1991-08-17April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 17, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Lynwood Coffman, a County resident, stated that he was unable to
attend the public hearing on the budget. He pointed out that over the decade
in which the City/County Revenue Sharing has been in effect, his views have
changed tremendously, and he noted that the citizens of Albemarle have contri-
buted $21,640,793 to the City of Charlottesville during that time. Although
the County has taken some criticism for not funding certain programs, it is
his view that much of the funds that have been contributed to the City have
gone for public housing and many other projects of that nature. He feels that
the County citizens have not shirked their responsibilitieS. He believes,
too, that with ten cents of the County's tax rate automatically going to
Charlottesville, if the Board adopts the 72 cents rate, the County tax rate
will only be 62 cents. He thinks that a 62 cents tax rate is good, and feels
that it is the result, over the years, of conservative citizens and Supervi-
sors. He recommends that the 72 cents tax rate be adopted.
Mr. Joe Moore, from the Central Virginia Friendship Council, thanked the
Board for its support of CATEC. Re said that it is important for this Council
to know that it is well represented by the Board of Supervisors. He mentioned
that the Council is currently in the process of negotiations with the Joint
Board for Control of CATEC. He added that Dr. McGeehan, City Superintendent
of Schools, has worked with the Council since the March meeting to resolve the
situation, and he believes that the settlement that is being considered is to
the satisfaction of the business sponsors and everyone involved. He went on
to say that the Council has felt that there has been some confusion among the
public as to what was happening. He believes that the CATEC Board now fully
understands the Council's position and has given a commitment to work with the
Council. The Council also believes that with all groups cooperating, CATEC
will be a much stronger and better vocational school. He said the Council
realizes that the Supervisors have supported the Council and that because of
recommendations to the School Board, due to certain circumstances, the Super-
visors have been criticized because of their position. In order to keep
better vocational programs in the area, given the fact that negotiations are
working with the Council and in order to make the Council's program a viable
part of CATEC, he wants the Supervisors to know that the Council supports the
request of $100,000 for CATEC. He thanked the Supervisors again for letting
the trades in this area know that they are well represented. He wishes that
he could have brought this information to the Supervisors when they were in
the budget process.
There was no one else who wished to speak concerning matters that were
not on the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the items on the consent agenda as
information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
2
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for April 2, 1991, was
received for information.
Item 5.2. Copies of Bond Program Report and Monthly Report from Arbor
Crest Apartments for the months of January, February and March, 1991, were
received for information.
(Note: Mr. Bowie said only one report would be given by Mr. Cilimberg on
the Totier and Hatton Agricultural/Forestal Districts, however, two public
hearings would have to be held.)
Agenda Item No. 6. Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District. Public
Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(a) of the Code of
Albemarle after the eight year review of the Hatton A/F District. The exist-
ing district consists of 2874.0 ac in vicinity of Hatton, Warren & Scotts-
ville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1991.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District. Public
Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of
Albemarle after the eight year review of the Totier CreekA/F District. The
existing district consists of 6071.0 ac in vicinity of Keene, Esmont &
Scottsville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board has received a cover letter from' Mr.
Benish which includes a reference to the Free Union Agricultural/Forestal
District, but this particular district will not be before the Board for
consideration until possibly the last meeting in May. He pointed out that the
public hearings today willonly involve the Totier and Hatton Agricultur-
al/Forestal Districts. He then gave the following staff report:
"The Hatton and Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal Districts are the
first districts to come up for review in Albemarle County. Both were
created on June 29, 1983, for a time period of eight years.
The Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act, Code of Virginia Section
15.1-1511F, provides for the mandatory review of agricultural/forestal
districts by the governing body no less than four years, but no more
than ten (previously eight) years after the date of creation. In
conducting such review, the Board shall ask for the recommendations of
the local Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission in order to
determine whether to terminate, modify or continue such districts.
The Board may stipulate conditions to continuation of the districts
and may establish a period before the next review of the districts,
which may be different from the conditions or period established when
the districts were created. Any such different conditions or period
must be described in a notice sent to landowners in the district, and
published in a newspaper at least two weeks prior to adoption of the
ordinance continuing the district.
Unless the districts are modified or terminated by the Board of
Supervisors, the districts shall continue as originally constituted,
with the same conditions and period before the next review (eight
years) as were established when the districts were created.
When each district is reviewed, land within the district may be
withdrawn at the owner's discretion by filing a written notice with
the Board of Supervisor~ at any time before the Board acts to contin-
ue, modify, or terminate the district.
Location: Totier Creek District is located in the vicinity of Keene,
Esmont, and Scottsville. Hatton District is located in the vicinity
of Warren, Hatton and Scottsville.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 3
(Page 3)
Acreage: Totier Creek District contains 7309.827 acres in 33 parcels.
This total includes 1240 new acres. Hatton District contains 2873.687
acres in 16 parcels.
Time Period: Eight years is the current time period for both dis-
tricts.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the districts is
being used for hay, pasture, crops and forestry.
Significant Lands Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use
value assessment program is a good indicator of the actual use of the
properties. In Totier Creek District, approximately 3548 acres are
being used for agriculture; 3645 acres are in forestry; 15 acres are
in vineyards; 40 acres are non-qualifying due to dwellings; and 62
acres are not enrolled.
In the Hatton District, approximately 1605 acres are being used for
agriculture; 1162 acres are in forestry; 21 acres are non-qualifying
due to dwellings; and 86 acres are not enrolled.
Land Use Other Than Agriculture and Forestry: There are 20 dwellings
in Totier Creek District and 13 dwellings in Hatton District. Two
power transmission lines traverse the two districts.
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs: This area consists of large
farms and scattered dwellings. It has historically been recognized as
the most important crop farming area of the County. This area is
ideally suited for enrollment in a district.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: This area is located in
Rural Area III in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned RA, Rural
Areas. The nearest Growth Area is Scottsville Community, which lies
adjacent to the Hatton District between Route 726 and the James River.
When the Comprehensive Plan was revised in 1989, the Scottsville
Growth Area boundary was adjusted purposefully to delete from the
Growth Area all property within the Hatton District. This was done to
eliminate conflicts between Growth Area and Agricultural/Forestal
District objectives. Preservation of agricultural/forestal resources
in the Rural Areas is a major goal of the Plan.
Environmental Benefits: Most of Totier Creek District and part of
Hatton District are located within the Totier Creek Reservoir water-
shed. Part of the ~atton District lies within the flood plain of the
James River.
Some of the best agricultural soils in the County lie within these two
districts.
Route 6 and Route 20, which are Virginia Byways and county scenic
Highways, both traverse the districts.
About half the area of the two districts is forested. Environmental
benefits provided by conservation of wooded areas include protection
of ground and surface water quality and wildlife habitat.
This area contains many historic estates and homes. The agricultur-
al/forestal districts help to preserve the historic landscape of the
Scottsville area.
Staff Comment: During the eight years these two districts have been
in effect, there has been very little subdivision activity within the
districts. Only one subdivision required Board of Supervisors approv-
al, that was for the division of an existing farmhouse on 3.5 acres.
One other request for lots was withdrawn by the applicant following
Advisory Committee review. This indicates a strong commitment from
landowners within the districts to continue the agricultural/forestal
land use in the area.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
4
Approximately 1240 new acres have been addedto Totier Creek District
during this review. No requests for withdrawal have been received to
date during this review.
Staff recommends approval, with the suggestion that the time limit be
increased to ten years. If the Board agrees to increase the time
limit to ten years, then notice of that change must be published, and
must also be sent to all landowners in the district. Therefore, the
Board should not take action tonight, but should set a date for the
adoption of a new ordinance no later than June 29, 1991. This would
allow time for notification and would establish a deadline for new
applications and withdrawals.
Staff has no problem with combining the two districts, except that, at
this time, part of the Hatton District lies just over one mile from
the core. Unless additional property is added to the district in that
area, combining the districts would not be legally permissible.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Advisory Committee at its
meeting on March 18, 1991 unanimously recommended approval of the two
districts with a ten year review period, and with the recommendation
that the two districts be combined."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the location of each of the districts on a map.
He added that according to State law these two districts cannot be combined
unless other properties are brought into the district. Therefore, it is
staff's recommendation that each district be readopted for a ten year review
period. He stated that is the Board's discretion as to when it will hear the
ordinance again in terms of State Code requirements. Mr. Bowie inquired if
there had been any indication from the people inthose two districts as to how
they would like to proceed. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there has been no
indication from the people in that area as to the time period of eight years
versus ten years. He said, though, that at the Advisory Committee meeting,
all the property owners except two indicated that they wanted the ten year
period. He mentioned that it is a technicality to meet State Code require-
ments to have another public hearing before adopting the ordinance.
Since there were no further questions from the Board for Mr. Cil~imberg,
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. He said the first public hearing would
be for the Hatton District.
Mr. Way said there were a number of people from the Scottsville District
at the meeting. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Bowie suggested that people
raise their hands if they were in support of the ten year time period, if they
did not care to speak (six people stood up).
A gentleman in the audience indicated that all of the people at the
meeting were in favor of the ten year time period for the Hatton Agricultur-
al/Forestal district.
Mr. Bowie asked if there was anybody at the meeting who was opposed to
the ten year time period. No one indicated opposition, so Mr. Bowie closed
the public hearing on the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District and opened the
public hearing on the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District.
A gentleman in the audience indicated that all of the people at the
meeting were also in favor of the ten year time period for the Totier Creek
Agricultural/Forestal district.
Mr. Bowie asked if anyone opposed the ten year time period for the Totier
Creek AgriCultural/Forestal district. There was no opposition, so Mr. Bowie
closed the public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain, to set a public
hearing for June 5, 1991 and will consider extending the time limit for review
of the Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District and the Totier Creek Agricul-
tural and Forestal District fro~ eight to ten years; and indicated the Board's
intent to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1(a) "Hatton
Agricultural and Forestal District" and Section 2.1(b) "Totier Creek Agricul-
tural and Forestal District" to add additional parcels.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 5
(Page 5)
Mr. Bowie asked when the Board would hear the Free Union Agricultur-
al/Forestal District. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it would be brought before
the Board at its last May meeting.
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
Dy the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowie suggested that the Board hear the staff reports on Items 8 and
9 together. Mr. Cilimberg noted that he had asked the Planning Commission to
address the two items separately. Mr. Bowie commented that it would be good
for the Board to have all of the facts before opening the public hearings.
Agenda Item No. 8. Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District. To review a
proposal to have a pipeline traverse 5344 ft of Foxport Farm. Review to
determine effect such action would have upon: 1) the preservation & enhance-
ment of agriculture & forestry, and agricultural/forestal resources within the
district; 2) policy of Chapter 36 of Virginia Code, Agricultural/Forestal
Districts Act. Review is also to determine necessity of proposed action to
provide service to the public in most economical & practicable manner.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1991.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-111. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
Public Hearing on a request to construct 6 mi of underground natural gas
pipelines on many parcels of land zoned RA. This new pipeline will be within
the existing Columbia rights-of-way, however, they must acquire an additional
20 ft of permanent rights-of-way and 10 ft of additional construction ease-
ment. This request requires the crossing of the flood plain of Blue Run and a
tributary of Happy Creek. The parcels involved are: TM35,P31; TM36,Ps
1,5,6,7,8,gBl,10,12,13,14,19,23,24A,24,26& 27; TM50,P48; TM51,Ps3,4,5,6,7A,7B,
7C,21,22B,22C,22. All parcels are in the NE most area of Albemarle County
stretching from Rt 20 near the Orange County line eastward to the Louisa
County line near Rt 860. The pipeline will cross Rt 20 & Rt 231 which are
Entrance Corridors. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9,
1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that this is a unique and different type of review of
an agricultural/forestal District, and it is the first time that this Board
has reviewed such a request under this section of the Virginia Code. He
stated that Columbia Gas intends to acquire over one acre from a single farm
within an agricultural/forestal District. He said that the Code requires the
Board, in consultation with the Planning Commission and the Agricultur-
al/Forestal Advisory Committee to make certain findings as to the project's
effect on this agricultural/forestal district. He then gave the following
staff report on the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District:
"The proposed pipeline will traverse 5344 feet of Foxport Farm within
Blue Run Agricultural District (Blue Run contains 4135 acres; review
date June 17, 1994). Review of this proposal is to determine the
effect such action would'have upon: (1) the preservation and enhance-
ment of agriculture and forestry and agricultural and forestal resour-
ces within the district; and, (2) the policy of Virginia Code Chapter
36, Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. Also, review of the
proposed action is to determine the necessity of the proposed action
to provide service to the public in the most economical and practic-
able manner (Virginia Code Section 15.1-1512D). This is the first
time the County has reviewed such a request under this section of the
Virginia Code. Therefore, there is no previous action or precedent
set by the Board for such a review. This review is based primarily on
the impact t° agricultural and forestal activities and resources.
Staff Summary: The proposed gas pipeline will cause some disruption
to agriculture and forestry and agricultural and forestal resources.
If the work is done properly and in a timely fashion, the adverse
effects will be mainly short term. The primary foreseeable long term
effect will be the loss of timber in the additional ten foot
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 6
(Page 6)
right-of-way corridor. This will have an impact both on aesthetics
and on the amount of productive forestal acreage that will be
available.
Staff is unable to make a recommendation regarding the necessity of
the proposed action. It is not within the staff's expertise to
determine if this project is necessary to provide a public service in
the most economical and practicable manner. Applicant justification
is provided. If the Board of Supervisors determines the pipeline is
necessary, the existing alignment is preferable to an alternate route.
Should the Board of Supervisors determine that the proposed project
will not have a detrimental effect within this agricultural/forestal
district and that any disruption will be minimized by conditions which
are acceptable to the landowner, then it should clearly state its
reasoning so that other future reviews may be compared to or distin-
guished from this review. The Board should address approval of the
proposed use and necessary conditions of approval unRer the special
use permit (SP-90-111).
Staff Analysis:
(1) Effect on th~ preservation amd e~hmncement of agriculture and
forestr~ and agricultural and forestal resources within the
district:
The owner of this land in the agricultural/forestal district has
expressed concerns including: disturbance to his pure bred cattle
operation; to his conservation efforts on his land; the threat of
future acquisitions; and, the adverse effects generally on the South-
west Mountain area which extends from Montpelier to Monticello.
Staff cites the following as to the effect of the gas pipeline. The
pipeline extension will begin at the existing valve area located about
20 feet east of Route 20. It will cross a wetlands area and hayfield
where drain tile will need to be relocated. The line then crosses a
wooded knoll where a ten foot wide swath of trees will be removed.
The line then crosses the corral which is the main working area for
the cattle operation. In this area the pipeline will be laid within
ten feet of the existing line in order to avoid a barn which is
adjacent to its path. The line then crosses the herd sire lot where a
spring used for water supply is located. It crosses the calving field
and the artificial insemination field where Blue Run is located, and
the mountain field which is a game patch. It then traverses a steep-
er, wooded area where more trees will be removed.
In staff opinion, the pipeline will likely cause short term disruption
to the cattle operation. The starting date and ending date of con-
struction are crucial to that operation. A long term effect will be a
loss of timber (a little over one-half acre cleared). The loss would
be both aesthetic as well as a loss for future timbering purposes.
The owner will retain full use of the approximately 1.2 acres of
additional permanent right-of-way except for construction of permanent
structures or uses (such as forestry) which would interfere with
operation or maintenance of the pipeline. The pipeline will be buried
a minimum of 36 inches and should not interfere with plowing at normal
depths. There are several other potential long term effects of the
activity: turning up rocks to the surface which would interfere with
farm equipment; increased possibility for leakage with an additional
gas pipeline; and, additional disruption for maintenance required by
the third line. This assessment assumes that restoration (of wet-
lands, topsoil, slopes, etc.) to original condition will be done
properly as required under regulatory mechanisms and conditions of
approval of the special use permit.
The following measures could serve to mitigate the short and long term
effects of the pipeline. (Conditions may be attached to the review of
SP-90-111.)
Establish a time limit for the beginning and ending of pipeline
construction including staging area activities in the agricul-
tural/forestal district;
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Have the County Engineer approve and bond for completion of
erosion control measures;
3. Obtain all necessary wetland permAts;
4. Regulate use of herbicides; and
Limit the right-of-way agreement to the minimum area necessary
for construction.
(2) Effect on ~hm pn]~cy of ~hm A~ricultural and.Forestal Districts
Act:
The purpose of the Virginia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act,
Virginia Code Section 15.1-1507 is to conserve and protect agricul-
tural and forestal lands for the production of food and other pro-
ducts; also to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as
natural and ecological resources which provide essential open spaces
for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat and
aesthetic purposes. The protection effort is to be a mutual under-
taking by landowners and local governments.
Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan states that preservation of
agricultural and forestal activities is one of the four major elements
of the Rural Areas, and is a major goal of the Plan. One of the
strategies for protection of agricultural and forestal lands is to
actively promote and support agricultural/forestal districts.
The main question which the Board must address is how much disruption,
if any, is acceptable in an agricultural/forestal district. Can the
adverse effects of this specific proposal be adequately addressed
through conditions, or is any amount of disruption within a district
unacceptable?
In Albemarle County, agricultural and forestal districts are the major
voluntary methods used to protect its Rural Areas. Over thirteen
percent of the total County acreage is currently enrolled in dis-
tricts. Agricultural/forestal districts are a mutual undertaking
between the landowner and the County. The landowner agrees not to
develop his property to a more intensive use in exchange for the
expectation of certain protections as outlined in the Agricultural and
Forestal Districts Act. The County must be sensitive to protecting
the landowners' expectations so that the agricultural/forestal dis-
tricts program is not jeopardized.
Staff opinion is that the policy question must be addressed from two
perspectives: 1) real affect of the proposed activity on the viabili-
ty and character of the district; and, 2) affect of the activity on
the landowner's perception of protection provided by the district.
Staff opinion is that the project does not adversely affect the
viability and character of the agricultural district as a whole. This
request will not likely change the character of the existing land nor
create the perception that agricultural land is in transition or the
agricultural activities will no longer be viable.
The Advisory Committee stressed in its review of this request the
importance of the agreement between the district members and the
County to provide, in part, protection from public projects. While it
is clear the intent of the State and the policy is to preserve and
protect existing agricultural/forestal areas and resources, the State
Code provisions do not prohibit outright all public projects. It
established this review process to determine the impact of a particu-
lar action to a district, which this report and the Agricultural/
Forestal Advisory Committee have attempted to address.
(3) Necessity of the proposed action to provide service to the
public in the most economical and practicablemanner:
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 8
(Page 8)
The State Code requires that the applicant provide a report detailing
all reasons in justification for the proposed action including, but
not limited to, an evaluation of alternatives which would not require
action within the district. Three possible alternatives are an
alternate route, no construction, and postpone construction. Columbia
Gas has analyzed an alternate route around the district to the north.
