning district, or is associated with a use for which a site plan is required by section 32.0, ~md is equipped with a lamp which emits three thousand (3,000) or more initial lumens; or Located on propertywithin a residentialor the rural areas zoning district and is associatedwith a use for which a site plan is not required by section 32.0, and is equipped with a high intensity discharge lamp, regardless of its initial lumens. (Ord~ 98-18(1), 8-12-98) Sec. 4.17.3. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the implementation and enforcement of these outdoor lighting regulations: Decorative luminaire withfullcutoff.optics. The term "decorative luminaire with full cutoff optics" means an outdoor light fixture with manufacturer~providedor manufacturer-installedfull cut-offoptics designed for aesthetic appeal. This term shall not include, among others, a canopy or shoebox luminalre. Full cutoffluminaire. The term "full cutoff luminaire' means an outdoor light fixture shielded in sucha manner that all light emitted by the frxture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizuntal plane. High intensity discharge lamp. The term "high intensity discharge lamp" means a memuryvapor, metaI halide, or high pressure sodium lamp, and for pnrposes of this section 4.17, a Iow pressure sodium lamp. Initial lumens) The term ,initial lumens" means the lumens emitted from a lamp, as specified by the manufacturer of the lamp. Lamp. The term "lamp" means the component of a luminaire that produces light. A lamp is also commonly referred to as a bulb. Lumen. The term "lumen" means a standard unit of measurement of luminous flux. Luminaire. The term "Iuminaire" means a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the components designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. A luminaire is also commonly referred to as a fixture. Outdoorluminaire. The term "outdoor luminalre" means a ltuninah:e which is permanently installed outdoors including, but not limited to, devices used to illuminate any site, structure, or sign, except that it does not include an internally illuminated sign. (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98) Sec. 4.17.4. Standards. The following standards shall apply to each outdoor lumina~re: 2 a. Except as provided in section 4.17.6, each outdoor lumina[re subject to these outdoor lighting regulations shall be a full cutoffinminaire or a decorative luminalre with full cutoffoptics. 1. For each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations pursuant to section 4.17.2.a, whether a lamp emits three thousand (3,000) or more initial lumens shall be determined from the information provided by the manufacturer of the lamp including, but not limited to, information on the lamp or on the lamp's packaging materials. 2. For each outdoor lumina/re subject to these outdoor lighting regulations pursuant to section 4.17.2.a, the following rated lamp wattages shall be deemed to emit three thousand (3,000) or more initial lumens unless the zoning administrator determines, based upon information provided by a lamp manufacturer, that the rated wattage of a lamp emits either more or less than the three thousand (3}000) initial lumens: a. Incandescent lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or more watts. b. Quartz halogen lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or more watts. c. Fluorescent lamp: thirty-five (35) or more watts. d. Mercury vapor lamp: seventy-five (75) or more watts. e. Metal halide lamp: forty (40) or more watts. f. High pressure sodium lamp: forty-five (45) or more watts. g. Low pressure sodium lamp: twenty-five (25) or more watts. 3. Ifa luminalre is equipped with more than one lamp, the lumens of the lamp with the highest initial lumens shall determine the lumens emitted. The spillover of lighfmg from parking area luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or raral areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half (½) foot candle. (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98) Sec. 4.17.5. Modification, waiver or variation. A modification, waiver or variation from the standard set forth in section 4.17.4 may be granted by the commission, as provided herein: a. The commission may modify, waive or vary the standard set forth in section 4.17.4 in a particular case, and the commission may impose conditions on such a modification, waiver or variation which it deems appropriate to further the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations, in either of the following circumstances: 1. Upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest, or that alternatives proposed by the owner would satisfy the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at least to an equivalent degree. 3 2. Upon finding that an outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required for a baseball, softball, football or soccer field cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the field for its safe use, as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for that type of field and activity or other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable. b. Prior to considering a request to modify, waive or vary, five (5) days' written notice shall be provided to the owner, owner's agent or occupant of each abutting lot or parcel and each parcel immediately across the street or road from the lot or parcel which is the subject of the request. The written notice shall identify the nature of the request and the date and t/me the commission will consider the request. (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98) Sec. 4.17.6. Exempt outdoor lighting and related acts. The following outdoor lighting and related acts shall be exempt from the requirements of these outdoor lighting regulations: a, Lighting which is not subjcet to this chapter by state or federal law. b. Construction, agricultural, emergency or holiday decorative lighfmg, provided that the lighting is temporary, and is discontinued within seven (7) days upon completion of the project or holiday for which the lighfmg was provided. Lighting of the United States of Ameriea or Commonwealth of Virginia flags and other non-commercial flags expressing constitutionally protected speech. Security light'mg controlled by sensors which provides illumination for fit'~een (15) minutes or less. The replacement of an inoperable lamp or component which is in a lumina/re that was installed prior to the date of adoption of section 4.17. The replacement of a failed or damaged lumina/re which is one of a matching group serving a common purpose. £ (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98) Article IV. Procedure Sec. 32.6.6(j) Untitled. Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and ptmtograph or diagram of each type of outdoor l~minaire. (Or& 98-18(I), 8-12-98) Sec. 32.7.8.2. Untitled. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of section 4.17 of this chapter. 