1985-12-04160
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night'Meeting)
(Page 1)
A meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 4, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., in %he Jack Jouett Middle SchooI Cafe~orium, Lambs Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Peter T. Way.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and Director of Planning and
Community Development, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Lindstrom requested that Item No. 4.1 on the Consent Agenda (a letter dated
November 10, 1985, from William Burke, President of the Optimist Club, regarding
disassociation with the BMX racetrack behind Riverbend Shopping Center Optimist Club) be
removed from the agenda for discussion later in the meeting. With the exception of Item No.
4.1, Mr. Lindstrom offered a motion to accept the other items on the Consent Agenda as
information. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Item No. 4.1. Letter ~ Optimist Club (See above)
Item No. 4.2. Memorandum dated November 21, 1985, from Dr. Carole Hastings re.
requirement by supervisor of employees to take an alcohol content test. This memorandum
addressed a question raised by a supervisor in a policy orientation meeting. Attached to Dr
Hastings' memorandum was a letter from Deputy County Attorney, James M. Bowling, IV, stating
that a supervisor can require an employee to submit to an alcohol content test given by the
County Police Department if the supervisor suspects the employee is under the influence of
alcohol. If the employee refUses the test, the supervisor is justified in disciplining the
employee based on his suspicions.
Further answering the question, Mr. Bowling explained that the police officers are
subject to this policy as well as County employees. Also, the supervisor does not need a
scientific test in hand before disciplining the suspicioned employee.
Item No. 4.3. Letter dated November 19, 1985, re. Bond Program Report and Monthly
Report for Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arbor Crest Apartments, for the month of October,
1985.
Item No. 4.4. Letter dated November 21, 1985, from John Stewart Darrell, Secretary of
the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority, re. IRS Form 8038 filed for Wellagai]
Limited Partnership.
Item No. 4.5.
November 12, 1985.
Copy of Planning Commission minutes for its meetings of October 29 and
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-85-81. Bernard T. Wyant, Estate (Owner), Timmy Wyant
(Applicant). To locate a single-wide mobile home on 100.72 acres, zoned RA. Property on
east side of Route 673, northwest of its intersection with Route 674. Tax Map 26, Parcel 41
White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26, 1985.
Mr. Horne referred to the Staff Report, dated December 3, 1985, as follows:
"Request:
Mobile Home
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
100.72
RA, Rural Areas
Property, described as Tax Map 26, parcel 41, is located on
the east side of Route 673 about one mile north of Route 674.
Character of the Area:
The front portion of this property is in pine woods to a depth of about 250
feet, while the rear is open land. No mobile homes are visible along Route
673 between Routes 672 and 674.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
181
Staff Comment:
The applicant has purchased a single-wide mobile home for placement on
family land. Objection to this petition comes from two adjoining property
owners (Butterfield owns parcel 23C; Knight owns parcel 40J).
The applicant proposes to locate the mobile home 250 feet from Route 673 and
350 feet from adjoining properties. The applicant has stated that the
mobile home would likely be visible from the dwelling on parcel 40J.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following conditions:
Mobile home to be located as proposed by applicant;
Maintenance of tree buffer from Butterfield property and Route 673.
Provision and maintenance of additional screening from the Knight
property to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator;
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Horne distributed a map to the Board members that showed the division of property
taking place in the special permit. The original application was to place a mobile home on
100.72 acres which now has been subdivided. The location of the mobile home is now proposed
to be on an 8.9 acres parcel which is a portion of the original 100.72 acres parcel. The
staff was not aware of that division until recently.
Mr. Horne said the map also shows the parcels of the objecting adjoining property
owners. There is a wooded area approximately 250 feet deep along the front of the property,
along Route 673. The land is open from the Knight property to the back of where the mobile
home is proposed to be placed. A third opposing property owner, Mr. McNeely, does not
currently have a residence on his property, but the mobile home would possibly be visible
from his property.
Mr. Fisher asked is there any indication that other lots will be divided from this
parcel. Mr. Horne said no. This is an approximate nine-acre parcel. In theory it is
possible that further divisions can take place, but there is no indication at this time that
that will happen. Mr. Fisher said in theory, the 100.72 acre parcel can be divided in six or
more parcels. Mr. Horne said the majority of the remaining 100.72 acres is now owned by Mr.
McNeely and is essentially in three large tracts. Mr. Fisher asked the development rights
are reserved. Mr. Horne said he does not have that information tonight.
Mr. Fisher asked what was the action of the Planning Commission. Mr. Horne said the
Planning Commission denied the petition by a vote of four to one. Since the Planning
Commission minutes were not yet available for Board review, Mr. Fisher asked what discussion
took place at its meeting regarding this petition. Mr. Horne said the discussion revolved
around the fact that the mobile home would be particularly visible from the Knight property.