Staff recommends against any alternate route for several reasons. A
route to the north would impact an existing National Register Rural
Historic District in Orange County. A route to the south would
continue to impact the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District. Any
alternate route would require the development of an additional utility
corridor with greater environmental impacts than would occur by
sharing an existing corridor.
Columbia Gas has also previously stated that a no construction alter-
native will mean that '... natural gas would not be available as a
fuel source, at least part of the time for Virginia Power and other
possible future markets .... Alternative fuels would increase the
cost of power generation and cause air quality deterioration in the
Virginia Power market area.' Staff is not able to make a recommenda-
tion regarding a no construction alternative. Many factors would have
to be addressed beyond the staff's scope of knowledge to make such a
determination, including current energy policy, cost effectiveness of
power generation from different fuel sources and environmental cost of
using different fuel sources. The applicant's justification for need
is found in the S~-90-111 report.
A final alternative, suggested by the Agricultural/Forestal District
Advisory Committee, to be considered is a postponement of the activity
until the agricultural/forestal district is reviewed in 1994. The
applicant has stated verbally that such a decision would be the same
as disapproving the application.
Advisory Committee Summary: The Advisory Committee, at its meeting on
February 20, 1991, voted to recommend denial of the agricultural/fores-
tal district review with a vote of 5-0-1. Their reasoning is s~mma-
rized below.
Regarding the effect on agriculture and forestry and agricultural and
forestal resources, they felt that the pipeline is absolutely disrup-
tive to the cattle operation. They felt that the timing of the
construction would be crucial to his operation. They were concerned
with preventing soil erosion on steep land, the use of herbicides,
restrictions on the use of the land, construction and maintenance
procedures, and bonding to insure that work is done correctly and on
time. The Committee was aware that conditions could be included with
the special use permit, but chose instead to recommend denial.
Regarding the effect on policy, this was the Committee's greatest
concern. The Committee felt that the landowner has an agreement with
the County which should not be broken. Landowners agree not to
develop their land in return for protection from encroachment. They
felt that the time for changes in a district is when the district is
reviewed. They said approval of this project would jeopardize the
agricultural/forestal district program.
Regarding the necessity of the proposed action, they did not reach a
conclusion. They were somewhat concerned that Virginia Power con-
structed a power plant before the best source of fuel had. been con-
firmed. They found it very difficult to determine if this proposal
would be serving the greater good. The Committee felt that not enough
information had been received concerning the alternate route.
Staff Recommendation: This report has stated the vital importance of
agricultural/forestal districts to the County's Rural Area preserva-
tion policy. Staff has noted that the proposed activity will have a
short term effect on agricultural uses within a district. Conditions
of approval for a special use permit can mitigate these effects. Long
term effects on the district are primarily aesthetic, although minimal
when considering activities will occur in the currently existing
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
9
corridor. With these considerations, staff opinion is that the
proposed activity does not adversely effect the viability and charac-
ter of the district as a whole. Staff has no comment regarding
necessity of the proposed action. Staff and the Agricultural/Forestal
Advisory Committee have noted the understanding that agricultural/
forestal districts are a mutual undertaking between the landowner and
the County. The Advisory Committee has stated that finding this gas
pipeline to not have a detrimental effect on the district would
violate a perceived mutual agreement between the landowner and the
County protecting the agricultural/forestal interests of each. Staff
cannot comment on this perception or the precedent that may be set
with the Board of Supervisor's decision. Nonetheless, staff would
strongly recommend that the Board explicitly state its reasoning it
its decision as this action will establish parameters by which future
considerations of this type will be judged."
Mr. Cilimberg noted the following letter dated March 27, 1991, from the
County Attorney:
"I will sit with the Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 2, 1991,
and, if possible, I would like for my remarks concerning the Colonial
Gas Pipeline item to be distributed to the Commission at that time.
After reading the minutes of the Advisory Committee meeting of Febru-
ary 20, 1991, I am concerned about two things:
First, it appears from these minutes that the Committee, or some of
the members, have based their recommendation on what they see as a
'contract' between the County and the owners of land within
Ag-Forestal Districts, the terms of which are that in return for
placing their land in these districts, farmers get assurance that the
County will refuse any application for a public facility within such
district, at least until the review date for the district.
This theory should be clearly and emphatically dispelled. No such
contractual relationship, either expressly or by implication, could
legally exist, for two reasons:
First, this would amount to a contracting away by the Supervisors, of
their legislative responsibility to weigh the effect of any such
facility upon the district, and in turn to weigh this effect against
the public benefit provided by the facility. Any such foreclosure of
legislative discretion by contract or otherwise, would not only be
contrary to the statute but to the Virginia Constitution and public
policy.
Second, if any such contractual right had been vested in an owner,
then that owner could conceivably release the right in return for
money or other consideration, which would in turn mean that the public
interest as defined in the statute, has been made subject to barter
and sale.
In my opinion this contractual theory simply cannot be allowed to
creep into the consideration of this matter. The statute clearly sets
out the factors which are to be balanced, one against the other, and
in my opinion the statute should be followed.
My second concern is that apparently there has been absolutely no
evidence presented by anyone, of what the result to the public will be
if this pipeline is not built. An alternative route seems to be out
of the question, so the only alternatives are to build along this
route, or not build at all. The questions which ought to be addressed
are:
What customers, if any, in addition to Virginia Power, is this pipe-
line to serve?
What facilities are available to those customers and to the Virginia
Power plant, such as another pipeline in another area, etc.?
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
lO
What backup data is there to show that unless this pipeline is built,
Virginia Power will run short of gas and will have to use oil?
What backup data is there to show what the effect on rates will be, if
this pipeline is not built?
What is the environmental difference between the effect of use of oil
and of gas?
In other words, I think it is incumbent on the applicant and on
Virginia Power, if they are its only customer, to present concrete,
detailed evidence of the public interest to be served by this pipe-
line. I do think the words 'public interest' mean at least the
general public which will feel the effects of both the benefits and
detriment of this pipeline, and not just the people of Albemarle
County. Some of the Advisory Committee members seemed inclined to
limit the question of 'public interest' to Albemarle County, but I do
not think this is what the statute envisions.
In sum, I feel the Commission and the Supervisors should focus on the
statutory considerations, rather than treating this application as
hostile on its face to the County's goals and rejecting it on the
basis of assurances made to farmers, or rejecting it in order to see
if the Act really has any teeth in it. Any such rejection in my
judgment would not survive judicial scrutiny, and in fact any rejec-
tion, even on the statutory grounds, should be supported by actual
hard evidence of detriment which outweighs the public benefits."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 10,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of the easement through the district.
The Commission found the Columbia Gas Pipeline easement in the Blue Run
Agricultural/Forestal District: (1) to be in compliance with the policy of
Chapter 36 of the Code of Virginia; (2) not to have an adverse effect on the
agricultural and forestal activities in the District; and (3) that a need for
the service has been documented. This determination was based on the follow-
ing:
The utility corridor preceded the establishment of the agricultu-
ral/forestal district;
The proposed project would substantially utilize the existing
corridor;
Due to the underground character of this use, the impact to
agriculture and forestry is primarily temporary. The area can
revert to pre-existing conditions;
The temporary impact of construction may be adequately minimized
through conditions attached to the approval of a revised special
permit;
The long-term impact of this particular use is expected to be
negligible and will not affect the viability and character of the
district;
Approval of construction techniques by the Marine Resources
Committee and the Corps of Engineers;
7. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) determination of
need.
Mr. Cilimberg then gave the following staff report on SP-90-111:
"Petition: Columbia Gas petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a
special use permit for the construction of a six mile gas transmission
line within and adjacent to an existing right-of-way. Approximately
20 feet of additional right of way will be acquired as well as ten
feet of temporary construction easement. On property within the
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
agricultural/forestal district, ten feet of additional permanent
right-of-way will be acquired. No temporary easement will be ac-
quired. The proposed activity involves the crossing of the flood
plain of Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District and a tributary of
Happy Creek. The parcels involved are Tax Map 35, Parcel 31, and Tax
Map 36, Parcels 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 24 and 26. Ail
parcels are in the northeastern area of Albemarle County stretching
from Route 20 near the Orange County line eastward to the Louisa
County line near Route 860. Ail properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas.
The proposed line crosses Route 231 and property located adjacent to
Route 20 which are Entrance Corridors.
Character of the Area: The proposed pipeline would cross varied
topography. Approximately 3.23 miles of the project is through wooded
land; approximately 2.4 miles of this project is located in open land.
The pipeline crosses approximately one mile of the Blue Run Agricul-
tural/Forestal District.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a
24-inch diameter pipeline for the transmission of natural gas. This
gas will be used by Virginia Power for production of electricity.
This new pipeline is to be installed adjacent to two existing pipe-
lines. A description of the request as well as a justification for
the request has been submitted by the applicant.
Planning and Zoning History: A similar request for an additional line
was approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 1990 (SP-90-26).
That request allowed additional pipeline from the Albemarle/Orange
County line to the existing valves located just east of Route 20.
Staff has reviewed this current proposal as new business, divorced
from this prior approval. (This has been staff policy with other
utility applications).
Comprehensive Plan: The following sections of the Plan are relevant
to the review of SP-90-111:
Private Utilities The Plan addresses coordination of County
and private utility planning to ensure the adequate provision of
non-public services to support existing and anticipated develop-
ment in the County. Although direct service to County residents
is not anticipated, County residents may benefit indirectly
through improvement to the overall electrical transmission
network. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that public utility
corridors be designed 'to fit the topography. Corridors should
be shared by utilities, when possible. Distribution lines
should be placed underground'. This is an existing utility
corridor, and the lines are to be placed underground. Consol-
idation of utility corridors is a long standing policy of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Agricultural and Forestal Resources - The land affected by the
proposed pipeline is designated as Rural Areas. Part of the
proposed pipeline traverses an agricultural/forestal district.
These districts are endorsed by the Plan as essential activities
in support of agricultural/forestal resources.
Scenic Resources - Routes 22 and 231 are designated Virginia
Byways.
Relevant scenic resources design standards - The most directly
related standards to this project 'to design utility corridors
to fit the topography. Corridors should be shared by utilities,
when possible. Distribution lines should be placed underground'.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southwest Mountain Area
Natural Resources and Historic Preservation Study which provides
analysis of this area for natural and historic resource preser-
vation.
Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia requires that in order for
this permit to be approved it must be found in compliance with the
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Comprehensive Plan in regards to general or approximate location,
charaater and extent. The Comprehensive Plan notes the general
location of this gas transmission line.
12
As noted above, the Plan does call for coordination of private County
and utility planning to ensure the adequate provision of services.
While this transmission line does not provide direct service to the
County, it does increase available capacity and is intended to serve
Virginia Power for electrical power production which will provide
electrical service for the public at large.
The Plan also encourages the sharing, or consolidating of utilities
along existing corridors. This request is for expansion along an
existing corridor. Therefore, staff finds this request consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary and Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. This report
will address each item found in Section 31.2.4.1:
a)
Special ~se permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be
issued upon flndln~ by the Board of Supervisors that such use
will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property.
In reviewing this proposal, staff has considered the impact the line
will have on the property it crosses.
The new line will be located on the south side of the existing lines
and will require an additional permanent 20 foot easement, except for
a few locations. The total width of the permanent easement after
construction will be 90 feet. In addition, a ten foot temporary
construction easement is proposed. This easement will be allowed to
return to a natural state or will be replanted with trees if requested
by the individual property owner. On property within the agricultur-
al/forestal district there will be only ten additional feet of perma-
nent right-of-way and no temporary right-of-way. This wilt occasion
the use of non-conventional construction techniques. This will reduce
the impact of the line on agricultural/forestal activities due to the
disturbance of less area. The new construction will involve six
stream crossings and three road crossings, Routes 777, 645 and 231.
The applicant has submitted applications to the Marine Resource
Commission for the stream crossings and to the Virginia Department of
Transportation for road crossings.
The use of herbicides will be restricted to those herbicides and other
chemicals approved by the County Engineer and will not be allowed in
any case in which the property owner objects to such use. In cases
were herbicides cannot be used, other methods will be employed to
maintain the easement. In this review the County Engineer may request
comment from federal, state and local officials. In order to address
potential erosion hazards, the applicant has agreed to obtain an
erosion control permit from the County. This is a voluntary condition
as the applicant is exempt from obtaining local erosion control
permits; however, it is enforceable as a condition of the special use
permit.
The pipeline is installed 36 inches below the surface so as to not
interfere with agricultural activities. The construction technique
involves the stockpiling of topsoil adjacent to the line so that it
may be replaced. The environmental management construction standard
and practices plan has specific construction designed to minimize the
effect of the pipeline on agricultural activity. Staff will require
compliance with this plan. The new pipeline will be on the south side
of the existing pipeline for a majority of the distance in Albemarle
County. The only occasions where the new line will be located north
of existing lines is in order to avoid construction in ponds which
have been constructed over the existing lines. There will be no new
above ground construction other than the installation of a new valve
adjacent to the existing valves located just east of Route 20. From
plans submitted by the applicant, the closest dwelling is approximate-
ly 50 feet from the edge of the expanded easement.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
13
Based on the nature of the use (underground pipeline), together with
appropriate conditions of approval, staff believes this use will not
be of substantial detriment to the properties it will cross.
b) ~hmt the rhmracter of ~hm dlmtrict will not be changed thereby
A utility corridor already exists for a gas transmission line. In
staff's opinion the expansion of an existing corridor for the instal-
lation of an underground gas transmission line will not change the
character of the district.
c)
and thmt s,,mh use will be in har~ony with the purpose and intent
of th~m ordinance, and with the ~ses permitted by right in the
district.
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as listed
in Section 1.4 - Purpose and Intent, 1.5 - Relation to Environment,
and 1.6 - Relation to the Comprehensive Plan with particular attention
to the Section 1.4.4 'to facilitate the provision of adequate police
and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transporta-
tion, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests,
playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public
requirements'; and 1.4.8 'to provide for the preservation of agricul-
tural and forestal lands' and is of the opinion that this request is
in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The proposed
gas transmission line will allow for continued agricultural use and is
not deemed by staff to be in conflict with the uses permitted by right
in the Rural Areas District.
d)
with additional reKulationsprovided in section 5.0 of this
ord~nmnce~ ~md with the public health~ safety and ~eneral wel-
fare.
Staff opinion is that the proposed transmission line is consistent
with the public health, safety and general welfare. This opinion is
based on the advantages of utilizing existing corridors as opposed to
the creation of a new corridor as well as the fact that the line is
underground, together with conditions of approval addressing such
issues as soil erosion and usage of herbicides.
Other Issues: This proposal involves the crossing of approximately
one mile of the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District. Approxima-
tely 2800 feet or 52 percent of this distance is in open land and 2500
feet or 47 percent of this distance is wooded. Staff has requested
that the applicant submit a study of possible alternative alignments
which would avoid the agricultural/forestal district. This informa-
tion has been submitted. This alternative alignment would make use of
the existing valve lot in the agricultural/forestal district and would
then proceed northward into Orange County and reenter Albemarle County
east of the agricultural/forestal district. The applicant has stated
that this alignment would be approximately 8000 feet in length as
proposed to 5344 feet for the route through the agricultural/forestal
district. The additional cost of construction is estimated to exceed
$1.2 million. The increased cost is due to the additional length and
the cost of obtaining a new easement as compared to expanding the
existing easement as is proposed. A route to the south of the agri-
cultural/forestal district would involve three additional miles of
construction. No cost estimates have been prepared for a southern
route since it is about twice the distance of the northern alternate
route.
Staff has worked with the applicant and with the owner of the land
within the agricultural/forestal district, Dr. Young, to reach condi-
tions intended to minimize the physical effects of the new pipeline.
The applicant has agreed to limit construction time to 15 days which
shall not commence prior to June 1, 1991. This represents a time of
the year which should be least disruptive to agricultural operations
(Staff does not intend to imply that no disruption of farm activities
will occur). The disturbed portion of the right-of-way will be
fertilized, limed and reseeded with vegetation subject to the approval
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
14
of the Soil Conservation District, the property owner, and the Depart-
ment of Engineering. No buildings are to be removed from Dr. Young's
property. The applicant has agreed to other conditions which would be
effective on all parcels. So far as staff is aware, these aggregate
conditions would address all issues of physical intrusion into the
agricultural/forestal district except the two week construction time.
Summary: The applicant met with various members of staff after the
application was filed. Concerns which were raised by staff have been
addressed and have resulted in numerous conditions which are intended
to minimize the impact of the proposed line. This report contains
conditions of approval for both the issues of impact on the agricul-
tural/forestal district as well as to insure compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. Due to the fact that both issues are
addressed in one set of conditions there are conditions of approval
which may not be applicable in other cases.
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff opinion is that the utilization
and expansion of the existing corridor is preferable to the construc-
tion of a new corridor which would affect more individuals. In
addition, the creation of a new easement would result in additional
costs which may raise costs for users of both natural gas and elec-
tricity. Staff has not attempted to determine if natural gas or
No. 2 fuel oil is preferable for the generation of electricity; the
applicant has submitted information regarding the advantages of
natural gas as a fuel source and staff has forwarded that information
without additional comment.
Staff opinion is that due to the presence of the existing line this
use will not result in a substantial detriment to properties and will
not change the character of the district in which it is located.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-90-111 subject to condi-
tions, The Planning Commission should, in reviewing this request,
assume that the Board of Supervisors has determined that this use may
occur within the agricultural/forestal district.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:'
Construction shall be performed within the existing easement, a
new permanent 20 foot easement and a ten foot temporary easement
except on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31, where construction shall be
performed within the existing 70 foot easement and a new ten foot
permanent easement;
The ten foot temporary easement shall be allowed to return to its
natural state or will be replanted in indigenous trees the number
and size of which are to be selected by the individual property
owner;
If herbicides or other agents for the control of foliage are
proposed, the applicant shall submit for approval a list of
proposed herbicides or other agents and the proposed method of
application to the County Engineer. In any case where a property
owner objects to the use of such method, the applicant shall
employ other methods for the control of foliage subject to
property owner approval;
Construction on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31, shall not commence prior
to June 1, 1991, and shall be completed by October 31, 1991.
Such construction period shall not be more than 15 consecutive
days. The Director of Planning and Community Development may
extend the construction period due to unforeseen delays in
construction which may include but are not limited to: inclement
weather or other acts of God; but, shall not authorize activity
before or after the aforesaid calendar date;
Approval by all federal, state and local officials of stream
crossing and wetland areas;
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
6.