4 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on August 12, 1998. Mr. Mm'shall Mr. Bowerman Y Mr. Perkins Y Ms. Humphris Y Mr. Martin Y Ms. Thomas Y Ave Nay Y ~e~r~'a~d ofiounty Supe~scds 5 BOARD OF SUPERV ©R June 5, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning1 & Community Deve]opmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Vir§inia 229024596 /804} 296-5823 Dick Gibson C/o Tremblay & Smith, LLP 105-109 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP-98-03 360 Communications (Dudley Mountain Site) Tax Map 89, parcel 18 Dear Mr. Gibson: The Albemarle Coumy Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1998, unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that the Commission took no action on the recommended conditions of approval, however, they acknowledged that if the Board views this request favorably, the Board can request that the Commission review the conditions of approval at that that. The Commission also denied the request for waiver ora site plan as well as setback modification request. Please be advised that the Albemarle Coumy Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 12, 1998 Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Ollie L. Fitzgerald STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: William D. Fritz June 2, 1998 August 12, 1998 SP 98-03 360 Communications [Dudley Mountain] Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing toconstruct a 100 foot self supporting lattice tower to provide improved cellular phone coverage for southern Albemarle County. Currently cellular service, by 360 Communications for central and southern Albemarle County, is provided by fac'dities on Heards Mountain and a tower located on 1-64 at Camp Holiday Trails. The specific location of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. Staff has indicated the location ofthe proposed tower and access to the tower on a topographic map, which is included as Attachment D. This tower is located near the ridge of Dudley Mountain. Petition: Proposal to construct a telecommunication tower on approximately 100 acres.zoned RA, Rural Areas in accord with Section 10.2.2.6. Property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 18 is located on the west side of Route 706, Dudley Mountain Rd approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Route 631, Old Lynchburg Rd. in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This facility is proposed to be located near the top of Dudley Mountain. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Character of the Area: The location for the proposed tower is near the ridge of Dudley Mountain which runs north/south. Attachment D is a topographic map that shows the location of the proposed tower, nearby houses, structures and the peak of the mountain. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 1,550 feet ASL, Above Sea Level. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower is approximately 3,000 feet (0.6 miles) distant. This dwelling is located on the west side of Dudley Mountain. The nearest existing tower is located 3.2 miles to the north at Camp Holiday Trails. This tower is operated by 360 Communications. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is unable to recommend approval. Planning and Zoning History: No history is available. Comprehensive Plan: Staffnotes that in order to construct the proposed tower cleating for access and the provision of electrical service will be required. Therefore, these impacts, in addition to the impact of the tower itself, have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan and in the mountain resource area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The resources identified in ihe plan and potentially affected by this application are: Entrance Corridor_ Critical Slopes and Mountain Resource Areas. The Entrance Corridor Overlay District is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance address Critical Slopes. The methods for protection and potential allowable impacts on the mountain resource areas are under consideration by the Board of Supervisors. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor. While the tower will be visible from the Entrance Corridor it will not require ARB approval prior to construction. Without additional information staffis unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site'would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor The proposed tower site will require disturbance of critical slopes for the construction of the tower. The access road to the tower will also cross areas of critical slopes. The mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan starts at the 800 foot contour. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 1,550 feet ASL The Open Space Plan states that, "Mountains are a major open space system recommended for protection in the Rural and Growth Areas" (page 27). In addition the plan states, "Resources associated with mountains include critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters." (page 5). No comparison of the impacts caused by location within the identified resource areas verses location outside of resoume areas is available without the submittal of a detailed request for siting outside of the resource areas. This level of information has not been provided by the applicant at this time. Without such a comparison staffis unable to determine if the impacts ofreqmring relocation outside of the resource areas would be greater than allowing development within the resource areas. Relocating the tower to a lower elevation may require the tower height to be increased to maintain the same coverage objective, or result in additional tower requests to provide coverage to the same area as would be covered by this proposed tower. The Open Space Concept Map "is intended to serve two functions: to guide open space decision-making in the County as a whole, and to provide a starting point for the ongoing identification and protection of Rural Area open space resources" (page 2). The location of a tower in the mountain resource area will permanently alter the quality of the resource and 2 without additional guidance as to the acceptable impacts staff opinion is that locating towers in the mountain resource area is inconsistent with the intent o£the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the location of the tower within the mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan and the disturbance of Critical Slopes as identified in the Open Space Plan, it is the opinion of staffthat this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in four sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2 4 1 of the Zoning Ordinance The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permit s permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Sunervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The proposed tower is located approximately 40 feet from the nearest property line and does not comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is on a north/south ridge of Dudley Mountain, which is entirely wooded. These trees will provide excellent screening of the eqmpment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information these trees are approximately 50 to 60 feet tall. Therefore, the top of the tower will be approximately 40 to 50 feet above the tree line. This will offer opportunities for collocation in an area whichhas been identified as not having substantial collocation options. However, this height will increase the area of visibility of the tower. The impact on reduction of the tower height on the 360 Communications network is unknown at this time. The proposed tower is located approximately 3,000 feet from the nearest dwelling on adjacent property. Based on staffreview this tower will be visible from dwellings located on both sides of Dudley Mountain and from Route 29 and Route 706. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the tower is less than 200 feet in height and staffhas included a condition prohibiting lighting. This tower does not penetrate the Airport Overlay District. The visibilky of the tower from residential property may be considered a detriment. However, staffisnot able to determine if the detriment is substantial. Staffhas received one letter of opposition to this request, attached, which opposes the location of the tower adjacent to property which has been placed in a Conservation Easement. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts~ While staffis unable to determine if the impact of this proposal will create a substantial detriment to adjacent property, staff does note that Conservation Easements are supported by the County as an important rural preservation technique. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Staffdoes note that the applicant has attempted to provided for collocation at this site. The proposed lease area is intended to be large enough to accommodate three towers of 100 foot height. [Staff'has reviewed this proposal as a request for a single 100 foot tower. Additional towers would require amendment to this special use permit.] Staff'has considered this tower as a stand alone facility. This will result in a change in the appearance of the area. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas and have not in the opinion of staff resulted in a change in the character of the Rural Areas to this point. Since the adoption of the Open Space Plan no towers have been approved within the mountain resource area except within the existing tower farm on Carter's Mountain and on Piney Mountain which had two other towers. Staff opinion is that although a tower will change the appearance of the area, it will not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, and no impact on this or other property for any by-right agricultural/forestall use. In considering the character of the district staffhas considered that this request is within the mountain resource area, which has a largely undeveloped character. This request would change the character of the district in that it permits development within the mountain resource area, which is not supported by the Open Space Plan. Stafftypically recommends conditions of approval which are designed to limit the amount of activity required for the installation of access/electricity. These conditions are: 1. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable :to the County Engineer are employed; The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 4. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. The applicant's engineer has provided information which indicates that these conditions cannot be met, Attachment E. Staffopinion is that without conditions such as those above, the impact caused by access to this site will be such that the visual character oftbe area will be changed. Based on theimpact to the mountain resource area staff opinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4. 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5 All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and~rapid increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation ora convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal may not be contribut'mg to an attractive community because of the potential visual impact to the entrance corridor and mountain area designated in the Open Space Plan. Therefore, staff opinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses, other by right uses available on this site, or by right uses on any other property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 9fthis ordinance, Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Theprovision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language: ~To state or local government or instnnnentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safet.v. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision ofpemonal wireless services. 5 Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staffdoes not believe that the special usepermit process or the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction, For this reason, staff does not believe that denial ofthis application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. Staff has been unable to identify any suitable location for collocation, which would eliminate the need for construction of a tower. Alternate sites for the construction of a new tower have not been discussed. Reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section4.10.3 1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional, farm buildings, residential chinmeys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack. water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed onehundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements". By the requirements of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed toweris located approximately 40 feet from the property line. Staffopinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a condition requking approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure. This condition protects the public safety. Relocation of the tower is an option, and relocation would likely result in the tower being increased in height to allow Route 29 to be covered by the tower. A relocation would likely cause the tower to be constructed in an area which is steeper than currently proposed. An increase in the tower height would increase the visibility of the tower. Staffhas historically supported requests for modification to allow towers to be located closer to the property line than the height of the tower when no option to relocate exists. In previous applications denial of the modification request would require relocation of the tower to areas of critical slopes or to areas which would require a substantially taller tower. Inthis case denial of the modification would likely result in a taller tower. The location of the tower as proposed by the applicant is approximately 40 feet from the property line, this location is in an area of critical slopes. A reduction of the setback to less than 40 feet may allow for construction outside of areas of critical slopes. Requiring the tower to be constructed 100 feet from the property line would require construction on an area of critical slopes. Staff is unable to support this request for modification of setback as approval of the modification would allow for the construction of a facility which is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Generally the site review committee has endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the estabfishment of telecommunication facilities. This general endorsement is based on the relatively small area impacted bythe proposed use and the ability to obtain the required information through an erosion and sediment control plan and the building permits. However, in this case the construction of the towerwill reqtdre approval of a modification to permit activity on areas of critical slopes. Staffis able to support the request for a site plan waiver as the information submitted by the applicant generally meets the requirements for a site plan and submittal of the information necessary for the review of a modification of critical slopes will insure that the publics interest is served. Based on this review staffis unable to identify any purpose, which would be served by requiring the submission of a site plan. Staffrecommends approval ora full site plan waiver subject to the foIlowing conditions: [Approval of the site plan waiver in no way implies approval of a modification of Section 4.2 to allow activity on critical slopes.] Planning Commission approval of a modification of Section 4.2 to allow activity on critical slopes; Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the-following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The tower will provide increased wireless capacity, which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Se~ions 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. 