Although staff recommended screening the mobile home, it would be difficult to screen it from
view. There was also discussion as to whether the character of the area would be altered or
a precedent set for placement future mobile homes in this area of the County. There have not
been many mobile homes in this general area; none that are really'visible from Route 673.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Knight residence is 1,000 feet from the property line or the
placement of the mobile home. Mr. Horne said it is approximately 1,000 feet from the
where the mobile home would be placed.
At this point, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. The applicant, Mr. Timmy Wyant was
first to speak. He presented pictures and a diagram depicting where the mobile home would be
placed. Mr. Wyant also showed pictures of eight mobile homes in the area the are visible
from the road. He said there are three other mobile homes in the area that are not visible
from that he did not take pictures of.
Mr. Henley asked where Mr. Wyant's home place is. Mr. Wyant said it is on parcel 41,
where there was approximately 100 acres originally. Mr. Henley asked if the house is still
standing. Mr. Wyant said yes; his mother was forced to sell the largest part of the
property. Mr. Henley asked if anybody lives in the house. Mr. Wyant said his mother lives
there presently but will move to Waynesboro in the near future.
Mr. Wyant said there was a misunderstanding at the Planning Commission meeting about
where the mobile home will be placed. The stakes that Mrs. Knight saw are actually for a
proposed fence line. The location of the mobile home is in the woods facing the road,
approximately 150 feet from the stakes. Mr. Wyant said there is enough of a hill in the
mobile home site and the Knight property so that the mobile home will not be visible from the
Knight property. He presented pictures taken from the height of the top of the mobile home
which he said showed the top of the Knight home. Mr. Wyant said the mobile home can be seen
from the Knight property line but not from the residence.
Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Wyant bought the property where the mobile home site is located.
Mr. Wyant said no; his mother gave it to him. He said she also gave property to her other
children. The land is now divided into three parcels and division rights have been reserved.
Mr. Wyant went on to say that when he married eight years ago, he had a dream of coming
back home to live. His grandfather bought the home property in 1929 which passed to his
father in 1949; it has been in his family for about 50 years. Mr. Wyant said he feels he
should have the right to live there in a home that he can afford and his children should be
allowed to grow up there. He would like to move there while his children are still young
because if he waits until he can afford a house, they will be almost grown. To those people
who object, Mr. Wyant said he did not object when their houses were built, why do they object
to him putting a home on his property. Mr. Wyant said he does not believe what he is asking
is unreasonable. Compared to the other homes in the area, a mobile home would not be out of
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
place. There are presently eleven mobile homes in the area. The proposed site for his home
is not visible from the road, and is hardly visible from the closest neighbor's home.
Mr. Wyant said he was not prepared for what happened at the Planning Commission meeting
last night. He did not feel he could say a mistake had been made without some information to
back him up. The distance requirements from the property lines are for the property owners'
protection. The proposed site more than meets those requirements on all sides. Mr. Wyant
said he is only asking for the right to put a home he can afford on his property.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wyant if it is his intention to reside in the mobile home himself.
Mr. Wyant said yes; he would like to build a better home sometime in the future, but now he
does not see any way he can do that.
Ms. Elizabeth Knight, owner of parcel 40J, was next to speak. She said as an adjacent
property owner and a resident of this White Hall neighborhood, she objects to the special use
permit to locate this mobile home on Parcel 41. She shares a fence line and southwest
exposure with the applicant. Her home is in view of the newly constructed outbuilding and
site of the mobile home. Ms. Knight said she purchased her property in 1977. At that time
it was a corn field. She built a pond and a barn, fertilized and seeded her fields with the
help of her neighbors, erected 300 sections of fence with the help of her children, and saved
her money and built a house. Ms. Knight said like her neighbors, she invested in the land in
money and physical labor. She said she is not talking about hired help, but rather the
responsibility of livestock care, farm equipment, building, land maintenance and improvements
that they do every day themselves.
Ms. Knight said she likes the Wyant family. She has her own children's interest at
heart, and she has to make plans for her future as well; there is always a degree of
uncertainty. She said because of the combined efforts of the relatively new people in the
community, she feels they have added a quality of life to the land and neighborhood. She
believes they have had a direct positive impact on Mrs. Wyant's property and the sale of the
80 acres. If the Wyants sell their property in the future, she will again be an asset as a
neighbor. Ms. Knight said one can only speculate how much the land will appreciate in value
in the coming months and years. The neighbors continue to invest in the land anything, thus
providing a meaningful benefit to the Wyants. She said if she or her heirs need to sell her
property, its worth is compromised.