7.
8.
10.
15
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road crossings;
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
Method of vegetative stabilization of the easement on Tax Map 35,
Parcel 31 shall be determined by the property owner and Depart-
ment of Engineering;
No structures shall be removed on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31, for the
construction of the pipeline.
Compliance with Environmental Management and Construction Stan-
dards and practices plan as described in FERC Docket No.
CP-90-1513-000."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 2,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-111 subject to the ten condi-
tions of the staff.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the following letter dated April 15, 1991, from Mr.
Steven W. Blaine of McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe:
"Our firm represents the applicant, Columbia, in its request for a
special use permit to allow construction of an underground natural gas
pipeline. On April 2, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of Columbia's request, subject to the conditions
set forth in Mr. Fritz's letter of April 4.
This letter is to request that the Board approve Columbia's request
for a special use permit, subject to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission, with one minor modification. The modification
has to do with condition #4 which imposes a construction completion
deadline of September 15, 1991, within the Blue Run Agricultural/
Forestal District.
While Columbia expects to complete construction in Albemarle County
this summer, condition #3, as currently written, would render the
special use permit invalid if, due to circumstances beyond Columbia's
control, construction cannot be completed prior to September 15.
Both Columbia and the owner of the land subject to this condition have
expressed a desire to complete construction this summer so as to avoid
disturbing the planting of fall crops and to avoid the autumn and
winter wet seasons. However, if necessary, there should be plenty of
good weather after September 15 to complete installation of the
pipeline. Columbia will compensate the landowner for any loss of
crops. Furthermore, Columbia will take necessary steps to assure that
the right-of-way area is restored.
On behalf of Columbia, werequest the Board's aPproval of the special
use permit. Columbia also requests the Board of SUpervisors (if it
chooses to approve the special use permit) to adopt a revised condi-
tion #4 as follows:
Construction on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31, should not commence
prior to June 15, 1991 and shall be completed.by September
15, 1991. The construction period shall not be more than 15
consecutive days. Provided, however, that the Director of
Planning and Community Development may extend the construc-
tion period due to unforeseen delays in construction which
may include but shall not be limited to conditions imposed
by federal or state regulatory agencies, inclement weather
or other acts of God. In considering whether to extend the
construction period, the Director of Planning Community
Development shall consider measures necessary to assure
restoration of the right-of-way area.
As long as Columbia is able to restore the right-of-way area, the
Director of Planning should be in a position to grant a request for an
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
extension. This would eliminate the need for a future public hearing
to amend the special use permit if there should be a need to address
this one issue. It is vital to the project that Columbia have the
ability to work within the Blue Run District so long as the work does
not cause any material adverse impact to agricultural resources within
the District. Any excusable delay would be beyond Columbia's control.
Therefore the revised condition protects the Blue Run Agricultural/
Forestal District while providing the flexibility needed to complete
the project."
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has no problem with substituting condition
#4 with the language recommended in Mr. Blaine's letter.
Mr. Bain read the last sentence of Mr. St. John's letter and asked if
this related specifically to the Code sections. Mr. St. John replied, "no."
He said that first it has to be determined whether or not the pipeline has an
adverse effect on agricultural and forestal land and whether it is in accor-
dance with the policy of the statute. He added that if it is found that it
would be detrimental to that policy then public benefits should be weighed
against the negative results. He did not mean to indicate, in the last
sentence of his letter, that the burden would be on the County to show that
the detriment outweighs the public benefits. What he meant to say is that
whatever decision that the Board makes, it should be supported by careful and
detailed findings of facts by the Board. He also thinks that the last sen-
tence of his letter would apply also if the Board approves this project. Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that Mr. St. John's remarks are represented by the seven
points in the approval of the easement through the district.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that when the Commission recommended approval it
listed certain factors. He wonders if these factors are sufficient. Mr. St.
John stated that he was present at the meeting, and he was impressed that the
Commission made findings of fact. He said that he did not want to say whether
or not these findings are sufficient in the sense that he would advocate that
this Board follow the Commission's decision. He added, though, that these
findings are sufficient to comply with the procedure in the State statute.
Mrs. Humphris said she sees nothing in the statement of determination
from the Commission showing that the applicant provided detailed evidence of
the public interest to be served. Mr. St. John said the Commission focused
its findings on the conclusion that there is no real detriment to the agricul-
tural or forestal operation nor to the policy in the statute. He said the
applicant and Virginia Power produced detailed statements which are noted in
the minutes of the Commission. He added that whether or not those reasons are
sufficient is not a legal question. He feels that the Commission did not
emphasize its factual findings on that issue because it found that there was
no detriment to the concept of agricultural/forestal districts. Mr. St. John
said that this request for the pipeline is in an existing right-of-way. He
also commmnted that a Certification of Public Need and Necessity had been
issued by the Federal Power Commission. Mr. Bain said the Board has not seen
this certification, and he asked if the staff has seen it. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that the staff has seen the summary of information and it is volumi-
nous. He is sure that the Board's concerns will be addressed tonight during
the presentation from the applicant.
Mrs. Humphris said this gas pipeline is proposed to serve 19 new plants
that are either already being built or have permits issued in the Common-
wealth. She wonders why Virginia has to have more plants than all of the
other 49 states combined. That is why she questions the need. She would also
like to know the specific need for this particular pipeline since an agricul-
tural/forestal district has to be invaded to provide it. She had hoped that
there would be more evidence on need in the discussion from the Commission.
At this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing on SP-90-111. He asked
the applicant for Columbia Gas to speak to the concerns of the Board.
Mr. Steve Blaine spoke on behalf of Columbia Gas Transmission Corpora-
tion. He introduced representatives of Columbia Gas. They were: Mr. Bob
Collett, Jr., Project Manager for the entire project who is from the Charles-
ton, West Virginia office; Mr. D. H~ner, who is from Columbia's Richmond
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
office, and who will be directly responsible for all construction within
Albemarle County; and Mr. Mark Hunneshagen, who is Columbia's right-of-way
representative. Ail have met personally with each of the landowners in
Albemarle County over whose property the pipeline will cross.
Mr. Blaine said that Columbia is asking the Board's approval for the
expansion of a pipeline through a portion of the Blue Run Agricultural/Fores-
tal District. In order to unRerstand the need for this request, as well as
how Columbia proposes to install the pipeline, the members need to Board
understand the planning that takes place before construction begins. The
actual environmentally-sound techniques that will be used in installing the
pipeline are critical in determining whether or not there will be an adverse
impact on the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal district.
Mr. Blaine stated that the planning for this project began over a year
ago. As an intrastate transporter of natural gas, Columbia is heavily regu-
lated by the Federal Government, and the agency that regulates the natural gas
industry is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He said that
Columbia has to demonstrate to FERC that there is a need for the project
before the pipeline can be built, and Columbia has received, within the last
three weeks, a certificate which is FERC's approval of the project. To
convince FERC that there is a need, Columbia had to show that there is a
demand for the gas that is being transported. That is why Virginia Power and
Columbia entered into a contract for the sale of the natural gas before the
project was approved. He mentioned that, under its charter, Columbia has an
obligation to supply natural gas for the public need. He went on to say that
the proposed pipeline will supply natural gas for Virginia Power's Chester-
field electricity generating plant. Mr. Blaine said that this plant is
designed to operate on either distilled oil or natural gas and currently
natural gas is cheaper than oil. Virginia Power estimates that it saves
$120,000 a day when natural gas is used as opposed to oil to fuel the gene-
rating units. He added that with the proposed project, Columbia can assure
Virginia Power the volume that is needed at the most competitive rates in the
market area that is being served. He noted that Virginia Power's immediate
needs are for 43 million cubic feet of natural gas per day and no other
natural gas transmission company with service to this market area can supply
that capacity. He said that Virginia Power saved consumers of electricity
$36.0 million in 1990 by its program to reduce fuel costs. Columbia's project
will benefit the public because it will help Virginia Power keep fuel costs
down which translates to a direct benefit to the consumers. He next remarked
that Columbia had received its FERC certificate ahead of schedule because the
approval process was placed on an expedited review since this project will
displace oil as a fuel source. He noted that this expedited review is consis-
tent with the Bush administration's energy policy which indicates that this
country needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, so this project was
approved as a means to further the national policy.
Mr. Blaine told the Board that Columbia had to submit with its FERC
application a detailed site specific environmental impact study. He said that
through a review and comment process similar to the County's site plan pro-
cess, FKRC and Columbia worked out an environmental and construction plan
which has been submitted to the Planning Department and the County Engineer.
He explained that, as part of that plan, Columbia's environmental consultants
prepared a detailed site specific soil erosion and sediment control plan. The
erosion control plan must be approved by the County Engineer before any land
disturbance permits can be issued..
Mr. Blaine said Columbia's construction plans and impact statement have
already been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands disturbance
and restoration. He said that the Virginia Marine Resources Commission has
already issued all of the necessary permits for stream crossings and that
includes the crossing of Blue Run within the agricultural district. He stated
that wherever possible Columbia installs new pipeline along existing right-of-
way corridors because this method causes the least amount of disturbance. The
proposed pipeline, according to Mr. Blaine, follows the existing right-of-way
path for Columbia's two existing 18-inch pipelines, the first of which was
installed in the early 1950's. He said that following existing right-of-way
corridors is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. He noted that
Columbia has examined two alternative routes to avoid the district altogether.
He mentioned that one route to the south would involve eight additional miles.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
18
of right-of-way taking and would affect many more landowners. Mr. Blaine said
that the northern route, which was depicted in the staff report, was studied
in some detail, but to follow that route would require the clea~ing of an
entirely new 65-foot right-of-way and would affect three additional land,
owners. It would also require the taking of 15 additional acres over the
proposed plan and would add two additional stream crossings. He pointed out
that the proposed routing involves only a clearing of a ten-foot portion of
additional permanent right-of-way within the agricultural district. He said
that this is because Columbia will maximize the use of the existing 70-foot
right-of-way through the agricultural district, and this right-of-way has been
there since before the agricultural district was adopted. 'He noted that
Columbia requires some additional right-of-way to allow the workers to work on
the outside edge of the right-of-way and avoid working over the existing
lines. He added that this isconsistent with industry practice to avoid the
hazards of workers on top of existing lines.
Mr. Blaine next showed the Board some slides that demonstrated construc-
tion techniques, and he explained each one. He said that the first slide
illustrates why it is necessary to have a 65 to 70 foot working area. This
slide showed that the right-of-way area has already been cleared ~nd the
backhoe is excavating the trench. He noted that most of the work is being
done on the right hand side of the trench but the soil is being put on the
other side of the trench, and the subsoil is being separated from the topsoil
so that when the dirt goes back into place, the topsoil can be placed on top.
He said that once the trench is excavated, the pipe is actually assembled
within the right-of-way area. He pointed out that the steel pipe is welded
and placed on skids before it is lowered into the trench and that way each
welded area can be inspected through an X-ray examination to assure its
equity. He said that all of Columbia's steel pipes are installed with an
erosion prevention device.
Another slide illustrated some of Columbia's erosion and sediment control
techniques. Mr. Blaine said that the entire right-of-way area along the
stream bank is heavily mulched to prevent erosion. He noted that in the
stream bank, itself, Columbia has installed stone rip-rap, and burlap has been
staked down as a further erosion control measure.
Mr. Blaine said that once the soil is put back, it is graded and one of
the slides shows a Columbia worker actually handseeding the right-of-way
because it is on a hillside and equipment would disturb the final grading.
One of Mr. Blaine's slides related to fertilization which prepares the
right-of-way area for seeding and illustrates an agricultural setting.
Another slide showed the same right-of-way area after one growing season. He
said that after the growing smm~on, agricultural use can resume over the
right-of-way area. He mentioned that in the case of Dr. Young's property, the
right-of-way area is currently used for crops such as hay and cattle grazing.
He said that as soon as the growth comes back the following season, the area
may resume in that sams manner. He went on to say that the only disturbance
to the land would be temporary during the construction period. He stated that
it has been mutually agreed upon with the landowners that Columbia's construc-
tion will not begin until after the calfing season which should end the second
week of June. He remarked that the existing right-of-way does not impair the
current primary use of the land. He said that concerning the added ten feet
of right-of-way, Columbia has planned construction to minimize the temporary
inconvenience of the landowner.
In conclusion, Mr. Blaine asked the Board to consider these techniques
and the special conditions that have been worked out with the staff. He
believes that the Board will find that because of the nature of the project as
an underground pipeline and the construction techniques that have been men-
tioned, the project will have a negligible effect on agricultural and forestal
resources. He said that this project serves the public in the most practical
and economical manner and furthers the Nation's energy policy. He added that
it assists Virginia Power in reducing energy costs which translates to a
direct benefit to the consumers. He said that he would be happy to answer any
questions from Board members. He then introduced the Board to Mr. David Roop,
District Manager for Virginia Power's Charlottesville Office. He added that
Mr. Roop could speak to the need for the project and Virginia Power's involve-
ment. He went on to say that Mr. Roop would like to tell the Board how
Virginia Power will save money for the consumers.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 19
(Page 19)
Mr. Bowie wondered how the interruption of the calfing season would be
handled. Mr. Blaine answered that the time period for calfing is at the
present time. He said that Dr. Young expects that the sensitive time will be
over approximately June 15, so construction will not begin before that time.
He added that this is satisfactory with Dr. Young. He went on to say that the
ending date that was in the original Planning Commission's recommendation is
that construction will be completed this summer. He said that September 15 is
a realistic target date, but he would like to have the ability to ask for an
extension of that date if necessary. He added that this date does not account
for any unexpected delays, such as railroad strikes, floods, hurricanes, etc.
Mr. Bowie asked if this extension date depended on whether or not there are
other interruptions or considerations. Mr. Blaine answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowie stated that, if ihe Board accepts this p]mn, this is the best
route because it is the shortest, and Columbia already owned the right-of-way
before the agricultural/forestal district was there. Mr. Blaine agreed. He
said that an alternative route was also planned, based on environmental
impacts.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Columbia Gas owns all of the right-of-way. Mr.
Blaine answered that Columbia Gas owns all 70 feet of the right-of-way, but an
additional right-of-way of ten feet is being added.
Mr. Bowie asked if a different route was chosen, how many feet would be
necessary. Mr. Blaine answered that a minimum of 65 feet would be needed.
Mr. Bowie wondered if Columbia Gas would retain its 70 feet in addition to the
65 feet.
Mr. Bain asked who makes the determination as to the length of the
pipeline. Mr. Blaine replied that the minimum construction area is 65 feet
and that accounts for keeping 20 feet on either side of the pipeline for
safety and maintenance reasons. Mr. Bain said he still does not understand
the length requirements of the pipeline since there are two pipelines that are
70 feet now. Mr. Blaine responded, the two pipelines that are within the 70
feet account for 20 feet on the outside of one line, 20 feet between the
lines, and 20 feet on the outside edge. He said that this adds up to 60 feet
with five additional feet for the trench and the pipe itself.
Mrs. Humphris called attention to Figure 8-3 (construction right-of-way
dimensions for existing right-of-way utilization Boswell pipeline loop) in the
staff report and questioned the length requirements, also. Mr. Blaine an-
swered that part of the length requirements include temporary construction
right-of-way which is an area that would be allowed to revert baak to its
original state and accounts for 25 feet. He said that the main point is that
Columbia is considering ten feet in an agricultural district as opposed to 15
acres of disturbance on an alternative route. Mrs. Humphris stated that she
is not talking about the alternative route, and she reiterated that she is
looking at Figure 8-3. Mr. Perkins told Mrs. Humphris that apparently 65 feet
is needed for the proposed construction right-of-way. Mrs. Humphris wondered
why 65 feet was not needed when the other construction was done. Mr. Perkins
responded that Columbia may have already had the property necessary for that
right-of-way. Mr. Hunneshagen said tbmt the general plan would require enough
property for the whole right-of-way, but within the agricultural/forestal
district only an additional ten feet is needed for construction. He added
that this property will be kept as a permanent right-of-way so there will be a
25 foot space between the pipe line and the edge of the right-of-way. He went
on to say that this space is needed for maintenance purposes. Mr. Blaine
stated that Columbia is reducing its normm] right-of-way taking within the
agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Bowie said that Mr. Blaine keeps referring to 80 feet as the property
needed for the right-of-way but the information he has in hand refers to 100
feet. He understands that there will be a lesser right-of-way in the agricul-
- tural/forestal district. Mr. Blaine agreed and went on to say that ten feet
will be allowed to revert back to its original state because it is only needed
temporarily.
Mr. David Roop, District Manager for Virginia Power, mentioned that 25
percent of the rates are based on the fuel charge, and 75 percent of the rates
are based on the cost of conducting business. He said that the 25 percent
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
2O
charge on the electric bill is a pass through rate. Each year Virginia Power
reviews how much is actually spent in fuel expenses and then it is projected
for the next year as to how much is anticipated to be spent. He said that
this is a direct pass through for the consumer, and Virginia Power makes no
money on this. He added that one of the obligations Virginia Power has to the
Commission is that Virginia Power has to be very competitive and keep fuel
expenses down as much as possible. He said that in 1980 the fuel expense
portion of the rates had been reduced almost by 50 percent. He mentioned that
one of the things that Virginia Power did when there were problems with rail
deliveries to some of the coal-fired stations was to barge coal in from
Venezuela. He stated that because of this, railway prices went down for
shipping charges and Virginia coal was used again. He went on to say that
this unit has a big advantage because it can use either one of three fuel
mixes, and they are natural gas, distilled oil or gasified coal. He said,
though, that gasified coal is not economical in today's technology. Mr. Roop
explained that units are dispatched according to cost, which means that the
lowest cost units are dispatched first. He gave an example of a unit in
Chesterfield which was operating on gas at 1.62 cents per kilowatt hour and
when this same unit used distilled oil, the cost was 3.43 cents per kilowatt
hour. He said that Virginia Power is not on a firm gas supply delivery and on
very cold or very hot days when the unit is needed, distilled oil has to be
used. He remarked that rather than using this unit first, it has to be backed
off and dispatched later in the schedule. He explained that the unit is
dispatched after some of the larger oil-fired units. He said that the oil-
fired units are cheaper to run than the ones that use distilled oil, and they
also have an impact on the environment. The natural gas units have no impact
on the environment. He stated that the environmental impact and the cost are
two of the factors that make this unit desirable for use whenever possible.
He went on to say that this pipeline will make it possible to take advantage
of these two factors.