3. The tower will provide collocation opportunities in an area identified as not having substantial collocation options. 7 Staff has identified the following factors; which are unfavorable to this request 1. This site is within the mountain resource area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. This impact may be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance. 2. This proposal will require developmemin areas of critical slopes. The following factor is relevant to this consideration: I. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. While staffhas not identified the visual impact created by the tower as a substantial detriment to the existing nearby residential area. staff does note approval of this request will introduce a new tower te an area of residential development from which the tower will be clearly visible. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that the impact on the mountain resource area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 3 ~_.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore, staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request, staff has provided conditions of approval. (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff request consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial &the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended Conditions of Approval. l. The height of the tower shall not exceed 100 feet. Whip antennas and lightning suppression equipment not exceeding three (3) inches in diameter may extend up to an additional twenty (20) feet above the top of the tower. 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and:maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the lease area. b. The tower shall be of self-supporting lattice-type construction. Guy wires shall be not permitted. c. The tower shall have no lighting. d. The tower shall be gray, blue or green in order to reduce its visual impacts. 8 The tower shall be located on the site as follows: The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled 36G Communications Dudley Mountain and initialed WDF 5/22/98 The tower shall be located so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the lease area. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color which matches the tower. c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. Antennas may be installed in addition to those installed by the permittee when the tower is first constructed without amending this special use permit, provided that all necessary budding permits are obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise comply with these conditions. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. O) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site. (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. 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 luminalre. For 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. All lighting shall be shielded from Route 29 and Route 706. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staffto remove exisfmg trees onthe site. The County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1'. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. 11. Access road shall be gated. Should the Planning Commission support a waiver of the requirements of a site plan the Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan waiver. A waiver oft.he drawing of a site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2. subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission approval of a modification of Section 4.2 to allow activity on critical slopes; Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space. Should the Planning Commission support a reduction in setback, the Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to permit the tower as requested by the applicant: A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location 0fthe tower approximately 40 feet from the property line. ATTACItMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's Information D - Topographical Map E - Applicant's Engineer Information 11 ATTACHMENT A ;~ TOM MOUNTAIN . CqAqL,qTTLS " VII ~ I 't SP 98-03 360 Communications (Dudley Mnt.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY · ~... ,o ',, / .., , / / / SP 98-03 / 360 Commanieations ~ndley ~) · o,.= .. ,=~ $COTTSVILLE AND '~--' ~' .... ~" SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICTS SECTION 89 ATTACHMENT C SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION 360° Communications Company of Charlottesville Collocation Tower Facility on Property Owned by Ollie L. Fitzgerald, Jr. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Rural Areas (RA) How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? As the proposed collocation tower site will be surrounded by existing 50'- 60' trees, will disturb a minimal amount of soil, and will not interfere with the activities of adjoining property (all of which is vacant timberland), the proposed use will not affect adjacent property. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? The proposed tower (or towers, whichever the County prefers) will not be lit thereby decreasing any effect on thc surrounding district caused by the visibility of the site. Moreover, the proposed collocation facility will minimxze the number of tower sites needed in this area thereby minimizing any adverse effect on the character of the surrounding district. While no tower facilities are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, a rock quarry is located approximately 1 mile from the site; thus, a non-agricultural and non-forestal use already exists m the surrounding district. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? According to § 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the Ordinance is to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County. Reliable telecommunications service promotes the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the residents of Albemarle County. Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the Ordinance further address the need for adequate public services. The proposed facility will provide a valuable public service to residems of and visitors to Albemarle County, who by their increasing use of wireless phones and pagers, are establishing wireless telecommunications as a necessary public service. Ordinance § 1.4.3 states that another intent of the Ordinance ~s to creme an "attractive and harmonious community." In the past Staff has indicated that the visual impact of towers diminishes the attractiveness of the County. As the proposed site will accommodate three telecommunications providers in an area Where coverage is needed, the site will decrease, if not eliminate, the need fo~ additional tower sites in the area, thereby minimizing the potential for visual impact in the area. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The proposed use will not interfere with any uses permitted by right in the district. ATTACHMENT C PAGE 2 What additional, regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? The proposed use will be subject to Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the construction of a public utility structure. How will this use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community? The proposed use will promote the health, safety and general welfare of community by providing both emergencs! and general wireless telecommunications services to residents of and visitors to the County trax~elling on Route 29 South. Description of l/equest. Applicant requests a special use permit to construct a telecommunications rower facility approximately .75 miles west of Dudley Mountain Road (Rt. 706) and .75 east of Route 20. Applicant prop¢ scs to construct either one 150' self-support tower (overall height of 170' with lightning rod) t[~at can, accommodate three providers, or up to three 100' self-support towers (overall height pf 120 with lightning rod), each of which can accommodate one provider. Applicant reque~qts that County choose which tower configuration is preferable. The tower (or towers), along ~/~ith any eqmpment shelters or other related eqmpment will be located within fenced compou~ds. 5ith re, spect to 360° Communications' (360°) proposed compound, 360° to locat~ a 12 x 28 prefabricated equipment shelter along with other related equipment proposes within a 60' x 7D' fenced lease area. / / \ I0 J.N~tWHD¥/J-VI ' ATTACHMENT E )OHN lC TAGGART. 111 M. E. GmSON, JR. THOMAS E ALBRO CHRISTINE THOMSON PATR~ClA D. MCGRAW LAW OFFICES TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP P.O. Box i585 CELARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585 105,109 EAST HIGH STILEET TELEPHONE {804} 977-4455 FACSIMILE (8o4) 9794221 April 14, 1998 R. LEE LIVINGSTON I-1EIDI H. PARKER RACHEL L. RUST CHRISTOPHER ]. ROBIN'E'iTE RETIRED E. GERALD TREMBLAY LLOYD T. SMITH, JR. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Dept. of Planning & Community DevelopmenE County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: 360° Communications Company SP 98-03 Dudley Mountain Dear Bill: I am enclosing a copy of the Obstruction Evaluation for this project prepared by Airspace Safety Analys~s Corporation dated February 5, 1998. This report shows a uower height of 199'; however, based on your suggestion in your letter ~o me of February 26, 1998, 360° Communications has reduced the tower height to 100', the m~n~mum heigh~ possible ~o attain propagation above the ureeline. The trees are approximately 60' tall. The antennas must protrude a minimum o~ 40' over Ereetops in order co achieve propagation. You will note the report concludes the tower is no~ considered an obstruction co air navigation by the FAA and that FAA notice is not required, marking and lighting is not required and an extended study is no= required. I am also enclosing a copy of a letter dated January 13, 1998 from United'States Cellular indicating a need for coverage in this area and a desire to collocate on 360°'s Dudley Mountain compound. There will be sufficient land to accommodate three 100' carriers. United States Cellular will locate its ~ower near 360°'s tower if this projecu is approved. Finally, I am enclosing a letter dated January 28, 1998 from Timmons regarding the ~mpossibility of consEruc~ing a road to this REOENED APR 1 7 lagli pLANNiNG Ct:PT. TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP Page 2 April 14, 1998 Fritz ATTACHMENT E PAGE 2 site which would comply with the proposed Albemarle County Mountaintop Protection Plan. There is an existing dirt road no nhe site which 360© Communications proposes be improved 50 the exnen5 necessary to access the site. We had Timmons prepare this study co demonsnrane a flaw in the proposed Mountaintop Protection Plan; however, it is 360© Communications' position nhat the proposed Mountaintop Protection Plan is non applicable 50 this pro]ecu because the Plan has not been adopted by the County. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Best personal regards. Very truly yours, M. E. Gibson, Jr. MEG/sp Encs. 28 \ s \ALB \ Fritz. 423 WED 16:08~FAX 804 75'-~98 TIMMONS/TRI-CITY ATTACHMENT E PAGE 3 Engineem o Surveyors - Planners - Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists o Geographic. information Systems Consultants · Construction Managers - 4411 Crossings Blvd. - Prince George, ¥irgi~a.23875:1455.. (804).-45g,8685 · FAX (804) 751-0798 January 28, 1998 P.'O;'B'ox .1:595 :: "- ' ' " 'Charlottasvillt,]Virginis22902;1585 i .:'--' : ~.:: ' "' ]'i"." ~e: 3607 Du~ey'Mo~n ~be~le'co~ty ' ' '"" De~.'.G~son: ' "''~ :"' ":"" ']'' :' .... '::" We have ~effo~'.~ "fe~ib~'s~Y ~r"~e' above 'ref~enc~ site "~d: hav6~e'-' : "' .~o~owing ~onel~o~ lo.~nt.; - :. '. :::'. -' ' ~i~ 'the site siis. at '~e ridge.of D~ey Mo~t~: ~ existing d~. road site ~d ~e pubic ro~..'-~e -elevation ~fference. be~n ~ese':~o pb~ts approx~ely 915',:' · ~e e~s~g ~ ro~ ~e' v~es be~eeh'20%. '.slOpe to a m~imm of 40% ~lope: ~iS.r6~ is ap~ox~ty 10' ' wide wi~ sev~ ~d.~tch ba~s. : . '" ~o~:~soCiaied ~. ..de*elOpment of~s.sitep~ ~bem~le Co~ ~otecfi0n:P~ - ~e ~ fo~°Ws: · ' .. - 1 ~ ":~e m~im.side'slope ~at wffi~ow for out'and ill[ slOpes is 2' hofiz0n~ md 1 ve~ca}.- ~ ' ' 2. To mverge::~e- side of a mom~ no .~ate~:~ 75', road cross section c~ be · s~bed:: .~$ dist~ce would'~clude the ~, ~tch.section eat 'slope ~d fill slope. A'~ical 10' ~de ~ve.:0~ a'.33%:;crosg slope wo~d r~uke a.65~ ~de section. 3.-The mmm ~ade longtm&al along ~e ~ad.~ent c~ not exceed 10 ~: 4.Sto~ m-off'~elocifies e~ not exc~ 5'per second for a 10 ye~ mo~ at outlet p0~m :~0ng ~e-~tch Corporate Headqt~m'ters 711' N.'Caur[house Ro~d - Richmond. Va. 23236-4099 .. (804}'794:3500 * FAX (804) 794~7639 Branch Offices 8803 Staples Milt Road · Rld~r~nd;Va: 23228-2014- [804) 262-7396- FAX [804} 266-7219 4a/11 Crossings Blvd. · Prince George, Va. 23875-1455 -'(804) 458-8685 i FAX (804} 751-0798 6501 Mechanicsville '[umDike -Suite 0~3 - M echanicsville; Va; 23~1114624 ,- (804) 559~t520 - FAX (804] 559-4522 ~x/28/98 WED 16:09 FAX 804 75~798 TIM~0NS/TRI-CITY ATTACHMENT E ~anuary28,1998- Page 2 PAGE 4 The reqnirements as 'outlined ab6+ce. :will' lim{t ,congtruction. of p0tent/al .sites -within .Albermarte County :unleSs.existing access roads, can be .Utilizec}. ' Our understanding 'of this'protection Plan]is that it:applies ,to new road eonstra~tion within .the .Mountain Therefore,-this. site' .diie t0.its phYSical characteristics vdJl not .,be devel0pabl~ unde~ the if you have' any questions, please call'me at. 80~4~-8655. ~ · ... ': '..:~ ... .~..:' .... . '.....}.. , [ :'.'"' .... .. ~· t2/95 'F. flIl ~4:47 F~ 8045206714 SITES UNLIIIITED ATTACHMENT E PAGE 5 Jauuary 13, 1998 UNITED STATES 2004 ~ead A%'er~ue Dear We awe wri~ng tO col~firm o~lr dt~ire to l~tC a cell d~ at yo~ ~e~t'~ p~po~d a=unica~, si~ on Du~ey Moun~ ~ ~bm~le ~u~D-- ~e ~ he ready to join We ~ ~d~t~d ~e Coun~k de,re for pro~de~ ~ ~-l~te ~ ~te~ ad ~s ams ~ be ~ k~ph~g ~ith ~t objee~a We wo~ld like to locat~ ~.