Ms. Knight said this is not just an issue between the Wyants and herself - it is an
issue of the zoning laws. Zoning laws put limitations on individuals for the benefit of the
community as a whole. Ms. Knight said for example, she had to change the locatin of her home
site at a considerable expense so she did not pollute the public drinking water. She, the
Butterfields, Graves, and Suratts cannot subdivide their land without having to build a
two-lane road which is difficult to afford. Ms. Knight noted that the Wyants have six
property right divisions, where her land and that of her neighbors are more severely limited.
Ms. Knight said the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of this petition
points out the County's generosity in the past. She noted that if the Board chooses to
approve the mobile home, the staff report recommended that screening be provided and
maintained. Ms. Knight said in reality, she did not see how any amount of screening would be
enough to overcome the negative impact on the surrounding property values. She said once the
precedent had been established, She foresees more mobile home applications. Ms. Knight asked
the Board to help her and her neighbors maintain the character of their neighborhood.
Ms. Knight referred to a packet of information that she had presented to the Planning
Commission and said it is her understanding that the information was forwarded to the Board.
Mr. Fisher said the Board had received the packet. Ms. Knight said the packet included a tax
map that she used to define what she considers'to be her neighborhood. She said there are no
mobile homes in the area. Also included in Ms. Knight's packet was a panoramic view in a
photograph she took from the stake (marking the fence line) depicting parcels 4lB, 4lA (with
three building rights), 41C (with five building rights), 52, and 21. Mr. Fisher asked Ms.
Knight if her concern is that all of these parcels may become sites for more mobile home
applications. Ms. Knight said no; this is her neighborhood. This land is what she and her
neighbors have been working on and they feel the way it appears now is its character.
Next to speak was Mr. William Patrick Butterfield, an adjacent landowner. He said
concern about the direction of future development in the White Hall community as well as the
interest of owning adjacent property has prompted him and his neighbors to oppose the
application for Special Use Permit SP-85-81. While there are a few mobile homes located
north of White Hall, they are grouped together and located south of Routes 673 and 674.
None are presently located in the area bounded on the south by Route 674, on the west by
Route 673 and on the north by Route 672. Mr. Butterfield said approval of this special
permit would extend.the area zoned for mobile homes and set a precedent for future
applications. Ensuing growth on smaller parcels would place a burden on the unpaved roads
which serve the area. New homes recently constructed on both sides of Route 810 have tended
to increase the value of land near White Hall. Both individual landowners and Albemarle
County have benefited from this increase. Location of a single-wide mobile home in the midst
of this land would reverse the present trend. Specifically, the side of this mobile home
will be visible from one existing home. It could also be visible from up to nine other
potential home sites on land belonging to five different people. The existence of this
mobile home will decrease the desirability of those parcels. Expansion of the area zoned for
mobile homes will discourage future investment in the vicinity. The accompanying decline in
land value will have a negative effect not only on the landowners, but ultimately on the
County's tax base.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Butterfield said the Wyants have been good neighbors and he respects Timmy Wyant's
right to live on his property. However he and his neighbors feel strongly that this permit
should not be granted because of the precedent it sets. He said several aspects of the
special use permit concerned Planning Commission members. 1) The site in question is highly
visible; 2) the nature of the terrain in this neighborhood is such that it would be
difficult to locate a mobile home on a site that is not visible; 3) the purpose of zoning is
to restrict the placement of mobile homes in areas where none already exist as well as to
permit them in others. There are other parcels and building rights in this neighborhood.
Approving SP-85-81 would set a precedent. It would then be difficult to refuse to allow more
mobile homes in the future. Therefore the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of
this permit. Mr. Butterfield said he and his neighbors urge the Board to support that
recommendation.
Mr. Paul Suratt, an adjacent landowner on Route 810, was next to speak. He said he is
sympathetic to the Wyants and would welcome them as neighbors, but he believes there are
other considerations that the Board should take into account. Mr. Suratt said the Wyant
mobile home would be visible from Ms. Knight's home. Mr. Suratt said he sold her that land
and does not believe she would have bought it if a mobile home had been visible. The mobile
home will have an adverse effect on people who have already invested in the area, and it may
discourage further development. It is to the County's financial advantage to maintain land
values and bring in revenues that will support citizens in the entire county and provide
revenues for schools. Mr. Suratt said he believes the Board should take this into consider-
ation as well as Mr. Wyant's appeal.