Mr. Bain wondered how much electricity Virginia Power sells to other
utilities outside of Virginia. Mr. Roop replied that he did not have those
figures with him. Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bain that it is important to
know how much electricity is being sold to out-of-state utilities. She then
asked if the Chesterfield plant is already producing electricity. Mr. Roop
answered, "yes." Mrs. Humphris then inquired as to how long the Chesterfield
plant has been in production. Mr. Roop answered that the Chesterfield plant
started production on September 20, 1990. He added that the Chesterfield unit
is different from some of the other units, is more efficient and is one of the
first of its type. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Chesterfield unit is already
being supplied by gas. Mr. Roop answered that the Chesterfield unit uses gas
whenever it is available. When gas is not available, the unit runs on No. 2
distilled oil. He said that over the next ten years Virginia Power is expect-
ing to have to add quite a bit of generation. Mrs. Humphris reiterated that
this is the reason that Mr. Bain's question is so pertinent. She, too, is
interested in knowing how much of this production is used for the citizens of
Virginia and how much is being exported. Mr. Roop replied that he could not
give an actual figure at this time, but he believes that the majority of the
production is for the Commonwealth of Virginia. He said that Virginia Power
buys some of its power from other utilities. He indicated that if it is
cheaper for Virginia Power to buy from another utility than it is to generate
the power, then Virginia Power will buy from another utility. He noted that
the same thing is true for other utilities when they buy from Virginia Power.
He said that this buy and sell arrangement is used to try to keep the rates as
low as possible. He added that Virginia Power has some firm contracts to buy
power and, at times, it has firm contracts to sell power. Mrs. Humphris
stated that perhaps the increased availability to the Chesterfield plant of a
cheaper supply will make it of more interest to the buyers. Mr. Roop answered
that basically the buyers are from Virginia. He said that 10,000 mega watts
of generation will be added over the next ten years to supply Virginia's need,
so it is unlikely that electricity will be sold to other utilities. He is
unsure if Virginia Power is selling to other utilities today. He mentioned
that other plants are being built because of the need for them in this State.
He said he could not say that Virginia Power did not ever sell to an outside
utility because it could happen. He added, however, that plants are not being
built to serve other utilities.
Mr. Bain inquired as to when the contract was signed with Virginia Power
and Columbia Gas Transmission relative to the Chesterfield plant. Mr. Roop
responded that negotiations concerning the Chesterfield plant began in 1987,
and contracts were signed at the end of 1989.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
21
Mr. Bowie asked if anyone else wished to speak concerning this subject.
He explained that the Board would hear comments on Agenda Items No. 8 and No.
9 at the same time.
Mr. Lawrence Wright, a construction superintendent, said it appears to
him that Columbia Gas and Virginia Power have a valid reason for wanting to
add the pipeline and have gone to a lot of trouble to minimize the impact of
it. He believes that Columbia Gas has a sound presentation, and he recommend-
ed that this proposal be accepted.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Wright works for Columbia Gas or Virginia Power.
Mr. Wright answered, "no." He said that he is currently unemployed, is in
commercial construction and knows nothing about pipeline construction.
Mr. Lynwood Coffman stated that for ten years he has been the Pastor at
Blue Run Baptist Church, his membership is there and he is in that vicinity
regularly. He is well acquainted with the area and the people there. He said
that he is not impressed with Columbia Gas and this pipeline operation because
it seems to him that the groundwork is being laid for a utilities corridor in
this area of the County. He would like to keep this area permanently rural.
He is concerned that soon there could be rapid growth in this area of the
County which is near Montpelier, the historic home of President Madison, and
the historic Blue Run Church which was founded in 1769. He remarked that the
people in that vicinity despise growth. He feels that Virginia Power and
Columbia Gas want to do all the business possible and make a lot of profit.
If a vote is taken on this matter, he hopes that no member of the Board bas
stock in Columbia Gas or Virginia Power. He does not believe that a need has
been established and the only need that he can see, as far as Albemarle County
is concerned, is whether or not stock is owned by County citizens in Virginia
Power or Columbia Gas which would enhance the citizens' profits. He wondered
if the County gets any revenues from this operation. Mr. Bowie answered that
the County gets nothing directly from this Columbia Gas project.
Mr. Coffman believes that if this project is approved, the groundwork
will be laid for a designated growth area in this region, which, to his
knowledge, the Comprehensive Plan does not envision. He wondered what seg-
ments of the public are requesting this project. He said that the gentlemen
who spoke previously indicated that this project is for a public need, and he
asked if there are people from the public present who are wanting more gas-
lines and more utilities in this area of the County. He stated that the
Orange County Board of Supervisors is in a similar situation over this same
sort of thing. He indicated that there was a hearing in the State Supreme
Court today on these very topics. The people in that area of Orange County do
not want growth. He does not believe that this pipeline will be of benefit or
interest to the people of Albemarle County, and he can see no reason whatso-
ever to enhance the profits of Virginia Power and Columbia Gas and sacrifice
the beauty and the tranquility of that area of Albemarle County. It is his
recommendation to the Board that this project not be approved.
Dr. Harold E. Young, Jr., owner of Fox Port Farm, stated that the June 15
date was requested not only because of the calling season but also because of
the artificial insemination season which the proposed pipeline would inter-
rupt. He feels that it would be impossible to have the artificial insemina-
tion program if the construction of the pipeline was done at the same time.
He noted that hay is also cut in a field where the pipeline will be going, so
it would destroy his hay crop if the construction occurred other thanduring
the requested time frame. He added that September 15 was requested because
the weaning program is done in the Fall, and the construction of the pipeline
would cause a disruption. He said that Columbia Gas has assured him that, as
a rule, construction is not started when winter time is involved because there
would be the problem with erosion and construction. He went on to say that
since the project will start at his property, it should not be a problem to
start after September 15. He mentioned that he has had considerable corre-
spondence with Columbia Gas representatives and they have promised him many
things. He said that even though this pipeline will interrupt his farming
operation, he can live with the situation if Columbia Gas representatives keep
their word and if this Board feels that the pipeline is necessary. He said he
still does not like the situation. He indicated that the correspondence that
he has had with Columbia Gas is available to Board members if they wish to see
it.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
22
Mr. Way asked Dr. Young if he had seen the change proposed to condition
#3. Dr. Young replied that he has not received any correspondence since the
Planning Commission meeting. He asked what the condition involves. Mr. Way
answered that the condition indicates the time limit and states that the
construction period may be changed due to unforeseen delays in construction.
Mr. Blaine responded that he was told by Columbia Gas that the real concern
was the FERC permit which was granted before the Planning Commission meeting.
Other than that he does not know of any unforeseen regulatory problems.
Mr. Bowie explained that condition #3 indicates that construction shall
not be more than 15 consecutive days which will take place between June 15 and
September 15, 1991. He said that regardless of the circumstances, the time
limit cannot be lengthened without the approval of the Director of Planning
who has stated that he would not grant an extended time period if it inter-
fered with Dr. Young's farm operation. Dr. Young stated that with condition
#3 and all of the other stipulations that Columbia Gas has agreed to, the
terms are acceptable. Mr. Bowie reminded Dr. Young that if problems develop,
he can always appear before this Board again.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council
(PEC), read a statement in which she complimented the thoughtfulness and
thoroughness of the staff report. She said that PEC is grateful to the staff
for recognizing the vital importance of the agricultural district's program to
the preservation of the County's rural areas. She stated that tonight's
decision is significant because 13 percent, or over 60,000 acres of the County
is in agricultural/forestal districts. This means that a large number of
people will be indirectly affected by this decision. She added that this is
the first time that a request has been brought to the Board under this section
of the State Code. She believes that this decision is likely to affect the
future perception of the agricultural/forestal district program and its future
success as a land preservation tool. She went on to say that for these
reasons, PEC would urge the Board to follow the Commission's lead and deline-
ate its findings and according to the provisions stated in the Code.
Ms Buttrick said this will be to the benefit of those who will look to
this case as a precedent, including the Agricultural Advisory Committee, and
to those who will judge the future viability of the agricultural/forestal
program by this decision. She also asked the Board to address the concern to
the landowner in either of two ways; by affirming the recommendations of the
Agricultural Advisory Committee or by attaching such conditions to the special
permit as to minimize disturbance to his farming operation. She said that a
condition relating to the limitation of the time of year when construction
could occur will go a long way to mitigate the upheaval that construction will
cause to his activity. She thanked the Board for its commitment to the
agricultural/forestal district program. She said it is a program that has
been successful due to the cooperation of a large number of people in the
rural area. She asked that the Board approach this situation in such a way as
to keep faith with these people.
Since there were no other comments from the public, Mr. Bowie told Mr.
Blaine that he could speak again.
Mr. Blaine answered a few of the questions that were raised, by saying
that there is an increase in the tax base that relates to construction cost.
He does not have the exact figures, but he said that the State Corporation
Commission values the facility within the County and rebates a portion of that
value in the form of taxes based upon the County's tax rate. He went on to
say that the construction cost estimated in Albemarle County is $4.8 million.
He said that the best evidence that this will not create growth in the area is
the fact that there is a right-of-way which has been in existence for 30
years, and it has not promoted growth. He remarked that Columbia Gas has no
intention of creating a utility corridor, and he assumes that if an issue ca~
before this Board that presented a new utility, this Board could examine th~
facts and circUmStances at that time to determine if it was fOr the good of!
the County. In view of the public need, there will be benefits to Virginia!
consumers of electricity because Virginia Power is a net importer of power. ,
He mentioned that. as far as environmental benefits are concerned, because thei
plant is in Virginia, Virginian's who inhale the air will benefit from the usle
of natural gas as opposed to oil. As to the perception of the policy of theI
agricultural/forestal district, he thinks that the procedure that Columbia Gas
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
23
has been through is the best signal that the program works. He said that
Columbia Gas has been able to learn about the agricultural/forestal operations
of Dr. Young by meeting with the Advisory Committee and also meeting with Dr.
Young. He mentioned the diligence shown by the staff and the fact that the
Planning Commission tried hard to make specific findings.
Mr. St. John remarked that there are hundreds of thousands of people in
industries in the Richmond area who use gas. He asked if, when new industries
are built, will a new pipeline have to be constructed from the north/south
trunk line. Mr. Blaine answered that the existing industry and individual
consumers are using all the gas that is going to the market, and additional
capacity needs to be provided. Mr. St. John commented that Columbia Gas is
building a pipeline from Albemarle to Chesterfield that will serve only
Virginia Power. 'Mr. Blaine explained that Columbia Gas is only putting a loop
in the pipeline that will provide additional capacity. He said that the issue
is upstream capacity and how to get 43 million cubic feet of natural gas per
day to the generating units that are using gas to produce power. He stated
that to do this, gas will have to be added in the line, and, in this project,
it is done by looping. Mr. St. John wondered if Columbia Gas has projected
the growth in the Henrico, Chesterfield, Richmond area. He asked if the
pipeline will only serve one plant, or if its' purpose is to take care of the
gas needs for the growth of the whole Richmond area. Mr. Blaine responded
that this pipeline is only to take care of the gas needs of Virginia Power.
Mr. St. John then inquired if there would be another pipeline to take care of
future growth in the Richmond area. Mr. Blaine answered that another pipeline
might be constructed if there is a determination that there is a need by the
State Corporation Commission, and Columbia Gas is the logical provider. He
went on to say, however, that Columbia Gas has no current plans to expand to
that market. Mr. St. John stated that there are other suppliers of gas in
competition with Columbia that supplies the hundreds of thousands of people in
industries in that area. He asked if this pipeline is not built, will Virgin-
ia Power buy from another supplier. Mr. Blaine replied that it is taken into
account whether the other suppliers can produce the upstream capacity, and
there are currently no suppliers with this capability. Mr. St. John remarked
that it is a mystery to him why a pipeline would be built to supply only one
plant. Mr. Blaine replied that the problem is that the gas is not in the
eastern part of Virginia. Mr. St. John then wondered if this pipeline will
connect with the main north/south pipeline. Mr. Blaine answered, "no." He
said that the north/south pipeline is a Transco pipeline. He went on to say
that the proposed Columbia Gas pipeline is an east/west pipeline and is not
affiliated with Transco. Mr. St. John asked if, without this pipeline, would
the plant gas available for Virginia Power in the Richmond/Henrico area be an
issue of price. Mr. Blaine answered, "no." He said it is a matter of capaci-
ty instead of price. He went on to say that there is no other supply of gas
available to Virginia Power.
Mr. Perkins commented that there are a lot of other firms that have other
power sources that use gas when it is available, but when it is not available,
they have to use some other source.
Mr. Bowie stated that this new plant burns three kinds of fuel and gas is
one of them. He asked if there is no gas, what other fuel besides oil would
be used. Mr. Blaine replied that now distilled oil would be used in place of
gas or oil. He hopes that there may also be the option in the future of using
gasified coal.
Mr. Bain wondered if there is excess capacity in the pipeline to serve
another Virginia power plant. Mr. Blaine responded that there is not enough
capacity in the pipeline to serve another Virginia power plant.
Mr. Roop explained that Virginia Power is building another plant and is
contracting with another gas company because additional gas is needed for this
plant. He said, though, that this pipeline is not going through Albemarle
County. He added that this pipeline is to put that plant on an uninterrupted
supply of gas. He also said that he has a map that will show all of the gas
pipelines in Virginia.
There was no one else who wished to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public
hearings.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
24
Mr. Bain stated that this issue has required more paperwork and reading
than any other issue that this Board has considered during the last year. He
the considerable amount of work that has been done by the Advisory
Committee, the Planning Commission, the staff and others. He believes that
the landowner and Columbia Gas have worked hard together. He thinks, accord-
ing to the statute, that this pipeline will have a negative impact on the
agricultural/forestal district, but it is providing service to the public in
the most economical and practical manner. He believes that this one issue
outweighs the other. He said that future pipelines are not being considered
tonight, and he remarked that a lot of effort has been spent by this County
during the last eight years to implement the agricultural/forestal districts
because they are extremely important to all of the Board members and many
~le in Albemarle County. He is not desirous of reducing the importance of
those policies as set out in the Code and the ordinances that have been
adopted by this Board. He thinks that the Planning Commission and the Agri-
cultural Advisory Committee have done an excellent job in going through and
focusing on findings and issues of this project. From his perspective, he is
convinced of the public need as far as cost savings, etc. His ultimate
decision is because the pipeline pre-existed the agricultural/forestal zoning
in Albemarle County and because a ten foot addition is not permanently adverse
to the degree that it negates what is being done in the agricultural/forestal
districts.
Hr. Bain then offered motion, seconded byMr. Way, to find that the
Col, mhia Gas pipeline easement in the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal
District (1) to be in compliance with the policy of Chapter 6 of the Code of
Virginia; (2) to not have a substantial adverse effect on a peram~nent basis on
the agricultural and forestal activities in the District; and (3) that to a
degree the need for the service has been document_od in the most economical and
practical manner. Secondly this determlmation is based on the following:
The utility corridor preceded the establishment of the Agricultu-
ral/ForestalDistrict;
The proposed project would substantially utilize the existing
corridor;
Due to the underground character of this use, the impact to
agriculture and forestry is primarily temporary. The area can
revert to pre-existing conditions;
The temporary impact of construction may be adequately minimized
through conditions attached to the approval of a revised special
permit;
The long-term impact of this particular use is expected to be
negligible and will not affect the viability and character of the
District;
Approval of construction techniques by the M~rine Resources
Committee and tb~ Corps of Engineers;
Federal Energy Regulatory Co-mission (i~R[) determination of
need.
Mr. Bowie remarked that if this was a new right-of-way for construction
through an agricultural/forestal district he would not, under any condition,
support it. He said that if someth.ing was being constructed above the ground
in an agricultural/forestal district, he would not support that either. He
went on to say, however, that the right-of-way was there first, there are
already two pipes in the ground, and the request is for a third pipe to be
added. He believes that dependence on foreign oil has to be reduced, and the
cost of utilities has to be lowered. He said that it would appear that this
pipeline will have an effect on both of these things. He said that he accepts
the explanation that the pipeline is needed, and any other alternative would
cause more land disturbance to Albemarle County and more right-of-way would be
required. He said that he will support the motion.
Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bowie and Mr. Bain. She thinks that it is
perfectly clear that it would be wrong for a first right-of-way request to go
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
25
through an agricultural/forestal district. She believes that the whole
process, from the Advisory Committee through the Planning Commission, the
negotiations between Dr. Young and Columbia Gas Transmimsion Corporation, to
this Board, have been excellent. She said that everybody involved has been
thorough, and everything is clearly defined. She added that when the Planning
Commission made its finding concerning the invasion of the agricultural/fores-
tal district, she thinks that it was beautifully structured. She went on to
say that Dr. Young deserves a special thanks because he has been very for-
bearing in trying to deal with the upset of his farming operation and trying
to anticipate the upheaval that it will cause him. Yet, he has been under-
standing about it. She hopes that Columbia Gas realizes that Dr. Young is a
good citizen and a good neighbor. She reiterated that if this pipeline was a
new construction of any kind through an agricultural/forestal district, she
would oppose it; but because of the conditions of the motion, she will support
the pipeline construction.
Mr. Bain commented that it would be helpful for local level government to
know what is being done with the Tayloe-Murphy's Committee on population and
growth. He said that to continue the policy of growth in the State cannot
have anything but a negative impact on many of the agricultural/forestal
districts throughout the State. He also mentioned that not only would there
be an impact on agricultural/forestal districts, but the cost of utilities
will be affected as well as the pollution of the air and whether or not
natural gas is used. He stated that local government cannot make those
decisions. He mentioned that he does not know what FERC's determination of
need is, and he thinks that there is a broader picture involved under which
this Board has no control. Mrs. Humphris remarked that work should be done to
reduce consumption of energy.
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was i-~liately offered by Mrs. M~mphris and seconded by Mr.
Perkins to approve SP-90-111, subject to the conditions recommemdedby the
Planning Commission, with condition #3 amended to include the following
lamgnage outlimed in Mr. Blaine's letter of April 15, 1991: "Constr~ction on
Tax Map 35, Parcel 31 sho%tld not commence prior to June 15, 1991, amd shall be
completed by September 15, 1991. The constraction period shall not be more
thm- 15 consecutive days. Provided, however, that the Director of Planning
and Co, m~mityDevelopmentmay extend the constraction period d~e to anforeseem
delays in construction which may incl,,de but shall not be limited to condi-
tions imposed by federal or state re~,latory agencies, inclement weather or
other acts of God. In considering whether to extend the construction period,
the Director of Planming & Co,~,~nity Development shall consider measures
necessary to assure restoration of the right-of-way area."