~ high as po~ible on your Client's tower ~ wo~d ~ ~ng to build a loW~ of om o~ ff n~ea. O~ h~ wo~d be ~ox, 12 X gO ft. ad ff we b~t o~ o~ tower, we would ~b about 50 X SO ~ for ~e site. v/si~or~ to that area or the C~oun~. this appllc~'don. April 7, 1998 ATTACHMENT F 1765 Dudley Mountain Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 County of Albemarle Dept. of ~Piannin? & Community'Development 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Attn.: William D. Fritz, Sr. Planner Re: Comments on "360 Communications" - Tower on Dudley Mountain Dear Mr. Fritz: It was a pleasure~meeting you those few minutes today. I was impressed by your patience, time spent responding to my inquiries and comments concerning the above referenced subject, and the knowledge you displayed. This is just a brief summary for the records of my comments regarding the proposal to construct one or more telecom towers atop Dudley Mountain;. (directly across the road from my home). When I had first heard of this proposal, I felt a sadness that the pristine view of this mountain was about to be marred - one of the best assets to this peaceful area~would begin degradation and succumb, as so many other areas have, to unsolicited unnecessary "progress" Inspired by "the buck". Upon reviewing 360's application, I find that when answering as to the potential effect the construction would have on adjacent properties, they make no mention of the main effect, 1.e. the visual damage to the natural beauty as seen from both sides of the mountain, 7rcby~?c~_-: residents, motorists, and recreators. 2. Their application says the area is non-agricultural and non forestal. Not true. Regardless of minimizing the number of towers that could be built (which 360 is trying to "sell" as a plus aspect), it does not preclude the visual damage done by even a single tower. 4. As for providing added health, welfare, etc. to the community highly debatable. I dare say, if these towers of many to follow· Many thanks for your time. Very truly yours, .? ? ~ · are permitted, they would be the first ':" "'"' APR 0 9 1998 p',.ANN HG ARROWHEAD CORPORA TION OF VIRGINIA rt 1 box 253 REC APR D ATTACHMENT F PAGE 2 charlottesville, va 22903 804 971 7945 7 April ]995 Mr. William D. Fritz Senior Planner Planning Division County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 Re: Proposed Telecommunication Tower - SP-98-03-360 Dudley Mt. DEAR MR. FRITZ: Notice of the petition for referenced tower was received by me last week. Please understand and clearly state to the Planning Commission that we, the Arrowhead Corporation of Virginia, strongly oppose the construction of any tower or structure for commercial use near the crest of Dudley Mountain for the following reasons: 1) Parcels # 15 and # 19 of Albemarle County Tax Map # 89 and Parcel # 20 of Albemarle County Tax Map # 88, have been placed by the Arrowhead Corporation of Virginia under conservation with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Our intent in doing so was to aid in the preservation of the existing unspoiled mountain range south of Charlottesville, in keeping with the spirit of your proposed" Mountainside Protection Act." 2) The proposed site of this 100 foot tower abuts our Property Line with the actual tower location only 40 feet from that property line and the equipment pad location shown at 8 feet from that property line. This is in conflict with currem Albemarle County Planning guidelines and thus would require a variance from the Commission so that it could be so located. 3) The proposed Service Road would allow direct access to our property fi'om Route 706 through property owned by Mr. Ollie Fitzgerald ( Parcel # 18 Tax Map 89 ). There is currently a Development Variance request, under review by the Planning Department, for Parcels # 18B and # 62 of Tax Map 89, that are currently zone" Rural Area" ( SUB. 98-003, Massie Wood Development ). The combination of these two proposals undermine the intent of Rural Preservation and of the proposed" Mountainside Protection Act" for the Mountain Ranges south of Charlottesville. ATTACHMENT Please let me know if there is any information that I can provide in the form of surveys, documentation or photograph, s. Yours truly, Montgomery Bird Woods, Secretaxy, Arrowhead Corporation of Vkginia cc: Margaret Woods Gillette Douglas Woods Spmm Anne Woods Gnz?ardi Martha Woods Chum W'dliam S. D. Woods Theodore K. Woods Dorothy Woods McLeod Randolph Woods Wyckoff PAGE 3 P,I/1 10¢ 18 I'"ITTCH P1CCULLOIJGH O. Mitchell McCullough 1069 Double Gate Rd. Davidsonville, Md. 21035 June 2, 98 Mr. William D. Fritz AICP Senior Planner County Of Albemarle VIA FAX 972=4035 Dear.Mr. ~ritz: I had planned to be present at the meetin9 this evening ~o speak against the propose~ communication tower on Dudley Mountain~ but find I cannot attend due to an emergency. My property lies on thzridge ~o the east of the mountain and although I am at present an absentee owner it is my plan to return to ALbemarle County where I grew up and build a home on my property. In the meantime I hope the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will do everything possible to preserve the sceni~ beauty and pristine bucolic quality of our wonderful natural landscape. Don'~ let commercial interests spoil our heritage, MoS~t sincerely, June 'i, 1998. 8:54 PM From: Fax #: Page 2 of 2 Gordon Rhodes Schneider 177G Old Lynchburg Road Parcel 08900-00.00-037B0 Charlottesville, VA. 22S01 (301)$40-177i; Mr, William Fritz Fax # (804) 972-4035 Dear Mr. Frilz, My name is Rhodes Sclmeider. I am 6 years old. I do not watlt a towe~ on that beautiful mom]rain. I really thh~k that they should have named it Lovely Mountain, instead of Dudley Mouutaiu. If the toxver is built I would feel very sad for all the mrhnals that live there arid tho beautiful mouutahl would look like au ugly place. Thank you, Mr. Frilz, tbr trying to save Ihe mquntain. ' Sincerely, R, hodes. ;June 1, 1998 8;47 PM From: Fax #: Page 20I~ 2 Rich and Julia Schneider 1776 Old Lynchburg Road Parcel 08900-00-00.037B0 Charlottesville, VA. 22901 (301)640.1776 Mr. William Fritz Fax g (804) 972-4035 Dear Mr. William Frilz, We are ~witiug to voice our opposition to the constrt]ction of the coml]lunicatioll tower on the peak of Dudley Mouulain. I was fortunate to grow up in a home at the foot of the Dudley Mountain Rmage and I em] only say that from all my travels heuce, there are few places which can compare to tiffs majestic~nalural resource. When I w~is a little gift, the fan]ily would spend hours climb[tag this mountain and walking along its ridge~ I wish the people in flfis room would take the opportunity to climb to the summit mid 1o see the rolling hills of Albemarle County laid out before them. TI]ere is rally one Dndley Mounta'm. Once flfis artificial structule is hi place it will be there forever. Do we really need to spoil re]other pristine environment with 3'et another communicafious tower? There is a prolbund and subfle ueed in the hunlan psyche lbr communicatfion with The Creator m~d His natural world. Ou Dudley mountain this is somethiflg easy and wouderful to do, Once this artificial and um]atural construction is placed on Dudley Mountain. Dudley Moutain will forever loose this qualily. We live in a revolufio~mry age in ~vhich speed of comu]unicafion is essential. There are sacrifices to be made for this interconmmnicatim]. Can we temper tiffs sacrifice by cl]oosing a less sceuic natural resource? Cau we con]mit to protecting the heritage of thture generations? Can we make a decision based on what is right rather than what is profitable? Undoubtbdly, Thomas Jell~rsm] would vote fffr the protection of Dudley Mouutain and the heritage offi]ture generations. Likewise, our children vote for the protection of this mfique and ineph~ceable resource and file interests of their yet mlbom children. Sincerely, Julia amd Rich Sclmeider 26 July, I998 County of Albermarle Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road,. Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Re: Dudley Mountain SP 98-03 360 Communications Tower meeting on 8/12, 1998. DEAR MEMBERS OF THE ALBERMARLE CO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: There are nine members of the Woods family who own the larger portion of the ridge line of Dudley Mountain. The property has been in the family for overl00 years and to preserve and protect it we have placed it under permanent easement with the Vkginia Outdoors Foundation. The proposed tower noted above is to be located on an odd "dog tail" strip of land (see enclosed map) that is the East property line of our Parcels # 88-20; # 89-17 and it's East boundary is on our Parcel # 89-19 and the adjacent Thornton property. The width of this strip varies from approximately 25 ft. to 125 ft. The proposed site located ON our property line runs for 150 ft. and is to be 100 ft. wide - at this point this allows only about 25 ft. clear. You are requested to give a variance to: a) allow a commercial venture in rural use area. b) allow construction along an adjacent property line. c) allow construction that ignores the existing set-back requirements. It is doubtful if the proposed access road can be built on the existing trail and meet the planning code requirements. It is doubtful if the electrical line can be placed below grade as required. It is doubtful if the three towers agreed to by the property owner can be constructed without crating trees on or disturbing the Woods property. We understand that equipment is to be delivered by helicopter, and we also understand that 360 Communications, and others, intend to use the exi~ing ridge road that is on Woods . property (not the lessor Mr. Fitzgerald) claiming that they do not need approval to do so. We know of no existing right of way- and will not allow trespassing. We strongly urge the Board to turn down this proposal that will damage an undisturbed ridge line and open a rural / recreational area to commercial development. M. Bird Woods, sec. Arrowhead Corporation of Virginia cc: Mr. Stephen Thornton; Planning Conunission; Woods family, 26 Jnly, 1989 County of Albemarle Board of SUpervis0rs 401 Mcintire ~acI CharlotteSville, :¥a~ 22902 Re: Dudley Mountain SP 98-03 360 Communications Tower meeting on Aug, 12, '98 DEAKMEMBEKS OF THE ALBERMARLE CO. BOARD OF SUPEKVISORS: My brother, W.S.D. Woods jr., and I own Parcel # 89-15 on Dudley Mountain which shares ~ifis Southern property line with the Arrowhead Corporation land. We are part of that ownerstfip as well. The property extends along the ridgeline and was placed under permanent easement with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation in coordination with Arrowhead. The proposed tower site is now 150 ii. X 100 ft. and the present request is for only one tower, however I understand that 360 Communications now has an agreement with the property owner re build three towers on that site. The site location runs along the property line of Parcel # 89-15 as well as # 88-20 and # 89-17. (Please see the attached map) The first location chosen was not as large and the intended access road was on the property owned by Mr. Fitzgerald. At this location Iris strip of land is only about 75 ft. wide - to al/ow room for the larger three tower site the location moved North where the strip is about 125 ft. wide. In order to get to this site the proposed service road would come onto property owned bythe Woods family. We do not give approval for any use of this land and will not allow any trespassing. In the Countfs DEED BOOKS, we have not.been able to find any Deed grantinga Right of Way that would give 360 and it's Contractors use of the existing ridge road. There is no way that construction could be accomplished on our property line without entering our property. To build the proposed tower(s) I see no way that trees on our property would not be cut or damaged. I regret that an adjacent land owner would agree to damage the ridge line that is now undisturbed. Dudley Mountain is one of the few undeveloped sections of land this size near Charlottesville .We have taken a bold step to preserve and to protect this woodland. Il'the Board of Supervisors were to approve commercial use in a section of the Count~ that is still undeveloped it would by a great shame, and a loss to all. We urge the Board to deny this proposal - there are far too many reasons for this ~ 08°5~ IG.9. ~' 5 ' '% COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 98-03 360° Communications (Dudley Mountain) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:. Proposal to construct a personal wireless telecommunication facility on Dudley Mountain. STAFF CONTACT(S}: Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, & Fdtz BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: August 12, 1998 ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: Yes The Planning Commission reviewed this request on June 2, 1998 and unanimously recommended denial. Pdor to the Planning Commission meeting the applicant submitted additional information in support of the application. Since the Planning Commission meeting it has been determined that the sketch plan submitted to the Planning Commission after the preparation of the staff report differs from the plan reviewed by staff in the preparation of the report. DISCUSSION: The revised plan differs from the plan reviewed by staff in the following ways: 1. The lease area has been increased from a 60 X 70 foot area to a '150 X 150 foot area to accommodate potential horizontal collocation. [Horizontal collocation is the term used to described multiple towers located in proximity to one another.] 2. The lease area has been moved approximately 800 feet to the north. 3. No topographic information has been provided for the new lease area. This doss not allow for an assessment of critical slopes impact. [Staff opinion is that this is a minor ~ssue as the proposed site is still on the ridge of Dudley Mountain and a site plan will need to be processed by the Planning Commission with an associated critical slopes waiver, if necessary for site development.] 4. The proposed access to the revised lease area crosses property of an adjacent property owner who spoke in opposition to this request at the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has stated that this access utilizes an existing easement Which can be used to access the proposed lease area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff opinion is that the nature of these changes are such that referral back to the Planning Commission is not necessary as the changes do not materially affect the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission. However, should the Board choose to approve this application condition 3A of the racommended conditions must be amended to reflect the revised plan. The new condition would read The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled 360 Communications Dudley Mountain and initialed WDF 7/14/98." To; Members, Board of Supervisors Fr~m-' Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Clef ~l~'~- $-I~ject: Reading ListforAugust 12, 1998 I)ate-' August 7, 1998 April 3, 1996 December 4, 1996 February 5, I997 May 7, 1997 April 8, 1998 April 15, 1998 luly 8, 1998 July 15, 1998 pages I - 27 - Mr. Martin Pages 28 - end - Mr. Bowerman pages I - 20 (Item #9) - Mrs. Humphris Pages 20 (Item #9) - end - Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Mrs. Thomas Mrs. Humphris Mr. Marshall Mr. Bowerman Mr. Marshall /ewc July 15~ Page 1 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 15, 1998, au 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman {arrived at 7;12 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. ~umphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, and Mr. Walter F. Perkins. ~-BSENT: MS. Sally H. Thomas OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis, and Chief of Planning, Mr. Ronald S. Keeler. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order au 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item ~o. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Roger Ray, a local {and surveyor and land planner, complained ~o the Board about the way he was mistreated during his presentation to the Planning Commission the prevzons nigh~. He said that both he and County staff were maligned, and their competency questioned. He asked the Board co individually listen to a recording of the Commission meeting to hear the tone and content of the discussion. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner said he also attended the Planning Commission meeting held the previous night. He was told the Commission had requested a review of his subdivision plat, but no one provided him with written notice or an explanation of why it was being discussed. He was eventually told the review was because of critical slopes. He was told he could not address the Commis- sion. Other applicants were ~reated in a similar manner. He was embarrassed by the conduct of the Commissioners, whom he said belittled Mr. Ray and County staff. Mr. Ray's information was correct and the Commzssion's was incorrect. In his opinion, the 60-day deadline on hearing applications should not have started until the submittal deadline. Requests for family divisions are supposed to be reviewed and acted upon within five days. He is still waiting for a decision on his application and suspects the Commission is deliberately delaying action on his request. He also has been made to revise his request several timss. He was dismayed to hear that spouses will-no longer be considered ~amily", which affects financial and other planning matters. He feels surongly that spouses should be allowed division rights. He said that three Commissioners, Ms. Washington, Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Finley were the only ones who acted professionally. He asked the Board members to listen to a recording of the meetin~ and take whatever action necessary to prevent similar actions at meetings in the future. Mr. Wendell Wood, who also attended the Commission's mee~o~ues~ night, said he supported everything Mr. Ray and Mr. Gloeckne.r{/~~s~-id. After the meeting Ms. Washington, a Commission member, told him she had never been so embarrassed in her life because of the conduct of some of the Commis- sion members. ~e told the Board he had submitted a family subdivision plat. Staff told him it met all the necessary criteria and that the plat would be signed yesterday, but it has been delayed by the Commission. He made the many cb~es recommended-by s~aff and d~_ w~a~ ~he Zoning Administrator said was ~proper. Mr. Wood asked the Board uo see that his plat be approved Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. ~otion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, ~o approv~ items 5.1 through 5.2a and ~o accept the remaining items for information. July 15, 1998 {Regular Night Meeting] Page 2 Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Ms Thomas. Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution of Intent 5o amend the Zoning Ordinance no add environmental restoration projects as a use by-rzght in the Flood Hazard Overlay District in certain cases and add a definition for ~bank erosion s~ructure". The execuuzve summary staues that the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30.3.5.2.1) requires a special use permit for "bank erosion structures" within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. However, the orclnance does nou provide a definition for '~bank erosion structure." Recently, there has been some uncertainly about what types of projects would require the special use permit. Particularly, it is uncertain whether streambank restoration projects de- signed, undertaken and/or funded by public agencies would require the speciazl~ permit. Also, the County has recently been asked by the community of Brow~<j Cove for assistance with flood prevention, and it is this forthcoming public projec~ uhat has led no the at~emp~ ~o amend the Zoning Ordinance ~o provide clarification on the permitting issue. -In some cases, the cost and ulme involved with obtaining a special use permit would prohibin certain environmental pro~ects from taking place, particularly in cases where the practice is cost-shared by the Thomas Jeffer- son Soil & Water Conservation District, Dr another public agency, as a conservation practice promoted by the state. In other cases, a project will no5 lncn~ase the flood plain elevation, and the project's purpose ~s no achieve a strictly public good (such as flood prevention or environmental restoration~. Most often, such pro3ects are designed and partially funded by public agencies, such as the County, Soil & Water District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, euc. would right Specifically, the resolution of intenu to amend the Zoning Ordinance be to allow flood conEroI and environmental restoration pro]ecns as by- uses within the floodway and floodway fringe in the following cases: The pro~ecu is undertaken, coordinated, or designed by a public agency. The project receives technical review by the County through the Water Protection Ordinance, including for erosion and sedimenu control. The project's purpose zs for the public benefit. No net fill is placed within the flood plain. The practice involves the use of natural materials, such as rock and plant materials. This ~ould exclude "engineered" snrucnures, such as retaining walls, gabion baskets, and concrete~ Such pro3ecus would still require a special use permit. In order no achieve this, the amendment will be Lo add certain uses by- right in Section 30.3.5.1.1 and ~o provide a definition for "bank erosion structure" ~n Section 3.0. Staff recommends the Board adopn the attached resolution of intent amend the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Humphris said there were three corrections to be made. The second line of the third paragraph of the exeCutive summary should read, ~restoration projects as by-right u~ses within the~floedway...~ ~he ~hird ~ine~of ~e Resolution should read, ~hereby intend.. ". The first line of the second paragraph should read, ~...t~ hold a public hearing ..~. By the above shown vote the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION OF INTENT Whereas, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, has determined in order no serve the public necessity, 2onvenience, gener~ welfare, or good zoning practices, it does hereby intend to amend t~ Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance 5o define ~bank erosion suructure~ and ~o allow certain uses by right in the Flood Hazard Overlay District; Mill Creel< l.)~ive You are cordially invited to attend an opening ceremony for Mill Creek Drive Date: WednesdaY, August 19 Time: 1:00 pm Location: the interse~ion of Mill Creek Drive and Independence Way (in front of main entrance to Monticello High School) We hope you will be able to join us for a brief ceremony to observe the opening of this very critical transportation link for Albemarle County, Following the ceremony, Mill Creek Drive will be open to traffic between Avon Street Extended and Route 20 South (Scottsviile Road). Parking w/ii be provided at I~lont/'ce//o High School. P/ease contact the Albemarle County Community Resources Off/ce at 296-5841 with questions or for more information.