Mr. Kurt Kruger, attorney with McGuire, Woods & Battle law firm, was present to speak on
behalf of Mr. C. W. McNeely, III, an adjoining property owner. He said Mr. McNeely strongly
opposes the issuance of the Special Use Permit. His interest stems from his recent purchase
of parcels A, B, and C, which adjoin the nine-acre parcel where the mobile home would be
placed. Together with this purchase, Mr. McNeely owns approximately 250 acres in the White
Hall area. He purchased parcels A, B, and C to improve and run a farm and his cattle
operation. A log home has been constructed on the property as a personal residence for Mr.
McNeely's daughter. Mr. Kruger said in the past Mr. McNeely has made other land purchases in
Albemarle County, and in each case he has made extensive improvements including fencing,
cultivation, and quality constructed buildings and outbuildings. The buildings Mr. McNeely
plans to construct on parcels A, B, and C in White Hall, would be of similar quality. Mr.
Kruger said it is more than likely that these improvements would increase the value of Mr.
McNeely's land and that of his immediate neighbors, including Mrs. Wyant. He said Mrs. Wyant
argued before the Planning Commission that it is unfair to use zoning laws to prevent her
from locating a mobile home on her property. Mr. Kruger said the fairness argument works
both ways. There is an argument on the part of Mr. McNeely, Mr. Butterfield and Ms. Knight
that having spent money to improve their property, it would be unfair to put a mobile on the
Wyant's property and decrease the value of adjoining land.
Mr. Kruger said zoning laws have always been used to tell people what improvements can
be used on their property. Those zoning laws have been upheld for the last 50 years. For
all the foregoing reasons, and those stated by Ms. Knight, Mr. Butterfield and Mr. Suratt,
Mr. McNeely opposes the issuance of this special use permit.
There being no one else rising to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Mr. Henley said he does not feel this application is different from others he has had to
make a decision on in the past. He feels that there ought to be a location on a parcel of
over eight acres where a mobile home can be placed without being a problem to the neighbors,
even if that parcel is divided. As he sees the neighbors' parcels on the map, it should not
be a problem for them to screen their property if the mobile home is that objectionable.
Mr. Henley then offered a motion to approve SP-85-81 with the conditions recommended by the
staff.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. He said some of the concerns expressed by those
people opposing the petition are due to the possibility of further development which is made
possible by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that he does not support. Mr. Lindstrom said
his family owns property that overlooks this mobile home site and they would see the mobile
home if they build on the property. He said many people do not have his taste in archi-
tectural design or the resources to build according to the taste they have. When an
individual is planning to occupy a residence, even if it is a mobile home, it is difficult to
make that distinction because it is an aesthetic distinction. If the Board was trying to
protect the County's tax base, one way to do it would be to require all houses to be built in
excess of $150,000 of assessed value in order to pay for the education and services provided
for County citizens. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the special use provisions for mobile
homes in the Zoning Ordinance. Those provisions allow the Board the opportunity to require
screening and setbacks and to recognize the aesthetics involved. He said in the past he has
not supported applications for mobile homes that were not going to be occupied by the owner.
Mr. Lindstrom said in this case, he will support the application as he has supported previous
applications for owner-occupied mobile homes.
Mrs. Cooke said she would not repeat the remarks of Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom, but
she would suggest adding a fourth condition that this mobile home cannot be rented. This is
a condition that the Board has placed on other mobile homes, and she will support this mobile
home petition with that condition.
Mr. Henley accepted that as an amendment of his motion, adding a fourth condition to
SP-85-81, that "The applicant's mobile home cannot be rented." Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
amended motion,
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
There being no further discussion by the Board, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
(The conditins of approval are set out below.)
1)
2)
3)
4)
Mobile home to be located as proposed by applicant;
Maintenance of tree buffer from Butterfield property and Route 673.
Provision and Maintenance of additional screening from the Knight
property to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator;
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The mobile home cannot be rented.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-75. Marriott Corporation. To locate a motel/hotel or inn or
4.1301 acres zoned PUD. Property on east side of Rt. 29 North behind Albemarle Bank & Trust
in Branchlands PUD. Tax Map 61Z-03, Pa.rcel 1 (part of). Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 and 26, 1985.)
Mr. Fisher referenced a letter dated December 2, 1985, from Mr. Fred S. Landess, as
follows:
"Re: Marriott Corporation/Special Use Permit
Dear Ms. Neher:
Confirming our telephone conversation, we would like to defer the public
hearing by the Board on the Special Use Permit application of Marriott
Corporation from December 4, 1985 to the meeting on December 18, 1985.