Mr. Perkins asked what expertise the County's Engineering Department has
that relates to herbicides. Mr. Cilimberg answered that it had been deter-
mined at the Planning Commission meeting that matters relating to herbicides
would have to be referred to the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. Perkins
wondered why it would not be proper for the landowners to consult with the
County Extension Service or someone who has some expertise in that field, if
there are problems. Mr. Cilimberg replied that recommendations have to go
through the County Engineer's office because it is a County agency. The
County Engineer's office will then consult with the necessary department,
Mr. Tucker remarked that Mr. Perkins suggestion is well taken, but it
would place the landowners in the middle of the situation because they would
still have to consult with the Extension Service. Mr. Cilimberg suggested SCS
and the Extension Service as two consulting services.
Mr. Bain mentioned the first line of the wording for condition #3.
asked that "shall not commence" replace "should not commence."
He
Mr. Bowie stated that there was a change in condition #2 relating to
submitting approval to the County Engineer concerning herbicides or other
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
26
agents for the control of foliage. Mr. Perkins said that he did not know who
else should be inCluded as a consulting service. Mr. Tucker suggested that
the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service be included in condition #2 as
another consulting service. Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie agreed,
Mrs. Humphris wanted to make sure that Mr. Cilimberg was comfortable with
the changes. Mr. Cilimberg answered that if he sees something that is not
consistent with what has already been done, he will consult with Dr. Young.
Mr. Perkins suggested that the word "vegetation" be used instead of
"foliage" in condition #2. Mr. Bowie asked if the word "vegetation" was a
satisfactory replacement word for "foliage," and the Board members agreed.
As motioner and seconder, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins agreed with the
proposed changes. There being no other discussion, roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowie said that the Board spent a lot of time on this issue, but the
Board's position had to be on the record. He added that this issue might come
up again some day,' and it needed to be very clear why thiS situation was
different from the others.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Construction shall be performed within the existing easement, a
new permanent 20 foot easement and a ten foot temporary easement
except on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31, where construction shall be
performed within the existing 70 foot easement and a new ten foot
permanent easement;
If herbicides or other agents for the control of vegetation are
proposed, the applicant shall submit for approval a list of
proposed herbicides or other agents and the proposed method of
application to the County Engineer and Virginia Cooperative
Extension Service. In any case where a property owner objects to
the use of such method, the appliaant shall employ other methods
for the control of vegetation subject to property owner approval;
Construction on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31 shall not commence prior to
June 15, 1991 and shall be completed by September 15, 1991. The
construction period shall not be more than 15 consecutive days.
Provided, however, that the Director of Planning and Community
Development may extend the construction period due to unforeseen
delays in construction which may include but shall not be limited
to conditions imposed by federal or state regulatory agenaies,
inclement weather or other acts of God. In considering whether
to extend the construction period, the Director of Planning and
Community Development shall consider measures necessary to assure
restoration of the right-of-way area;
Approval by all federal, state and local officials of stream
crossing and wetland areas;
5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road crossings;
6. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit
to include restoration of ten foot temporary easement;
Method of vegetative stabilization of the easement on Tax Map 35,
Parcel 31, shall be determined by the property owner and Depart-
ment of Engineering;
No structures shall be removed on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31, for the
construction of the pipeline; and
Compliance with Environmental Management and Construction Stand-
ards. and practices plan as described in FERC Docket No. CP-90-
1513-000.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 27
(Page 27)
The Board recessed at 8:46 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Bowie announced that a correction needed to be made concerning the
Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt an
ordinance to include approxi~tely 1200 additiomal~cres in the Totier Creek
Agricultural/ForeStal District. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: See minutes of June 5, 1991, for completion of this item.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-91-03. The Gardens Partnership. Public Hearing
on a request for a commercial recreation center within the Gardens Shopping
Center zoned C-1. Property on E side of Rt 29 approx 2000 ft N of Rio Rd.
TM45, P104(part). Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 2 and April 9, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is currently under development. The
properties to the north and south are developed with Floor Fashions of
Virginia and Albemarle Square. Woodbrook Subdivision is located to
the west of this site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing a 15,000 square foot
recreation center. The center will include such items as an indoor
miniature golf course, football pass and kick, basketball alley,
paddle tennis, and major league pitch. A more detailed description of
the activities to be provided is included. The applicant proposes to
sell food and beverages. The food is intended as snack food and not a
luncheon or dinner format. The sale of beer and wine is also pro-
posed.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended as Community Service in
Neighborhood 2. A commercial recreation center is consistent with a
Community Service land use designation.
Summary and Recommendation: The applicant's proposed use is to be
located in the southern end of Building C at The Gardens. A sketch
showing the general interior layout is included. Staff has reviewed
this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and can offer the following comments:
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;
Due to the distance to adjacent residential lots, approximately
500 feet, and due to the enclosure of the recreational activities
within the building, this use will have minimal impact on resi-
dential property. During the initial review of The Gardens, the
developer was required to install fencing and plantings designed
to discourage access from Woodbrook. The presence of these
obstacles will further reduce any pedestrian, or bike impact the
proposed use may have on Woodbrook as well as the potential for
loitering in the subdivision.
The proposed hours of operation are:
September - May
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
28
June - August
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
Due to similar hours of operation to that of the existing thea-
tre, distance and obstacles to residential properties as well as
poor bike and pedestrian access, this use will not be of substan-
tial detriment to adjacent properties;
b. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby;
As stated above, this use will have hours of operation s~m~lar to
that of the theatre. The existing zoning immediately adjacent to
this is PD-SC, Planned Development - Shopping Center, and C-i,
Commercial. Based on the existing development adjacent to this
site, this use will not change the character of the district;
and that such will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this ord~nance~ with the uses permitted by right in the district;
The proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. The C-1 dis-
trict contains a wide variety of uses allowable by right. The
proposed use is in harmony with the other uses permitted in the
district;
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance~ and with the public health, safety and general wel-
fare.
Section 5.0 does not contain any additional regulations regarding
this use. The applicant is proposing the sale of both wine and
beer on site. The sale of alcohol may be inconsistent with the
public health, safety and general welfare. However, discussions
with the Albemarle County Police Department and the Virginia
Alcohol Beverage Control Board indicates that with the appropri-
ate conditions the possible negative effect of alcohol sales can
be addressed. Staff recommends that alcohol sales cease one hour
prior to closing and that alcohol consumption be limited to the
concession and stadium seating area. These conditions could be
enforced by both the County and Virginia ABC Board. With these
conditions the Police Department believes that alcohol sales
should not present a problem.
Based on the above findings, staff opinion is that this request
complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordi-
nance and, therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Use shall be limited to that area shown on Attachment D;
2. Sale of alcohol shall be limited to the following hours:
September 1 - May 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
11:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
June 1 - August 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. - I0:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. 11:00 p.m.
11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Consumption of alcohol shall be limited to the concession and
stadium seating areas;
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
4. Hours of operation shall be l~mited to the following:
September 1 - May 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
June 1 - August 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m.
29
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 2,
1991, by a vote of 4-1 recommended denial of SP-91-03. Denial was based on
proposed sale of beer and wine. He added that immediately following the
Planning Commission's action, the applicant provided a letter to the staff
indicating that he was withdrawing the request for beer and wine sales. Mr.
Cilimberg then distributed to the Board the following excerpt from the minutes
of the meeting for April 9:
"Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant for this project (which had
been denied at the April 2nd meeting), had withdrawn his request for
the sale of alcoholic beverages. He asked if the Commissions' denial
had been based solely on the sale of alcohol, or if there had been
other concerns also. The Commission confirmed that there had been no
other concerns and authorized staff to pass on to the Board that 'if
that aspect of the application had been removed, our recommendation
would likely have been for approval rather than disapproval."
Mr. Cilimberg said that the staff recommends approval with the following
three conditions:
1. Use shall be limited to that area shown on Attachment D;
2~ No sale of alcoholic beverages will be allowed;
3. Hours of operation shall be limited to the following:
September 1 - May 31
Monday-Thursday 11:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m.
Friday-Saturday 10:00 a.m. Midnight
Sunday 11:00 a.m. 9:00 p.m.
June 1 August 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. 11:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m."
Mr. Bain wondered if an area is involved that is not shown on Attachment
D. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there is an area that is subject to another use
and is a separate retail area. He said that it is not a part of this applica-
tion. He went on to say that the use will determine whether or not a special
use permit is needed. He said the building is not yet under construction, but
a site plan for develo.pment of the building is currently being reviewed.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cilimberg to show where the commercial uses of
Route 29 end and where Woodbrook begins. Mr. Cilimberg pointed these areas
out on the map.
Mrs. Humphris wanted Mr. Cilimberg to explain the change that the
Commission made to the application. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Commis-
sion expressed one concern when the application was made and that was about
the sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Bain stated that there was another
concern reported in the Planning Commission minutes that related to a state-
ment made by Mr. Rittenhouse about mixed uses in the same building. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that Mr. Rittenhouse's statement related to alcohol consump-
tion. He said that Mr. Rittenhouse was concerned about alcohol being consumed
in an area of mixed retail and commercial activity.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
3O
Mrs. Humphris remarked that, in reading the Planning Commission's min-
utes, it seemed that the Commissioners were so unhappy with the proposal for
the sale of wine and beer that they did not discuss the application in detail.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the staff was worried about the same thing. He
said the staff went back tothe Planning Commission a week later and asked the
Commissioners if there were other concerns. The Commissioners indicated to
the staff that there were no other problems. The Commissioners authorized the
staff to express to the Board their feelings that if the alcohol consumption
aspect of the application were removed, their recommendation would have been
for approval of the application. He went on to say that if the Board members
are uncomfortable with the situation, they can refer the application back to
the Planning Commission, and the Commission can take more formal action. In
the interest of getting information to this Board, the staff needed to clarify
the Planning Commission's original action.
Mr. St. John remarked that this is not like a site plan. The Commission,
in this situation, only needs to indicate what is necessary to get the plan
approved. The CommisSion had to act on the original application as filed. He
pointed out that the applicant said, at one point, that the sale of alcohol
was important.
Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. St. John. She read from the Planning
Commission minutes that stated that Mr. Evans indicated that the sale of
alcohol "Was a very important aspect of the business anld was critical to its
suCcess.'' She wonders what had happened to change the success of the busi-
ness. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the applicant would have to answer that
question.
Mr. Bowie asked what is located between ProPark and the Woodbrook subdi-
vision. Mr. Cilimherg answeredthat the subdivision is to the east. To the
north, under construction now, is Pier One. He indicated that there will be
another mixed-use retail building directly to the north, but it is not under
construction at this point. He then showed Board members an aerial photo of
the area.
Mr. Bain mentioned that the site plan had already been before the Board
for the theaters, but he wondered if the parking there was adequate. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that it is a zoning requirement to determine adequate
parking, and it is a part of site plan review. Mr. Bowie remarked that when
the Board approved the plan for the theaters, the issue had to do with con-
struction on critical slopes, and not how close they were to the subdivision.
At this point, Mr, Bowie opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ken Evans, President of ProPark, said that ProPark was designed as an
up-scale urban family entertainment complex. His company has brought America's
favorite games, such as baseball, football, basketball, soccer and golf,
indoors into an environment in which everyone in the family can enjoy them.
He added that the complex has a children's playground in the center of it to
accommodate youngsters who will be in the complex along with their parents;
there are driving rangep for adults, and miniature golf is the main feature in
the facility. Mr. Evans believes that ProPark will be a positive impact to
the co~unity by hosting periodic contests and promotions for charitable,
nonprofit organizations such as the United Way, etc. He then mentioned that
he had previously stated that alcohol sales were critical to the operation
because he felt that it would be the only way to have that permit approved.
After he realized that the issue would be controversial, it was deleted. He
said that alcohol sales will mean profits for any business, but ProPark can
still succeed without alcohol sales. He does not see that alcohol sales is
critical to the business and he would like to withdraw that request. He
believes that the total package of the facility is family-oriented, and he
looks forward to opening in Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowie confirmed that Mr. Evans is President of ProPark and asked if
he would be the primary operator of the business. Mr. Evans answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowie inquired as to how many businesses of this nature are currently in
operation. Mr. Evans replied that there are three such businesses scheduled
to open in Virginia, and the Charlottesville park is one of the three. He
said, however, that none of the three has already opened. The three proposed
businesses will, hopefully, be located in Richmond (Chesterfield County),
Albemarle County and Dale City (Prince William County).
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
31
Mr. Bowerman asked the status of the two other applications. Mr. Evans
replied that there is C-3 zoning in Chesterfield County, and in Dale City, the
process is the same as it is in Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowie asked if he has similar businesses in other states. Mr. Evans
responded, "no." He added that his business is based in Richmond, Virginia.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Evans to show her the sports games on the
drawing. Mr. Evans indicated that the sports games include video golf and
video football. He pointed out that the top of the drawing shows where field
hockey, ping pong, etc., will be located. He said that in the center of the
complex there is a seating and viewing area which can be reserved for birthday
parties, etc. This area is designed to be next to the children's play area.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Evans to explain, again, why he had stated that
the sale of alcohol was a very important aspect of the business and critical
to its success. Mr. Evans explained that there was a request for the sale of
alcoholic beverages on the application, so he had wanted to bring out the
importance of this request. He said that since it seems to be a controversial
issue and does not seem to be appropriate, he retracted the request. He
mentioned that 85 percent of the revenues that will be received by ProPark are
for the games. He added that if the total revenue picture is considered, the
revenue from alcoholic beverages will be incidental. Originally his company
had wanted to offer the alcoholic product to the adult market as part of its
total product mix. Mrs. Humphris asked if alcoholic beverages will be offered
in the two other planned facilities. Mr. Evans responded that alcoholic
beverages will not be offered in the other facilities at this time. He said
that a lot of time and effort has gone into the design of the facilities so
there is a product for all age groups. He mentioned that he has been working
on this project for a year and a half, and he feels that a lot of obstacles
along the way have been addressed, and this is a final blueprint of what his
company thinks will be successful.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Chuck Lebo said that his company has been
involved with the entire Gardens Shopping Center since its beginning. He
filled out the application for the special use permit, and he pointed out an
error to the Board. He said that the original application requested 15,000
square feet and 14,000 feet was listed, on the application.
Mr. Cil~mberg stated that the size of the building is approximately
15,000 square feet. He explained that 14,000 square feet is the area for the
recreation center. He went on to say that the advertisement for this hearing
did not include a square footage amount. He said that the information provid-
ed the Board tonight is based on the staff's understanding of the application.
Mr. Lebo stated that in his related businesses with different shopping
centers and other retailers who are coming to Charlottesville and Albemarle
County, he has talked about ProPark, and many people have expressed a strong
support for this project and think that it is needed in our community. He
said that, from a personal standpoint, he, his wife and two children would
like. to have ProPark in this area. He added that on rainy days, it would be a
nice place to go to play the games and get exercise. He went on to say that
he appreciates the fact that the staff has recommended approval of this
project. He said that his company representatives have worked hard with the
staff to answer questions and concerns, and they feel that all of the issues
have been addressed.
Mrs. Kathleen O'Hara, the mother of four children in Albemarle County
whose ages range from four years old to nineteen years old, thinks that
ProPark will be an excellent place to take the children and have entertainment
for everybody. She believes that this type of recreation adds another asset
to the County. She said all that is available now is bowling. She is suppor-
tive of getting the children involved in sports and away from the Nintendo
games.
Ms. Vicki Caul has been a resident of Albemarle County for six years.
She supports ProPark also, and said that unless a person plays tennis or golf
at one of the municipal facilities or one of the country clubs in the area, or
unless a person belongs to a league such as bowling or softball, or baseball,
there is little else in the way of recreational and sports activities for
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
32
individuals or families. As a former physical education instructor and coach
of high school and college students, and as a mother of two elementary school
children, she can see the benefits of a facility such as this one in Char-
lottesville. She thinks the project is well documented by the positive
effects that a healthy physical activity can have on a person's mental,
emotional and physical well-being. She sees this project as an asset to
Charlottesville and feels it should enhance the quality of life in the area.
There was no one else present who wished to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman asked the staff the traffic generation for this project as
compared to other retail or commercial uses that could locate in this vicinity
without Board approval. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it would be hard to
answer Mr. Bowerman's question without looking at the traffic generation
handbook. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the staff must have had some concern
about the parking arrangements and traffic flow. Mr. Cilimberg answered that
the determining factor in accommodating any use in a commercial area is the
parking facilities which are the result of the traffic generated. He ex-
plained that currently the staff is in the site plan review process, and
parking has not yet been identified as a problem. Mr. Bowerman asked if this
project would use the same traffic generation numbers as other by-right uses
for that area. Mr. Cilimberg answered that traffic generation numbers would
be within the range of the by-right uses. He went on to say that this project
might require a greater area of parking than another user but it is not as
much of a traffic generator as a restaurant or a bank. He added that banks
and drive-through restaurants, because of their drive-through characteristics,
do not require parking, and only the traffic generation aspect is involved.
He said that traffic generation for banks and drive-through rmmtaurants are
considered more significant than standard commercial uses. These uses are
allowed in C-1 zoning.
Mr. Bain wondered if ProPark required a special use permit because of its
recreational nature. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that because of the recreational
aspect in a C-1 district, ProPark requires a special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he has mixed feelings about this project. He
said that as the two members of the public and his wife have indicated,
children in this area have limited places to go for recreation in the communi-
ty. He went on to say that there are not a lot of opportunities for families
or teenagers to participate in an indoor sport or activity or recreation such
as this one. His concerns, however, are the nuisance potential of some of the
activities and the fact that many children will be brought there by their
parents, however most of the teenagers will come without their parents. He
also has a concern about the maintenance of order within the facility during
all hours of operation, especially in view of the fact that entire f~m~lies
will be there. He would like for the applicant to offer assurance that order
can be maintained. He said that not serving alcoholic beverages will help.
Mr. Evans responded that part of the total package includes payroll and
employees. He added that not only will there be staff personnel to sell the
products, but at all times, there will be two personnel as floor monitors
dressed in referee outfits to match the sports theme. He said that the job of
these floor monitors will be to walk around the facility to make sure that it
is clean, safe and people are having fun and also to help if there are any
problems. He stated that there will be two monitorson staff for these
purposes only from the time the business opens until it closes. There will
also be a manager on duty. He believes that the appropriateness of the staff
will curb any problems.
Mr. Bowermanwondered if it would not be in the best interest of ProPark
for younger children and their parents to frequent, this business. Mr. Evans
answered, "absolutely not." He said that he is personm]ly a married man with
a child, and he can see where a place such as ProPark is necessary. He went
on to say that it is in his company's best interest to keep ProPark a fmm~ly
operation.