There were no representatives of the public present at the Planning
Commission public hearing on this matter, therefore I do not feel anyone
will be inconvenienced by a deferral. I am writing a separate letter to the
Board members to explain our reason for requesting the deferral. Thanks for
your help.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
Fred S. Landess"
Mr. Fisher asked if there was anyone present having interest in the Marriott Corporation
special permit request. There being no one rising to speak, Mr. Fisher said the matter is
properly before the Board to consider deferral to December 18, 1985.
Mr. Way offered motion to defer SP-85-75, Marriott .Corporation, to December 18, 1985.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke, roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-37. WPED Radio Tower. To allow for an FM radio transmission
tower (WPED) on 2.202 acres zoned RA. Located on southwest edge of Turner Mountain, north of
Route 250 at its intersection with Route 676. Tax Map 58, Parcel 54. Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 and 26, 1985.)
Mr. Horne presented the staff report as follows:
Request: FM Radio Transmission Tower (10.2.2.6)
Acreage: 2.2 acres
Zoning: RA, Rural Areas
Location:
Property, described as TM 58, parcel 54 (part), is located on the
southwest side of Little Turner Mountain about 1/4 mile north of Route
250 West, west of Ivy.
Character of the Area:
This 2.2 acre site is accessed by a one-lane gravel private road. The
property is heavily wooded and steeply sloped with elevations ranging
from about 780 to 840 feet. Eighty-six dwelling units are located
within one-half mile of this site (includes one structure containing
six units and one structure containing three units). Other lands in
the area consist of agricultural uses and forested tracts.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
WJLT-FM (Elting Enterprises) is petitioning the Board of Supervisors
for approval to construct a 199-foot FM radio transmission tower and
antenna to be located at an eleVation of 831.5 feet. Tower construc-
tion would involve: construction of a service road from the existing
private road to the tower location; installation of a concrete founda-
tion as well as guy wire for structural support; and trespass fencing
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
165
around the tower. A microwave relay receiver would be installed on the
tower to receive signal from Crozet for rebroadcast. An equipment
building (approximately 12 feet x 15 feet) would be located on the site.
The applicant does not propose to paint the tower. Areas necessary
for transmitter installation would be cleared (not identified), other
areas would remain wooded.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
On July 16, 1985, staff recommended that the proposed WJLT-FM tower
was inappropriate to the Little Turner Mountain site. Staff has
re-evaluated the July 16 recommendation in light of additional
materials submitted by the applicant as well as additional public
comment.
In order to issue a special use permit, the Zoning Ordinance requires
that the Commission and Board make certain positive findings as to
specific criteria (31.2.4.1). The "staff comment" portion of this
report seeks to analyze the WJLT petition under these criteria. It is
staff opinion that the WJLT petition does not satisfy these criteria,
largely as a result of conditions beyond the control of the applicant:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Population density of the area;
Proximity to existing dwellings;
Size of the site;
Precedent for future requests.
These are site-specific considerations related to this particular
location. In short, the site and location are inappropriate.
Other concerns which are more general in nature include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Affect of tower location on property values;
Visibility and aesthetics;
Radio signal interference;
Radio frequency (RF) radiation;
Precedent for future requests (individual location).
While staff has recommended denial of this petition, staff opinion is
that the Commission and Board could approve this request upon a
finding that the public welfare to be served would overwhelm negative
aspects of the proposal.
Staff would recommend that the County establish more definitive
guidelines to aid future applicants in site selection. Such
guidelines should also impose requirements such as shared tower/site
usage to avoid proliferation of structures in random fashion.
ZONING HISTORY OF WPED TOWERS:
The existing 325 foot AM broadcast tower in Crozet preceded zoning and
therefore is a non-conforming use. In 1980, McClennahan Broadcasting
proposed an additional tower on Little Yellow Mountain west of Crozet.
A major justification for the tower as stated by the applicant was:
"Based on the 1970 census, several years ago a survey of Western
Albemarle County disclosed that approximately 25,000 people east of
the Blue Ridge MoUntains were without adequate local radio service
before local sunrise and following local sunset. This area has been
recognized by the FCC as a radio white area, meaning absence of
local service." Location on Little Yellow Mountain was proposed for
"the new FM broadcasting station for Crozet and Western Albemarle."
Staff gave consideration to the public interest .to be served by the
new tower, stating that "the FM radio station would provide
before-sunrise and after-sunset broadcasting to about 25,000 people
not currently served by local broadcasting during these times." A
problem at the time was that no other station broadcast early morning
announcements of school closings and the like in this area.
While the McClennahan petition proposed increased service within
Crozet (city of license,) and to 25,000 people west of Charlottesville,
the current petition claims that the coverage area includes Crozet
(FCC city of license), Charlottesville (second city of license), and
200,000 people in five counties. Mr. Robert Thraves of the Alemarle
County Department of Education submitted a letter on behalf of WPED
stating that improved service would be beneficial in terms of
emergency school closing announcements. In discussion with staff, Mr.
Thraves stated that school closing announcements for the eastern part
of the county from the northern boundary southward to the Woodridge
area are received from Orange County and Richmond stations. (On July 18,
1985, the current applicant expressed the opinion that non-local stations
would likely not provide detailed announcements/news of local interest).
The current tower is about 13.6 miles from Charlottesville while the
Turner Mountain location is about 6.9 miles from Charlottesville. It
appears from review of topographic mapping that the Turner Mountain
location would improve signal to the northern Charlottesville area,
however, staff questions the effects of tower relocation on Western
Albemarle areas for the following reasons:
1,.66
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Current broadcast elevation is about 1,560 feet while the Turner
Mountain site would provide a broadcast elevation of about 1,030
feet, or 530 feet lower than the current tower. This could
introduce new areas of poor reception;
Relocation of 6.7 miles to the east could introduce new areas of
poor reception;
®
In the McClennahan petitions, staff gave consideration that the
Little Yellow Mountain location was represented to serve a public
service by providing emergency announcements/news to unserved
areas of the western part of the County between dusk and dawn.
Charlottesville and eastern areas of the County appear to be
adequately served in this regard by other local radio as well as
stations in Orange County and Richmond. Staff is concerned that
WPED's relocation eastward may minimize any improvement in
reception in western areas of the County.
Though ownership has changed, staff is concerned that this is the
third petition to be entertained by the County for the same radio
station. While not an ideal site, the first petition proposed
that Little Yellow Mountain was an adequate location for the
broadcast facility. The second petition proposed to improve
signal problems through increased tower height (i.e., 298 feet to
360 feet). Currently WJLT is proposing tower relocation to
improve signal reception. A tower height of 199 feet is being
proposed to avoid FAA aerial navigation lighting, however, the
applicant has stated that additional tower height would provide
better signal (i.e. - 250 feet). The local airport has recommended
that the 199 foot tower be lighted.
Following the July 18 meeting, staff stated that the applicant
should be prepared to demonstrate that tower relocation would not
result in reception voids in western areas of the County and more
specifically that:
"I understand from the July 18 meeting that you anticipate
improved broadcast throughout your license area and that the
tower relocation is proposed to satisfy (or at least improve)
your FCC license obligation and not as a commercial venture to
expand your broadcast area, though some economic benefits are
likely to accrue from improved market. I think it would behoove
you to obtain written comment from the FCC confirming this
representation and, if time permits, comment as to the likelihood
of improved signal by virtue of tower relocation as well as
estimate of increase population to be served."
CONCERNS OF THE PUBLIC:
Due to the vast amount of correspondence received on this petition
(both favorable and unfavorable) staff has attempted to present a
summary of opposition and concerns. Most correspondence favorable to
the proposal expressed desire for an expanded broadcast area, and
better reception but did not address the merits of this site
specifically. It should be noted that some signatures/letters of
support were from the Ivy area. (Since this petition was last before
the Planning Commission, WPED has changed call letters to WJLT-FM and
changed the "country music" programming to another format. No
consideration was given to programming in the prior report and it is
not considered here. Public service broadcasting, however, will be
addressed later in this report).
Letters of concern and opposition to the proposed tower on Little
Turner Mountain address issues of: compatibility to the area;
aesthetics; interference with radio/TV reception as well as affecting
other electronic household devices; safety; and health concerns.
STAFF COMMENT:
At this time, staff will attempt to address public concerns as
thoroughly as possible (under criteria set forth in 31.2.4.1). Radio
transmission towers are included in all zoning districts as a use by
special use permit, including commercial and industrial zones, as are
"heavier" public utility uses. This is significant for two reasons.
First, the ordinance recognizes that technical considerations may
limit or dictate location of such uses. Second, the ordinance
recognizes that such uses are inappropriate to some areas and that
each use requires individual and deliberate review. To authorize a
special use permit, the Board of Supervisors must make positive
findings regarding the criteria set forth in 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Comment regarding these criteria follow (public concerns
in parenthesis):
. 167
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
The tower will not be of substantial detriment to adjoining properties
(property values; proximity to dwellings): In SP-85-75 Clay Media
staff stated that "while the Real Estate Department believes that
radio towers would affect property values in the area to a degree, it
should be noted that high-value residential developments such as Ivy
Farms, Ashcroft Planned Residential Development, and Shadwell Mountain
Estates have developed in proximity to existing towers." However, the
WCHV towers were to be located in an area reconmmended for industrial
development by the Comprehensive Plan, remote from existing urban
residential development.