Mr. Bowerman then asked Mr. Evans to separate this facility from the
video games facility which used to be at Fashion Square. Mr. Evans replied
that ProPark will havevideo games, but there will not be a cluster in one
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
33
concentrated area. He added that the facility is open, well lit and is a
clean environment. He also said that the video games are concentrated on
sports activities. He went on to say that his company has done research on
this sort of activity for a year and a half and has found that arcades have a
negative connotation. He said that ProPark is not an arcade. He added that
his representatives went to different facilities throughout the country and
found that these types of sports games and the way they are spread out, is a
better situation.
Mr. Bowerman asked if he had understood correctly that the games will
have a sports theme. Mr. Evans answered that Mr. Bowerman is correct. He
said, though, that there will be a couple of "Ninja Turtles" and other chil-
dren's games. He remarked that the games at ProPark will not have a "killing"
theme, however. He stated that since ProPark is a sports family entertainment
center, everything will be kept consistent to that theme.
Mr. Evans noted that his company has worked with the developer and the
architects in designing this facility, and part of the requirement is to have
high, open ceilings, with an atmosphere that is well lit and fun. He said
that in some of the arcades, etc., the problems were that the ceilings were
low, it was dark and smoking was allowed. He stated that in ProPark, smoking
will not be allowed within the entire facility. He pointed to a drawing and
told the Board that this is an elevation sketch of how the building will look
when it is entered. He noted that the miniature golf course will be land-
scaped with natural trees, shrubbery and water with lots of glass for light-
lng. He said that the facility will be very unique and his company is proud
of it.
Mrs. Humphris noticed that the plans show more facilities in the mens'
rooms than in the ladies' rooms. Mr. Evans responded that this is an archi-
tectural error because there are urinals shown in the ladies' room. He added
that it is a sports' oriented place. Mrs. Humphris suggested that women are
also interested in sports, and she is sure that Mr. Evans will make a change
to the ladies' rooms. Mr. Evans agreed and said that the ladies' rooms have
been changed on the actual plan. He said that the plan that Mrs. Humphris has
been viewing was done several months ago.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he has done a quick calculation relating to Mr.
Bowerman's question concerning traffic generation in the ProPark area. He
said that a general retail use of this size would require approximately 100
spaces for parking, and a recreational use of this size would require approxi-
mately 120 spaces. For a restaurant, however, 195 parking spaces would be
required.
Mr. Bowerman indicated that Mr. Cilimberg had answered his question
concerning traffic generation. He then asked Mr. Evans if he would be willing
to accept a fourth condition which would explicitly require an employee whose
primary purpose was to maintain order in the event that it was necessary, but
who had other responsibilities, also. Mr. Evans answered that this is not a
problem. Mr. Bowerman stated that he realizes that Mr. Evans plans to have
such an employee, anyway, but if this condition was a part of the special use
permit, some control could be exercised by the Zoning Department. Mr. Evans
agreed to Mr. Bowerman's suggestion.
Mr. Bowerman then asked Mr. Lebo if he is the managing agent for the
entire shopping center. Mr. Lebo answered that Mr. Bowerman is correct. Mr.
Bowerman indicated that he has serious concerns about the potential of this
use, even though he recognizes some of the benefits. He wants to assure
himself that, if this permit is approved, the facility will serve the public
well. Mr. Bowermanwondered if, during Mr. Lebo's trips around the country
when he talked with his peers, did he find and does he anticipate that the
appearance, the atmosphere and the clientele will be a positive aspect, for the
Gardens' development. Does Mr. Lebo feel that this use will help the center?
Mr. Lebo answered "yes." He said that from his own personal aspect, one of
the good things about it is that there are shopping areas. He said that the
main thing to remmmber is that there are other stores to lease in this build-
ing. He added that if he felt that the sports facility would be detrimental
to filling the other store spaces, he would not be before the Board tonight.
He noted that the entire shopping center has to be successful. He also
pointed out that the other tenants who have leased areas, especially in the
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 34
(Page 34)
shopping center, indicate that they would like to be near the sports facility.
He indicated that delicatessens and ice cream shops would be interested in
being near the sports area.
Mr. Bowie noticed that the facility will not close until midnight on
Friday and Saturday nights. He noted that there is hardly anywhere to have a
cup of coffee in Charlottesville after 11:00 p.m., and he asked how critical
the midnight closing hour is opposed to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Evans replied that his
company representatives have looked at other family entertainment centers and
are duplicating the hours on Friday and Saturday nights. He said that people
tend to stay out later on those nights, and his facility would like to accom-
modate that customer. He noted that if the facility closes at midnight, the
last tee off time would be at 11:00 p.m. This means that the place will be
vacated at midnight, according to Mr. Evans, and not just beginning to close.
He explained that, with the 10:00 p.m. closing hour, the last tee off time
will be 9:00 p.m. so that the facility can be vacated by 10:00 p.m. He noted,
too, that the movie theaters are open later on weekends, and it would be
helpful if his facility could be compatible with the theaters.
Mr. Bowie asked when the movie theaters close. (Someone from the audi-
ence stated that the latest show starts at 9:30 p.m. and generally ends
between 11:30 p.m. and 12:15 a.m.) Mr. Bowerman stated that on weekends there
are later shows, but on week nights, he believes that the above statement is
correct.
Mro Bowerman then said that he had told some people that he was not going
to support this application. However, he b~_a heard the facts, and he has read
the report and other information from the applicant, and he feels that this
could be a benefit to the community. He stated that this facility will offer
something that this community currently does not have. He thinks that the
non-sale of alcoholic beverages is a plus. He would suggest adding a fourth
condition stating: "There shall be a minimum of two employees on premises
during all hours of operation whose primary purpose will be to insure that
order is maintained." He believes that this condition is open enough to allow
discretion on the part of management to see that these employees have other
duties, and this would allow them to wear the referee uniforms mentioned. He
added that the two employees would not have to serve as security guards. He
would like to have this ability on the part of the County's zoning office. He
went on to say that with condition number four added, and the other conditiom~
that were stated by Mr. Cilimberg, he would be in favor of this special use
permit. Mr. Evans agreed to Mr. Bowerman's suggestion.
Motion was then offered byMr. Bowerma- and seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve SP-91-03 subject to the following conditions:
Use shall be l{m~ted to that area shown on Attac~m~_nt D (on
file);
2. No sale of alcoholic beverages will be allowed;
3. Hours of operation sb~llbe limited to the following:
September 1 - May 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday -Saturday
Sunday
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
June 1 - August 31
Monday- Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.;
There shall be a minimum of two employees on the premises dur~mg
all hours of operation whose primary purpose will be to insure
that order is-~ntained.
Mr. Bowie said he had not intended to support this application, however
with the deletion of the sale of alcoholic beverages, and with the public
input, the applicant's comments, and the Board's questions, he has changed his
mind, and he will support it.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mrs. Humphris commented that she absolutely would not have supported the
application with alcohol involved. She does not believe that sports and
alcohol mix, nor does alcohol mix with family entertainment. She loves the
concept and thinks in theory it is beautiful, and she hopes, if this Board
approves the application, that it works. She has some grave reservations,
though, that some people will use this place as a hang-out. She said that
ProPark is going to have to guard against all kinds of difficult possibilities
and destructive happenings, and she does not envy the applicant the task he
has set out because she thinks that it will be difficult to make it work. She
believes that it is a marvelous concept, but in reality there could be prob-
lems. She said that if ProPark is built, she will come out to see it.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-91-04. Faith Mission Home. Public Hearing on a
request to expand existing church bldg to include sanctuary, foyer &
restrooms. Property contains 9.203 ac zoned RA located on W side Rt 601 at
Greene County line. TM3,P1B. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is currently developed with the
Faith Mission Home facilities. Several dwellings are located in
Greene County near this site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to add an approxi-
mately 2800 square foot addition (40 x 70 feet) to the existing
church. The proposed addition is to include sanctuary, foyer and
restrooms. The applicant has obtained a variance (VA-89-35) to allow
the construction of a septic field on slopes of 25 percent and
greater.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Rural Area I. The
Comprehensive Plan discourages development in the Rural Areas of the
County not related to bona fide agricultural/forestal use. The
Comprehensive Plan does not speak to expansion of existing uses
supporting the rural area population. This expansion is intended to
improve current facilities, but not increase church membership.
Summary and Recommendation: Staff opinion is that certain uses such
as churches, day care, and schools contribute to the well-being and
moral fibre of the community. In this posture, staff review is
confined to issues of physical development while other considerations
of appropriateness of the use to a given location is a matter of
legislative discretion.
This request is intended primarily to improve the facilities of the
church. No significant increase in membership is anticipated and,
therefore, traffic volumes and general activity on the site should not
substantially change. Existing traffic on this portion of Route 601
is 96 vehicle trips per day based on 1986 traffic counts.
The slopes of the area for the proposed expansion exceed 25 percent.
The applicant has submitted a building elevation showing the proposed
expansion being built into the slope of the land. The Engineering
Department has reviewed the request and has stated that it can support
the request. There is limited area on site which would allow for
additional construction. The only area available which is in slopes
of less than 25 percent is used for a parking lot and no replacement
area is available if parking were lost. The proposed construction
technique, building into the slope, is preferable to the flattening of
the site. In addition, no area is available in slopes of less than 25
percent which are available for expansion. Staff is able to support
the proposed construction for the above reasons.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Staff opinion is that expansion of the existing building will not
result in substantial detriment to adjacent properties and will not
change the character of the district, In order to ensure the public
health, safety and welfare, staff recommends that the entrance be
'upgraded in accord with the comments of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with Section 31.2.4.1
of the ordinance and, therefore, staff recommmnds approval subject to
the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Expansion shall be limited as shown on site plan dated February 11,
1991;
2. Staff approval of site plan;
Entrance shall be upgraded in accordance with the comments of the
Virginia Department of Transportation;
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 2,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-04 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that a question was brought out by the Planning
Commission of whether or not the critical slopes were viewable because of the
existing building. He stated that it is the Zoning Administrator's determina-
tion that the existing building, which is not on critiaal slopes, is not of
nonconforming status. If there is a nonconforming use caused by critical
slopes which pre-existed the ordinance's provision, there does not have to be
a waiver of the critical slopes' requirement. He reiterated that this build-
ing is not on critical slopes.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if approval of this application will automatically
waive the critical slopes' requirement without including it in any of the
conditions. Mr. Cilimberg agreed, but he said that the staff's approval of
the site plan presumes that the critical slopes' requirement has been waived.
Mr. Bain noted that the critical slopes' requirement does not have to be
waived because the building pre-existed the ordinance's provision. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that because the church existed, expansion could be done on
critical slopes without waiver, but that would only be if the existing build-
lng was on critical slopes, and it is not. He said that this is the Zoning
Administrator's determination.
At this time Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asksd if the appli-
cant was present.
Mr. Eugene Schloback, trustee of Faith Mission Fellowship Church, thinks
that the intentions and request of Faith Mission are very well stated. He
said that he will try to answer any questions that the Board might have.
No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bain wondered how significant the VDOT requirement relating to the
entrance is in condition number three. He asked if the staff looked at this
independently. Mr. Cilimberg answered that he does not believe that the
entrance will pose a problem as far as sight distancs is concerned. He said
- that the applicant has expressed no concern with this condition. Mr. Bain
stated that the grading of a steep bank could help the situation. Mr. Cilim-
berg explained that condition number three was needed because the staff felt
that it was necessary in order to obtain a safe access. He said it is the
Board's discretion as to whether or not it feels this condition is necessary.
Mr. Bain then aaked if the road deadends at some point past the church pro-
perty. Mr. Cilimberg replied that Route 601 becomes an unsurfaced road in
Greene County as it goes northward. He then pointed out the road on the map.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
37
Mr. Way stated that he had been on this road, and he wondered why a
commercial entrance was necessary. Mr. Bain explained that the requirement
is for the sight distance. He added that there would be significant distur-
bance of a bank.
Mr. Bowie read condition number three to Mr. Schloback and asked Mr.
Schloback if he thought it was necessary to upgrade the entrance. Mr. Schlo-
back replied that upgrading the entrance would be very hard to do, but he
would try to do it. Mr. Bowie asked if the grading would have to be close to
the bell tower. Mr. Schloback replied that the grading would be close to the
bell tower and part of a wall at the entrance would have to be excavated. He
said that he would do what has to be done.
Mr. Bowie stated that the Board was informed that the applicant was
agreeable to condition number three. Mr. Bowie said that it appears to him,
however, that the applicant would rather not have to conform to the condition.
Mr. Bowie emphasized that he does not believe that the County should be full
of wide roads, cut down banks and commercial entrances.
Mr. Bain said that if this church was on a roadway that had a lot of
traffic on it regularly, or if this application was for some other use, he
would agree that the condition is necessary. He went on to say that the
church members know when church is in session and what the traffic is like
there. He does not mind some upgrading of the entrance, but he would recom-
mend deleting condition number three.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to
approve SP-91-04 subject to conditions #1, #2 and #4 recommended by the
Planning Commimsion, and with condition #3 deleted:
Expansion shall be limited as shown on site plan dated February i1,
1991;
2. Staff approval of site plan;
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-90-102. Centel Cellular. Public Hearing on a
request to construct 300 ft monopole tower for mobile communications. Proper-
ty contains 36.4 ac zoned LI on S side of C&O Railway behind Acme Visible
Records in Crozet. TM56,P94. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is developed with Acme Visible
Records. The property to the west is ConAgra. Properties to the
south are zoned R-l, Residential. Properties to the east are zoned
RA, Rural Areas. The site of the proposed tower is to be located in a
wooded portion of the site near the woodline.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a 300 foot
guyed cellular communications tower. The tower will be designed to
allow additional usage. This project is designed to improve cellular
telephone coverage within the Centel service area. The system wilt
operate on the FCC assigned frequencies in the 825 mhz. to 890 mhz band
with a maximum operating power of 100 watts effective radiated power.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Industrial Service
in the Community of Crozet. A stated objective of the Comprehensive
Plan is 'maintain cooperative planning efforts between the County and
other non-public utilities which provide essential services, such as
telephone, electric, and natural gas utilities, to ensure the adequate
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(page 38)
provision of these services to support existing and anticipated
develOpment in the County. Private utilities provide essential
services to the County. The most important of these are electric,
telephone, and natural gas services'.
38
The proposed tower would improve cellular telephone service in the
Crozet area. Staff has reviewed the applicant's justification for
this use and is of the opinion that cellular telephones provide
essential services to the County.
A stated standard is that corridors should be shared by utilities,
when possible. While this tower does not represent a corridor, the
general intent of this statement is to consolidate locations required.
to provide public utility services. This tower would provide for
additional users but is not clustered with other existing towers. In
review of this request, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervi-
sors should consider if this tower is intended to be the core of a new
tower cluster or 'tower farm'.
Summary and Recommendation: New modes of radiowave communications,
combined with the physiography of Albemarle County have resulted in
numerous requests for trans~nission/reception tower locations. In
response, the County has attempted to confine broadcast towers to
clusters or 'tower farms' In an effort to reduce the total number of
new towers, the County has recently encouraged tower design to accom-
modate additional (future) users. Centel Cellular has responded to
this general guideline and is designing the tower for additional
usage.
The applicant has attempted to locate on the existing WCYKAM tower in
Crozet and the WCYK FM tower on Little Yellow Mountain. Neither of
these towers is available for use by Centel due either to interference
problems associated with th, AM tower or the distance of the FM tower
from the service area.
The proposed tower location is on industrial land. The nearest
dwelling to the tower is approximately 1200 feet distant. Although
likely visible from residences in the area, this use should not be a
detriment to adjacent properties. Discussion with the Airport Author-
ity indicates that the tower will likely be lighted, most likely with
a constant red light. Final aeronautical studies have not been
prepared, however, this tower is not anticipated to interfere with
airport operations.
In determining if this use will change the character of the district,
staff has considered the following:
The tower will be 300 feet in height and will likely be lighted.
The tower will be visible from surrounding areas.
2. Adjacent properties are zoned Industrial and Residential.
The surrounding properties are recommended for Industrial Service
in the Land Use Plan for Crozet.
The base of the tower and equipment shelter will not be visible
from adjacent properties or the public road due to existing
development and vegetation.
5. The nearest dwelling is located approximately 1200 feet distant.
Staff opinion is that a tower would not change the character of an
industrial district. The tower would be visible from non-industrial
areas. However, it is staff's opinion that the tower will not change
the character of those areas as it will have only limited impact due
to a minimum of 1200 feet distance.
The applicant has submitted a justification for cellular phone ser-
vice:
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
39
'Cellular telephones have greatly increased their usage and are
important for commercial activity and often public safety in
emergency situations, having proven themselves as the key form of
communications in emergencies, the most recent example being
Hurricane Hugo.'
Staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the public
health, safety and welfare as it provides for additional telephone
service.
The County has received numerous requests for transmission/reception
tower location. The County has attempted to confine broadcast towers
to clusters or 'tower farms' This request represents a stand-alone
tower. Staff notes that the tower will be designed to accommodate
other users. The applicant has stated that attempts made were to
locate on existing towers but was unable to do so. The Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors must address the policy issue of
permitting stand-alone towers even though designed for multiple users.
Staff offers the following comments which are favorable to this
request:
Approval of this request would improve cellular telephone service
in a portion of the County. Provision of adequate utilities is
supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant is designing the tower to accommodate a minimum of
two additional ten foot standard antennae for use by others.
3. The nearest dwelling is 1200 feet distant.
4. The tower is to be located in an industrial district.
Staff offers the following comment which is unfavorable to this
request:
The height of the tower, 300 feet, and the lighting will make
this tower visible from surrounding areas.
2. Tower is not located in a cluster with other towers.
As previously stated, the applicant attempted to locate on existing
towers which would be consistent with past policy, but was unable to
do so. The proposed location is such that it minimizes, but does not
eliminate impact of the tower.
Staff opinion is that the favorable aspects of this request outweigh
the unfavorable aspects and that this request is consistent with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends
approval subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 300 feet;
2. No lighting except for that required by a federal agency;
Department of Engineering approval of tower design to ensure that
in the event of structural failure that the tower falls within
the leased area;
4. Tower is to be designed to accommodate additional users;
Staff approval of additional (future) antennae installation. No
administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or
approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc.,
even though they may be part of the same network or system as any
antennae administratively approved under this petition."
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
4O
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 2,
1991, by a vote of 4-1, reconmnended approval of SP-90-102 subject to the five
conditions of the staff and the following condition #6: "Staff approval of
subdivision plat as shown on Attachment C."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission had discussed a policy for
tower locations at length. He said that he wanted to call to the Board
members' attention the Board's position for future reference regarding the
issue of stand alone towers or towers designed for multiple users. A few
years ago, the Planning Commission and staff had studied tower clusters and
realized there was not a lot that could be done unless locations were pur-
chased. Since then, Mr. Cilimberg said that the basic guideline has been to
judge each individual case and the merits of that particular application. Mr.