An adjoining property owner has obtained opinion from a local real
estate firm that the proposed tower "would substantially devalue your
property and other surrounding properties," and due to the height of
the tower "it would certainly have an adverse aesthetic effect not
only on your property but on many other county properties as well."
The tower would not change the character of the district (aesthetics
and visibility~ industrial appearance): The applicant has stated that
the tower would be triangular in cross-section with 18 inch sides.
Three "doughnut" shaped broadcast antennae would be located on the
tower as well as one microwave relay receiving antenna. Photographs
of the various tower equipment have been submitted as well as a
photograph of the tower currently located on Little Yellow Mountain
near Crozet.
Staff offers the following comments (staff would emphasize that no
determination has been made as to specific areas from which the tower
would be visible):
Compared to other tower types (i.e. - AM radio, TV, electrical
transmission) this installation would not be as visible from
distant locations.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has recommended aerial
navigation lighting which would result in high visibility at
night.
U. S. Route 250 West has been designated as a scenic highway
by the County and scenic byway by the Commonwealth. The
Zoning Ordinance states that the scenic areas overlay
district is intended to "conserve elements of the county's
scenic beauty" and requires that any new use "adjacent to or
within any designated scenic areas overlay district ... be
reviewed in accordance with the objectives" of the scenic
designation. While this site is not within or directly
adjacent to the Route 250 scenic district, Little Turner
Mountain is visible from the roadway.
Staff opinion is that the tower would affect visual
character of the area in two respects: skyline intrusion
and visibility from adjoining properties. In regard to
skyline intrusion, the tower would be a man-made structure
extending 100 feet or more above the tree line in an area
where no other like structures exist. As to adjoining
properties, staff opinion is that the proposed tower
location would likely preclude effective screening.
The tower would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance including provisions of 5.0, Supplementary
Regulations: A purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is "to treat lands
which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like
manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and
character of properties." Obviously, a radio tower on this site would
be a different usage from adjoining properties. As stated earlier and
in prior review, staff has historically favored new towers where other
towers already exist as opposed to individual random locations. Given
this background, should WJLT be approved in this location it may be
difficult not to approve other towers in the immediate area or on
other scattered sites. Likewise, once established, modifications such
as increased tower height or additional antennae may be difficult to
refuse, particularly if signal improvement is not realized after
initial construction (six of the thirteen~petitions reviewed in the
past ten years involved reconstruction or modification).
Several sections of the Zoning Ordinance are relevant to this petition:
Section 4.10.2.2 requires certain verifications from the
Federal Administration and Virginia Department of Aviation.
The FAA has approved the applicant's request for relief from
obstruction lighting and marking requirements, however, the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has recommended that the
tower not be approved unless lighting is required.
Section 4.10.3.1 requires that the tower shall not be
located closer to any property line than the height of the
tower unless specifically authorized by the Planning
Commission.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Section 5.1.12 requires among other things that the
"proposed use at the location selected will not endanger the
health and safety of workers and/or residents in the
community and will not impair or prove detrimental to
neighboring properties or the development of same." This
requires positive finding that these deleterious effects
will not occur as opposed to demonstration that they will
occur. The burden of suck demonstration should be the
responsibility of the applicant.
Section 10.4 requires front, side, and rear yards of 75, 25,
and 35 feet respectively. The Zoning Administrator has
stated opinion that "the guy wire and the tower are considered
to be one structure and is subject to the setback requirements
of the Rural Areas zoning district." To locate the tower as
proposed would require the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant
variances to permit the structure to intrude into required rear
and side yards.
The tower would be in harmony with uses permitted by right
(compatibility to residential uses; commercial intrusion):
Residential density should receive consideration under this criterion
As stated earlier, 86 dwellings are located within one-half mile of
this site. This represents a residential density of one dwelling per
5.8 acres or about seven times the density of the rural areas in general
(1983 figures). Densities on the tower slope of the mountain and
closer to the tower are greater (i.e. - density within 1,000 feet of
the tower is about one dwelling per 4.5 acres; the majority of
dwellings within this radius are on the tower slope of the mountain).
Densities in the Turner Mountain area are comparable to such
developments as Ardwood, Ashmere, Grassmere Farm, Country View, Spring
Hill and Ivy Farms.
The tower would be consistent with the public health, safety and
welfare (non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation~ signal interference~
safety of tower): Several aspects of this petition should be
addressed under this criteria.
a)
Access: Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has
recommended a commercial entrance on Route 676 which would require
the applicant to obtain sight distance easement on private
property on the opposite side of Route 676.