Cilimberg added that in reviewing the individual cases, it was hoped that
encouragement would be given to the clustering of towers and/or location on
existing towers or adaption towers for multiple users.
Mrs. Humphris called attention to the paragraph in the staff report where
it speaks of non-public utilities which provide "essential services." She
then mentioned the paragraph in the staff report where it said that the staff
"is of the opinion that cellular telephones provide essential services to the
County." She asked Mr. Cilimberg to comment on "essential services."
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Planning Commission had discussed this
and the Comprehensive Plan indicates a desire to maintain this cooperative
planning effort for other non-public utilities which provide essential servi-
ces such as telephone, electric and natural gas utilities. He said that the
applicant had taken the position as part of the applicant's basis for justi-
fication, that cellular telephones are critical in emergency situations and
cited Hurricane Hugo as such a disaster situation. He thinks that the staff's
comment is too general and believes that comments should have been focused on
central service in a particular situation such as a particular disaster
situation. He pointed out that the applicant's justification is included in
the staff report. He added that the staff's comment is based on this particu-
lar statement rather than on a general essential service. He went on to say
that at least one Commissioner made the statement that because cellular
telephones are not widely available, that they did not seem to be an essential
service. He noted that these comments were in the minutes of the Planning
Commission.
Mrs. Humphris inquired as to how many towers will be needed in the future
to have County-wide cellular service. She pointed, out that current technology
would have to be taken into consideration as well as the size of Albemarle
County of 744 square miles with some mountainous terrain. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that he does not know how many towers will be needed to provide
future cellular service in Albmmmrle County. He referred to a previous
application that the Board denied,, and said he believes that there will be
more applications. He said that there has not been any kind of analysis done
on cellular phone service based on distance and terrain.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John if the County could condemn land for the
purpose of clustering towers. Mr. St. John responded that he would not give
an official opinion at this time, but he is inclined to say that it is possi-
ble, if there is a public need. He reminded the Board that this problem may
not be solvable because it would be impossible to get all of the towers in
one spot. He added that there would still be separate towers throughout the
County, and all of these locations would also have to be condemned.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that a question was raised with the Commission as to
whether or not a competitor would be able to locate on this tower, if the
application was approved, and it would be in a location that was providing
service only for one company. He thinks that this would probably be a private
matter, and the County would not be involved with it. He said that the
Commission tried to establish that the tower would be available for additional
users although the costs and arrangements have not be~nworked out.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that if she owned the tower, she would not let a
competitor use it. Mr. Cilimberg said that a remark sim~]ar to Mrs. Humphris'
remark was brought out at the Planning Commission meeting.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
41
Mrs. Humphris asked where the proposed tower would be located with regard
to the circumference of the Crozet growth area. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out on
a map the location of the tower and the Crozet growth area. He said that the
tower will be in the northeast corner of the growth area. He added that the
applicant would have to say what the overall service area would be and whether
or not all of Crozet would be included in the service area.
Mr. Bain wondered if the requirement of height had been addressed with
the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the height requirement has been
discussed with the applicant, and the applicant could respond to the technical
requirements.
At this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing on SP-90-102, Centel
Cellular.
Mr. Fred Landess, on behalf of Centel Cellular, spoke to the Board. He
said that present at the meeting was Mr. Will Ferms, Centel Staff Engineer for
the Virginia region and David Simpson, Centel Maintenance Engineer for
Charlottesville. He added that both of these gentlemen could answer technical
questions. He said that he would explain to the Board why Centel feels that
this is an appropriate site and why there is a need for the tower. He agreed
with the staff report and has no objections to the conditions that were
approved by the Planning Commission. He told the Board that cellular phones
are an extension of telephone service such as cordless phones in homes, but
with further extension, a phone can be used out in the field or in a car. He
said that in that sense, it is part of the telephone service. He mentioned
that it is a rapidly growing service, and Centel advises that 50 subscribers a
week are being added in the Charlottesville-Albemarle region. Mr. Landess
stated that most of the cellular phones are business related. For business
purposes it is very important to be able to stay in contact. He went on to
say that occasionally Centel will provide cellular phones for individual,
residential subscribers in remote areas where there is not yet a line to the
area.
Mr. Landess said that when raising the question of need, it is important
to note that Centel has contracts for cellular service with the Albemarle
County Police Department, Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad and with the
Charlottesville Fire Department, and all of these subscribers have complained
about service within the particular area that is being discussed at today's
meeting. He added that there needs to be better service in the western
corridor which starts approximately at Farmington and goes west to the County
line. He said that there are dead areas within this area, and in trying to
provide service, Centel looked carefully at what was available and tried to
build within clusters. He mentioned that Centel's existing towers are on
Carter's Mountain with other towers, and within the last year the County ap-
proved another tower for Centel on Heard's Mountain where other towers are
also located.
Mr. Landess stated that in trying to service the proposed section of the
County, there are only two towers within the general area. One tower is the
WCKY AM tower and cellular antennae cannot be put on an AM tower because of
the interference problem. He added that the WCKY FM tower that is in the
proposed area is too far away to properly service this section of the County.
Mr. Landess said that Centel started looking for an appropriate site, and
it was felt that the tower would not create a large impact on this area. In
trying to comply with County wishes, the tower is designed for usage by others
and will hold up to five antennae. He remarked that the site is zoned indus-
trial, is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as industrial, and is currently
being used as industrial. He stated that the adjoining R-1 property is owned
by ConAgra, and it is highly unlikely that it will get developed as residen-
tial anytime in the foreseeable future. He said that the site is below road
level and is below the adjoining property. The face of the tower and the
supply house will not be visible from the road or adjoining usage areas. He
went on to say that the tower will have to have a light on it because it is
more than 200 feet high which would make it an FAA requirement. Re is not
currently aware of any public objection to the proposed site. He reiterated
that Mr. Ferms and Mr. Simpson could answer any technical questions the Board
members might have, but he would be happy to address any general questions.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
42
Mr. Bowie said it has been pointed out that the tower is being built to
accommodate additional users. He wonders why Centel would be inclined to rent
its tower to a competitor. Mr. Landess answered that if someone was compet-
ing, it might be another situation, but economics would be the general reason
for renting a tower. He said that even though the cellular phone business is
a rapidly growing industry, it is a highly capital intensive industry and, as
he understands it, nobody is making any profit at this time. He added that it
is hoped that profits will be made in the future, but, in the meantime, it is
very expensive to build these towers. If someone else can help pay for them,
then it is desirable. He added that it is an economic incentive to try to
find other users for a tower.
Mr. Bain asked why the tower has to be 300 feet in height. Mr. Ferms,
Staff Engineer for the Virginia and Tennessee regions for Centel Cellular,
stated that typically a 400 foot tower is the maximum allowable for Centel's
usage, but in this case the restraint was put on this tower by the Planning
Commission limiting it to 300 feet. He said that to provide quality in that
area, because of the hills and mountains, the tower needs to be as high as
possible. He went on to say that recently a point was brought out about
locating some 100 foot towers throughout the County. He feels that this would
be a self defeating process because it would require that a lot more towers be
located because of the nature of radio frequency transmission. He cannot say
that 300 feet is the exact height necessary, however, studies at lower eleva-
tions indicate it would be difficult to serve the area with quality service at
a lower elevation.
Mr. Bain then wondered what area Centel is trying to serve. He said that
a 200 foot tower could serve a certain area, but how far beyond that could a
300 foot tower serve. Mr. Ferms replied that this is a hard question to
answer because in each direction there might be a mountain in the way of the
signal at 200 feet which would not be in the way at 300 feet. In other direc-
tions, the same reception might possibly be acceptable at 200 feet.
Mr. Bain said that the study must not have been complete regarding
distance reception because Centel does not go through that kind of process.
Mr. Ferms replied, "no." He said that the studies do not go into that kind of
detail because the terrain is unpredictable in Virginia regions. He added
that Centel does go through this process specifically in other markets. He
mentioned that in Las Vegas, which is located in a valley surrounded by
mountains, an exact mileage study can be done. He said for this area there is
no technology available for this type of study. He said if technology was
available, Centel would do the study to determine what tower height would be
necessary. Speaking from his standpoint, he would rather build a 200 foot
tower if he could get the necessary service because it would be less expen-
sive. He added that he has answered Mr. Bain's question to the best of his
ability, but it is difficult to determine the mileage of coverage due to tower
height.
Mr. Perkins asked if cellular phones work on sight distance such as FM
signals. He explained his question by asking if reception will be acceptable
if the tower cannot be seen from where the cell,,l~r phone is located. Mr.
Ferms responded that if there is no line of sight from the antenna to the
portable or mobile telephone, then there will be no way for that phone to
work.
Mr. Perkins then wondered how many tower sites are currently owned by
Centel in Albemarle County. Mr. Ferms answered that there are three tower
sites currently in Albemarle County. He said that the tower sites are located
at Heards Mountain, Carters Mountain and on Rio Road near Route 29. Mr.
Perkins inquired if there is sight distance from the Heards Mountain tower to
Crozet. Mr. Ferms replied that there is sight distance to the hilltops of
Crozet. He mentioned, that down in the valleys with the terrain in the Crozet
and the western portion of Albemarle County in general, there are problems
with dead spots and a call could be dropped. He said that if someone was
driving on a road he or she may have service from the Heards Mountain tower,
but as that person goes below a knoll there could be a problem. Mr. Perkins
then asked if there could be reception problems even with the 300 foot tower.
Mr. Ferms replied that reception in certain places could still be a problem in
the Heards Mountain area, even with the 300 foot tower. He said that there
should not be any reception problems with the tower proposed because of its
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
43
location. Mr. Perkins noted that there are elevations between Crozet and
Charlottesville that are higher than the elevation at Crozet plus the 300 foot
tower. It seems to Mr. Perkins that there will also be blind spots in the
Crozet area, and he believes that Centel will need more towers. He wondered
why Centel would not put a 50 or 75 foot tower on high spots rather than
building a 300 foot tower that has to be lighted. He said that towers are not
particularly obtrusive to him, but he knows they are to some people. He
thinks that towers are particularly obtrusive when lights are installed on
them. He mentioned that both of the radio towers in this area are lighted.
He believes that this situation is being handled in the wrong way.
Mr. Ferms agreed that all of the blind spots cannot be eliminated, and he
thinks that the answer to Mr. Perkins' comments is a question of economics.
In answer to Mr. Perkins question about locating towers on high spots, Mr.
Ferms stated that Centel typically tries to locate towers on critical high
spots to cover as much area as possible. He mentioned that three cell sites
in Albemarle County are extremely low as compared to other markets served by
Centel. He gave an example that Lynchburg currently has eight cell sites
operating for a relatively similar amount of area, and Centel does try to
locate on critical spots. He added that the most cost effective way for
Centel to operate is to build less towers at the primary locations. In this
instance, towers are located on Heards Mountain and Carters Mountain which are
both excellent technical sites, however, Mr. Ferms indicated that these two
sites do not supply the service needed for the western portion of Albemarle
County. He said that he does not know if Mr. Perkins has a particular spot or
mountain in mind, and he indicated that Centel did investigate different
sites, but because of zoning issues and the fact that certain properties are
not for sale, this was the location that became available to Centel. He
suggested that someone else might want to answer Mr. Perkins' questions.
Mr. Landess agreed that there are some people who would not want to have
the towers next door to them. He said if a lot of small towers are being
built, there will be a lot more people who will be affected.
Mr. Perkins noted that a 75 foot tower would not be above the treetops in
many situations, but a tower that is 300 feet is visible to everybody for a
very long way. Mr. Landess replied that it depends where the tower is locat-
ed. He said that Centel has tried to locate the proposed tower in an area
where it will not be very visible to many people. Mr. Perkins believes that
the 300 foot tower will be visible to everybody in Crozet. Mr. Landess thinks
that having more than one tower will be worse than having one tower that won't
show very much. Mr. Perkins stated that the difference is whether or not the
tower is lighted. Mr. Landess agreed that the lighting is a factor, and he
said that the FAA requirement is that a tower over 200 feet has to be lighted.
Mr. David Simpson, Regional Network Engineer for Centel Cellular, indi-
cated that with a cellular phone, there is not very much need for sight to
tower. He said that Centel operates on an 800 megahertz band, and 800
megahertz will penetrate low lying areas. He mentioned that Carters Mountain
is a high mountain, and it covers most hills and valleys. He said that there
are some dead spots. He added that if a 300 foot tower were built, a larger
area could be penetrated, and he believes that this would be beneficial to
most people. He went on to say that Centel can erect one 300 foot tower, and
it can still provide the same area coverage as five or six 100 foot towers in
specific areas.
Mr. Bain then wondered if there is any technology that can indicate how
much additional square mileage Centel will reach on a reasonably good basis if
the proposed tower is built in Crozet. Mr. Simpson replied that different
factors are involved, such as average terrain, power output, and height of
tower, and this is called a propagation study. He said that these factors
have to be combined, and a computer program figures out what sort of radial
coverage Centel will have.
Mr. Perkins asked how close a Centel tower can be to a radio tower
without causing interference. Mr. Simpson responded that a Centel tower
should not cause a problem with a radio tower. He said that most FM stations
are 80 megahertz to 120 megahertz. The Centel tower will be an 800 megahertz
band. He added that two-way radio interference is more of a problem.
!i April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) z~Zl
i (Page 44)
Mr. Perkins then wondered why Centel can't put a tower within 20 feet of
an AM tower Mr. Simpson responded that locating a cellular transmission
tower within close radius of an AM tower would interfere with the operating
.~ procedure of an AM facility. He noted that the whole AM tower is the antenna,
,~ and it is putting out 50,000 to 100,000 watts of power, while the cellular
system is only putting out 100 watts of power at maximum. He said that this
would cause interference with Centel's equipment, and it would be impossible
to operate.a cellular system. Mr. Perkins asked if the proposed location is
far enough away from an AM tower to eliminate disturbance. Mr, Simpson
answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowie remarked that Centel wants to do good work for thepolice
department, etc., but Centel wants to make a profit. He questioned, if it
would be profitable to have a lot of short towers. Mr. Simpson replied, "no."
He said that Centel cannot build ten towers in a year because it is capital
prohibitive. He added that Centel is not making a profit at this time, but
will make a profit in the future.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she was interested in Mr. Simpson's term,
"propagation study" and feels that the County needs to do a propagation study
of another kind. She said that obviously this problem is going to be on a
continuing basis, and the County is going to have to develop a policy as to
howmany towers can be built and where they can be located, etc. She went on
to say that the Board knows nothing about the technical ingredients of the
problem, and she does not think that the Board. is in a position to make a
decision on this matter. She mentioned that she has heard that Lynchburg is
ahead of this area because there are a lot more towers there. She believes,
however, that this area is ahead of Lynchburg because there are fewer towers
here.
Mr. St. John stated that he does not know about the legal points of this
matter anymore than the Board knows about the technical aspects. He does not
know if this tower is a public facility operated, by a private company or
whether it has to go through a Virginia Code Section 15.1-456 review. He is
also uncertain as to whether the telephone company has the power of eminent
domain as a public utility. He said that if telephone companies are utili-
ties, they need to be assigned an area so there would not be the problem of
being forced to let other competitive companies build towers in that area.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John if he wants more time to research this
matter. Mr. Bain commented that the public hearing is still open. Mr. St.
John said that if the Board wants a policy, he would like some time to do some
research.
Mr. Lawrence Wright said he is a licensed amateur radio operator, and he
would love to have a tower located next to him. He explained that in a
situation such as this, he might be able to persuade Centel to give him some
space on the tower as a condition of his approval to the tower being located
nearby. He said that it is not so much a question of getting the signal from
the tower to the individual who is using the cellular telephone. He said that
communication is a two-way process and not only does the message have to get
from the repeater to the user, but the message that is being sent has to be
picked up. He added that the message has to be heard from the tower every-
where inside the County. He stated that it is entirely possible that by using
more power, the signal can be gotten to the customer. He stated that there is
a limit as to how much power can be expected from a portable unit and, there-
fore, location and height of antennae become much more important than other
considerations because the customer has to hear the person who is trying to
talk to him. He thinks towers are beautiful, even though he knows that a lot
of people don't think so. He does not have a recommendation either way, but
he said that two-way radio communication and cellular telephone communication
have saved a lot of lives and as the use of cellular telephones expands and as
the price drops, a lot more people will be using them. He said that the price
of a cellular phone now is approximately $250. He added that if there is a
natural disaster or emergency that requires the use of cellular telephones,
the County may be glad that this capability is available.
Mr. Perkins stated that he does not think the Board members are question-
ing whether or not cellular phones are a good thing. He thinks that the Board
is questioning the location of the tower from the position that this Board has
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
45
taken in the past. He said that the only difference in this application and
the one that was turned down a couple of months ago is that this proposed
tower wants to locate on an industrial site. He said this tower will probably
be seen by 100 more people than the tower that was not approved. He said this
is his concern, and he thinks that the County needs to study the problem, and
the whole Board needs to be educated in regard to this matter.
At this time, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing, since there was no one
else who wished to speak.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board could have research done on this whole
matter so that a policy could be developed.
Mr. Bowie replied that the Board would have to ask staff to do the
research and then come back to the Board with their findings. He commented
that if the County wants this service, then space will have to be provided for
it. He said if the Board wants the towers all in one place, then the place
will have to be provided. He went on to say that there may be a problem with
that because the place that the Board selects may not be the place where the
towers can operate in their best fashion. He mentioned legal ramifications,
also.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the Board might pick three or four locations,
and they might not work for all of the towers. He said that there will still
have to be exceptions.
Mr. Bain stated that he would need more information about this issue
before he would vote for approval.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the County has had a lot of experience
dealing with towers for various types of communication. He said that the
cellular telephone request is a different issue, and the staff does not have
expertise to deal with the technical aspects of appropriate tower locations.
He does not know how far the Board wants to go with the analysis, but the
staff needs some help, too.
Mr. Perkins said he believes that this particular applicant hopes to get
approval because the proposed cellular telephone tower will be located in an
industrial site. Mr. Perkins said he is not sure if this is the best pla~e
for the tower. He wonders if the best place for the tower might not be on top
of one of the small mountains where a 75 or 100 foot tower would cover the
area. He said that if the applicant believes that there is no use in coming
before this Board for a shorter tower, and if that is the attitude of the
Board, then that type of request will never come before the Board. He thinks
this Board needs to study the situation and decide if the County will try to
put in the best communication system or will the Board allow towers to be
scattered all over the County.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he could call someone in Charlottesville from
the top of Afton Mountain on his cellular phone. He added that there could
probably be fewer locations and better sites that would serve the community.
He said that when visibility problems are brought up, it is a question of
individual application. He thinks that the Board. needs to see a map, a tower
and a radius with dead spots shown. He went on to say that the Board needs to
have some idea of where the service area will be.
Mr. Bain commented that a lot of people do not like to see red blinking
lights on towers. He said that if a 200 foot tower does not have to have
those lights, and it serves a sufficient area or a large area, then lights
would not have to be installed no matter where the tower is located.
Mr. Bowerman said that if the Board could see a map of the other cellular
sites and what the overlaps are, it would be helpful.
Mr. Landess stated that someone else would have to explain the sites,
etc., to the Board since he is just the attorney.
Mr. St. John explained that the Board has a year, with a special use
permit, to make a decision before the time expires.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
46
Mr. Bowie remarked that he has no idea what question the Board is expect-
ing the staff to answer.
Mr. Bain commented that he is only asking the staff to try to find
someone, besides one of the applicants, who is knowledgeable in the area of
cellular phone towers. He said that a consultant could be hired to discuss
this matter with the Board. He added that he does not expect the staff to
have this expertise.
Mr. Bowie stated that the Board members have a problem because they are
being asked to approve a tower, and it is not known if the tower is needed.
He went on to say that the Board would like for the staff to find out if the
tower is necessary. He asked Mr. Cilimberg how long this will take. Mr.
Cilimberg answered, "I don't know." He said that the staff could make contact
and could ask what kind of information can be provided, but a consultant is
going to want to be paid to provide this information.
Mr. Bowerman thinks that it can be done simpler than this. He said that
the tower problem is a different question, and he does not think that the
applicant proved his case. He thinks that it is up to the applicant to make a
better case before this Board as to what is needed for reception and where the
tower is to be located. He added that the applicant needs to look at other
alternatives and show whether or not Mr. Perkins' suggestions will work. He
said he believes the applicant is apprehensive about asking this Board for
approval of a tower in a location other than on an industrial site. He said
that this Board needs to see different alternatives so that the Board members
feel comfortable that they have the total picture.
Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. St. John that there are some legal aspects
involved.
Mr. St. John wondered if the Board had its preference, would it prefer a
system where these requests for towers could be treated in the same manner as
a landfill with the idea that it is a public need, but there should not be
more of them than is necessary. Or, Mr. St. John wondered if the Board would
like to have the opposite situation which would be to have overlapping,
competing cellular phone companies in the same area so that a choice could be
made. Mr. Bain stated that he does not want to el~m~nmte competition, and it
may be that competitors can operate from the same area. He said feels the
Board needs a policy and criteria. Mr. St. John told the Board members that
they need to find out if they are setting a precedent, if this application is
approved.
Mr. Bowie said this matter needs to be deferred. He senses that the
Board wants more information, but he is unsure as to what information is
desired.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the item be deferred to the June 12th meeting.
He said the staff would need this amount of time in order to look into the
matter. Mr. Bowie asked if the staff could get the information back to the
Board by the May meeting. Mr. Tucker commented that Mr. Cilimberg might know
of someone, but he is unsure who is available for consultation. He believes
that most of the engineers are going to be affiliated with some company, but
the staff may try to extract some information from one of these companies.
Mr. Bowie thinks that Mr. Bowerman is correct that the applicant wants a
300 foot tower because it is cheaper to construct. He also believes that the
request is for an industrial area because the applicant thought that the Board
would approve a tower in that area. He believes, too, that the applicant
thinks that the tower will operate sufficiently in that industrial area. He
feels, however, that the applicant can give the Board a better presentation.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
defer SP-90-102 to June 12 to bring back additional information. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
4¸7
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: An ordinance amending and reenact-
ing Chapter 2.2, ALARMS, of the Code of Albemarle, by omitting all require-
ments for registration and county permits for installation. The ordinance
still makes it a local misdemeanor to intentionally send in a false alarm, and
provides for civil reimbursement of costs for unintentional false alarms.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1991.)
Mr. Tucker explained that the Board had discussed this matter at its
March 13th meeting and adopted a resolution of intent to amend and reenact
Chapter 2.2 of the County Code regarding alarms. He said that the purpose of
this amendment is to delete any reference to the registering of alarm systems
in the County. He then summarized the amendment for the Board.
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing.
Mr. Stanley Crickenberger referred to Section 2.2.6 and several other
sections, and suggested that if the requirements are not omitted, he would
like to recommend that the fire chief have almost the total authority to be
able to approve or deny alarm systems. Mr. Tucker said that the provisions to
which Mr. Crickenberger is referring have been deleted.
Mr. Crickenberger then spoke about false alarms and said that there has
not been a fee determined by miles or subdivision. He thinks that this should
be a part of the ordinance. He mentioned, too, that an alarm system is
sometimes not an intrusion. He said that he and a lot of other people have
systems that are monitored, and these systems are used mostly for health
reasons. He pointed out that it is easier for him to reach five feet to push
two buttons than it is to walk 45 feet to a phone to dial 911. He asked the
Board to consider this matter and to be mindful of setting fees as far as
subdivisions and mileage are concerned.
Mr. Bain responded by saying that a fee has not been established that has
been reasonably calculated to cover costs. He understands that Mr.
Crickenberger is asking the Board to set fee costs relative to distance.
Mr. Bowie stated that there will be some sort of fee determination, but
normally it is not part of the ordinance, itself.
Mr. Bowie explained that in speaking of false alarms, reference is being
made to fire and police alarms and not health alarms.
Mr. Crickenberger mentioned that at one point a discussion was held
related to alarm systems not being heard outside of buildings. He asked what
good an alarm system is if it doesn't alert someone.
Mr. Lawrence Wright stated that he thinks that the Board should revoke
the registration provisions. He believes that it sets a precedent, and he
thinks that the whole thing is a bad idea. He hopes that the Board will
revoke these provisions.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Wright is aware that the Board proposes to take
the registration provisions out of the ordinance. Mr. Wright said that his
understanding is that the Board is attempting to review and revise the ordi-
nance so that the registration provisions are not going to be a part of it.
Mr. Bowie agreed that Mr. Wright was correct. Mr. Wright said that he thought
that this was a great idea.
At this time, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing, since there was no one
else who wished to speak.
Motion was offered Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.2, ALARMS, as set out below. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
48
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING AND REENACTING THE CODE OF AT.REMART.~.
IN CHAPTER 2.2, KNOWN AS "ALARMS"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 2.2, "Alarms", in the Code of Albemarle be
amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 2.2-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases
shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
"False alarms." Means an alarm that causes a po]ice response,
when the responding officer finds no evidence of a criminal offense or
attempted criminal offense. Excluded from this definition are:
(1) Alarms occurring during electrical storms, hurricane,
tornado, blizzards and acts of God; or
(2) Electrical power disruption or failure; or
(3) Alarms caused by a failure of the equipment at the Emergency
Operations Center.
Sec. 2.2-2. Intentional false alarms a criminal offense.
It shall be a criminal misdemeanor for any person to knowingly
and without just cause activate a security or fire alarm to summon the
police department or fire and rescue service in situations where there
is no actual or threatened criminal or fire activity requiring imme-
diate police or fire response.
Sec. 2.2-3. Charges for false alarms.
After two false alarms in any twelve month period, users shall be
charged for each subsequent false alarm which results in a police
department response, in such amount as is rm~sonably calculated to
reimburse the county for the costs of responding to such false a]mrms.
Such amount may be computed and recomputed by the county executive
from time to time, on the basis of the average time, manpower and
equipment devoted to police response to false alarms. This charge is
to reimburse the county for costs expended; it is not a fine, and is
not dependent upon a criminal conviction under section 2.2-2 above.
Sec. 2.2-4. Payment for false alarms.
Charges for false alarms shall be paid to the director of fi-
nance.
Sec. 2.2-5. Administration.
Administration of this chapter shall be the joint responsibility
of the chief of police and the director of finance under the supervi-
sion of the county executive.
Sec. 2.2-6. Appeals.
Any charge for a false alarm, or notice of withdrawal of consent
or order to disconnect, as provided hereinabove, may be appealed to
the board of supervisors by application of the owner filed with the
county executive within ten days of the date of notice of such charge
or order. Upon receipt of such appeal, the county executive or his
designee may grant relief from such charge or order, or may place the
matter on the agenda of the board of supervisors for hearing.
Agenda Item No. 14. Transfer of Funds - AHIP.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
49
Mr. Tucker explained that funding for a Housing Specialist assigned to
AHIP is currently being held in a contingency line item in the Board's budget
pending receipt of a Community Development Block Grant which was finalized in
December, 1990~ Staff recommends that the Board take action authorizing the
Director of Finance to transfer $13,406 from the contingency account (code
1000-11010-999999) to AHIP (code 1000-89000-563100). The position was filled
last July with the understanding that the County would provide one-half of the
cost for the Housing Specialist position.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve an
appropriation for the transfer of $13,406 for a Housing Specialist assigned to
AHIP, by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM B.O.S. CONTINGENCY
TO AHIP.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100011010999999
1100089000563100
B.O.S. CONTINGENCY ($13,406.00)
A_HIP 13,406.00
TOTAL $0.00
Agenda Item No. 15. Resolution: To finalize 1991-92 Budget.
Mr. Tucker told Board members that they have in their possession a
resolution based on two hearings and four work sessions that this Board held
to approve the 1991-92 budget that totals $85,656,705. He recommended adop-
tion of this resolution.
Mr. Way reminded the Board of the meeting in Scottsville with the Mayor
concerning assistance in operating the pumping stations for flood control. He
wanted to make sure that this budget includes an item of up to, but not
exceeding, $3,000 to be used for that purpose. He said that Mr. Tucker could
determine when and how much of the money should be dispersed. He believes
that Mr. Tucker said this expenditure could come from the Engineering Depart-
ment budget.
Mr. Tucker responded that Mr. Way is basically correct. He said that
$1000 is already available, and he has suggested that by the end of this
fiscal year, there will be adequate funds left in the Engineering budget so
that an additional $2000 can be reappropriated.
Mr. Bain wondered if it would be feasible to make this appropriation when
the other appropriations are made. Mr. Tucker replied that this would be
acceptable, because there is already $1,000 available.
Mr. Way then referred to CATEC. He said that he gets the impression that
all kinds of programs are being taken out of CATEC, and he is confused as to
what is happening. He said that he has heard that all of the vocational
programs are being deleted, and he wants to know what is replacing these
programs. Mr. Bain said he understands that nothing has been officially
approved by the School Board at this time. He said that there has been a
meeting with all of the different groups, and he believes that a plan has been
worked out that is amenable. Mrs. Humphris thought that only the apprentice-
ship programs were involved. Mr. Bain said that there is more involved than
just the apprenticeship programs, but the School Board still needs to take
final action.
Mr. Bowie said he believes the members of this Board have discussed and
agreed that certain things at CATEC should be funded. He asked when the next
joint meeting with the School Board will be held. Mr. Tucker replied that a
joint meeting is scheduled for May 8.
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
50
Mr. Bowie explained that, even if this matter is not considered at the
May 8th meeting, approving the budget tonight will not affect appropriations
which will be made later. He believes this Board needs a statement indicating
what will be done with certain monies before appropriations are made. He said
that the School Board may need to have more time before a resolution is
passed, but he thinks that before appropriations are done, this Board needs to
know the exact plans for CATEC.
Mr. Bowie said that a lot of money is appropriated to outside organiza-
tions and to the County departments based on the information that is presented
to the Board. Appropriations are done with one ordinance which takes care of
everything from adding police officers to agencies caring for children or
fmm~lies, etc. For better management and control, he believes that the Board
should look at semi-annual or two-time a year appropriations. He asked if it
would be possible to get some information from the staff as to what problems
might arise from semi-annual appropriations. He is thinking that if in the
middle of the year things are not going according to plan, then the funding
could be stopped.
Mr. Tucker replied that the staff does try to bring forward to the Board
in the next budget cycle what was previously funded and what the agency had
hoped to accomplish. He mentioned, too, that the Program Review Committee
looks at the situation, and bases its findings on whether or not the agencies
accomplish what was expected. He added that these findings will have some-
thing to do with an agency's ranking and whether or not funding will be
recommended for the next year. He said that the staff would get information
to the Board at a later date, but he noted that. there would be difficulties in
partial funding. It would be impossible to fund part of a contract. He said
that it is possible to hold back a certain percentage to make sure that
revenues are available.
Mr. Bowie said that he would like for this Board to have the ability to
make sure that the programs that were funded have taken place. He added that
he would be interested in knowing about all of the programm that this Board
has funded and not just any one agency. He went on to say that he thought
that Mr. Way's comments about the Scottsville appropriation were important,
and he, as well as other Board members, would like to have information on
various appropriation options to insure that what this Board is trying to fund
is actually getting funded.
Mr. Bain said he suggested that this Board have a review from CATEC and
the school system so that the Board is informed of the situation as a whole
Board and not individually. Perhaps a meeting could be set up with the School
Board in late May before the appropriation ordinance is adopted. Mr. Tucker
mentioned that this Board also wants to know how the School Board plans to
expend its $56.0 million.
Mr. Bowie stated that there are two issues, and one is what will happen
to CATEC based on this budget. He said that the other issue deals with
general appropriations that apply to all agencies and not just CATEC. He said
that this is a management item, and has nothing to do with any particular
program.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following resolution for the finalization of the 1991-92 budget of
$85,656,705:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal
Year beginning July 1, 1991, be approved as follows:
General Government Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Community Development
County/City Revenue Sharing
Refunds
3,667,570
1,229,612
5,952,930
1,518,700
3,789,858
2,415,462
1,666,185
3,277,350
67,500
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
51
Capital Improvements
Debt Service Reserve
Education - Debt Service
Education Operations
Total
1,000,000
150,000
4,329,518
56~592,020
$85,656,705
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Resolution: To Set Tax Rates for 1991.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph~ris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following resolution setting the County Levy for 1991:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable year 1991
for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One
Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars and Thirty Cents
($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of
personal property; at Four Dollars and Thirty Cents ($4.30) on every
One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; at
Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value on mobile homes; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on
every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service
assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County
assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal
property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate,
u~ed or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State
on Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the
rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the
State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of
Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats
and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia;
and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the
Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and
household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section
58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16a: Resolution of Support for Planning District 10:
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to Groundwater from Pesticides.
Mr. Bain explained that this resolution is for a study in Albemarle and
Fluvanna, and it is a part of the on-going regional environmental assessment.
He said that this resolution is in support of the application of the Planning
District for funding.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following resolution supporting the Thomas Jefferson Planning District's
application to delineate areas sensitive to certain pesticides and the in-
volvement of the Albemarle County Extension Office to help develop pesticide
management plans:
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION TO
GROUNDWATER FROM PESTICIDES
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
52
WHEREAS, pesticides are used widely in residential and agricul-
tural land uses in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, pesticide loss into groundwater is greater in some areas
than others; and
WHEREAS, these areas of Albemarle County which are particularly
sensitive to certain pesticides are unknown; and
WHEREAS, the knowledge of pesticide vulnerable areas and the
production of a local pesticide management, plan will reduce the
pesticide loss from residential and agricultural land uses; and
WHEREAS, the delineation of sensitive areas will help to imple-
ment the 1990 Farm Bill, the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management Program and the Environmental Protection, Public Informa-
tion, Education, Monitoring and Analysis recommendations of the
Virginia Pesticide Subcommittee; and
WHEREAS, the knowledge of pesticide vulnerable areas will be
helpful for comprehensive planning and zoning decision making in
Albemarle County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors supports the application of the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District to delineate areas sensitive to certain pesticides and the
involvement of the Albemarle County Extension Office to help develop
pesticide management plans.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint Ms.
Eleanor Santic as the County representative to the Thomas Jefferson Study to
Preserve and Assess Regional Environment (TJSPARE). Mr. Bain commented that
Ms. Santic currently serves on the Environmental Advisory Panel.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
1991.
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes:
No minutes had been read.
February 6 and February 20,
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Bowie announced that on May 3rd there will be a groundbreaking for
the State Farm Insurance Company Eastern Regional Office, and he will not be
in town. He said that lunch will be served to any board members who attend.
Mr. Bowie stated that he was notified on Monday that a representative of
the Board would be allowed to speak before the Commonwealth Transportation
Board (CTB) tomorrow morning concerning Route 29 North. He said that the CTB
had requested that it be informed of who will be speaking. He informed them
that he would be the speaker. He then spent part of yesterday working with
the Clerk on a presentation which he thought would be acceptable to the Board.
He went on to say that he was going to ask the Board for approval of his
presentation at tonight's meeting, and he was going to present it at the CTB's
April 17, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
53
meeting tomorrow. Today he received a telephone call from Commissioner Ray
Pethtel and was told that he would not be allowed to talk. He stated that Mr.
Pethtel told him that the CTB has already had all of the public input that it
would consider, and tomorrow a decision would be made. He said, however, that
the CTB had a work session this afternoon, so Mr. Bowie faxed Mr. Pethtel the
presentation that he was going to give to the CTB and asked him to share it
with the other CTB members. Since the other Supervisors did not see the
information on this Board's position that he sent to the CTB, Mr. Bowie gave
each Board member a copy of his statement.
Mr. Tucker announced that the Albemarle County Service Authority has
decided to provide public sewer service to Jefferson Village Subdivision, and
the Planning Commission approved this matter on April 3. He went on to say
that this sewer service is within a growth area, and it is already within the
service area boundaries, and the Commission did make a determination that it
was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He told the Board that this
was for its information, and no action needs to be taken. However, if the
Board disagrees with this action, it is possible to review the issue, but he
does not recommend that this be done. He said that this is needed service at
Jefferson Village.
Mr. Bowie asked if any one wanted to review this matter, and there was no
response from Board members.
Mr. Tucker then requested the Board to authorize the staff to hire an
engineering inspector that is to be funded effective July 1, 1991. He would
like to go ahead and advertise for this position so that someone could be
hired by early or mid-June. This person will primarily be working on the
Agnor-Hurt School and the addition to Albemarle High School. He said that it
would be helpful if this engineer could start employment when school ends,
especially at Albemmrle High, because work will start there at that time. He
said that there is adequate funding in the Engineering Department for this
position for a few week~.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to authorize
staff to hire an engineering inspector prior to July 1. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Perkins commended the Daily Progress on the editorial in Sunday's
paper relating to efficiency and the budget. He believes that governments
should be looking at efficiency all the time.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 p.m.