Staff understands that transmitters, by law, must be inspected as
least once a week. Other traffic (after construction) would be for
maintenance and emergency situations. The applicant has offered to
pay 50 percent of road maintenance costs. Approval of a road maintenance
agreement by the County Attorney may be appropriate. Private road
improvements should be addressed by the County Engineer during site
plan review.
Since readoption of the private road provisions in January, 1984 staff
has not recommended favorably on mixing residential and commercial
uses on private roads. Due to very low traffic, staff did not
recommend road maintenance agreements for the WCHV towers. However,
initial road improvement (subject to County Engineer approval) and
entrance improvements (subject to Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation approval) were required.
b)
Safety of the tower: The applicant proposes a tower design under
which the tower would collapse in place in the event of structural
failure. The Building Official has stated in part that:
"Before a building permit may be issued the applicant must submit
two copies of plans and calculations showing the structural
design including wind loads, guy wires and foundations.
Tower shall be designed for the dead load plus ice load.
Adequate foundations and anchorage shall be provided to resist
two times the calculated wind uplift.
Ail towers shall be permanently and effectively grounded (from
lighting). The BOCA code is sufficient for public safety."
Another issue is whether the tower would fall in a rigid manner (like
a tree) or collapse in the event of structural failure. The applicant
has submitted comment from Stainless, Inc., a tower manufacturer and
Southern Tower Service Company, Inc., a tower installer, however this
information was not received in time to obtain comment from the County
Engineer). Both companies state opinion that rigid failure would be
unlikely. The tower would be guyed by multiple cables to each of three
anchors. For the tower to fall in a rigid manner, all guy cables to one
anchor would have to fail or the anchor itself would have to fail.
169
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Stainless, Inc., states that "while it is difficult to predict the
exact limits of the fall area, it is our opinion that the radius from
the tower base would not exceed forty percent of the total height of the
structure." Southern Tower states that "some portion of the tower could
exceed the guy radius when it has been reduced to 50 percent (of tower
height) or lower." Under these estimates, tower collapse would occur in
an 80-100 foot radius from the tower base. Since the tower is proposed
to be located 60 feet from an adjoining property, the tower could trespass
onto property of others even if it were to collapse in "accordian" fashion.
c)
Radio signal interference: The applicant has indicated that due
to omnidirectional broadcast, radio station responsibility for
signal interference would be from "ground up" and uniform within
a 0.42 mile radius of the tower.
The applicant has submitted door-to-door surveys taken along Hilltop
Street and other areas in Crozet in the vicinity of the existing AM
broadcast tower indicating that radio signal interference in the area
has not been a problem. (Interference problems associated with AM and
FM broadcasting are not comparable. A more appropriate approach would
be to survey residents in vicinity of the existing FM tower at Little
Yellow Mountain).
The applicant has stated that the new tower will comply with FCC rules
regarding Blanketing Interference (blanketing interference occurs when
an FM station's signal strength or signal power density is of such
magnitudes that it causes receivers near the transmitting antenna to
be partially or completely blocked from receiving other broadcast
stations).
The applicant has submitted a radio frequency spectrum chart which
plots frequencies of local radio, television, and other communication
facilities. As can be seen from inspection of the chart, several FM
stations currently broadcast in a grouping of comparatively close
frequencies. Also these stations broadcast at frequencies between
WJLT and educational radio as well as VHF television channels 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6. Higher frequency commercial/public broadcast television
stations (i.e. - VHF7 through VHF69) begin over 70 MHz above WJLT.
Staff opinion is that to interfere with any television station or
educational radio station would require substantial "signal wander" or
other gross engineering problem.
d)
Radio-frequency (RF) radiation: From newspaper articles and-
documents, it appears that there is world-wide debate among the
scientific community as to the biological effects of exposure to
radio frequency radiation and appropriate levels of exposure.
Given this background of dispute, it does not appear that any
definitive conclusion can be reached in review of this petition.
Earlier this year EPA adopted the American National Standard Institute
(ANSI) guideline for exposure. EPA also has estimated that 98-99 percent
of the population in seven U.S. urban areas are exposed to low levels of
radiation (i.e. - ambient or environmental exposure). Staff provides
the following chart for comparison:
RF Radiation
EPA/ANSI Standard
WJLT-FM (closest property)
EPA/general public exposure
1.000 mW/cm2
0.11 mW/cm2
0.001 mW/cm2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As stated earlier in this report, the Zoning Ordinance requires the
Board of Supervisors to make positive finding as to certain criteria
in order to issue a special use permit. Analyses of these criteria
has been presented under "staff comment." Staff opinion is that
WJLT's petition fails to satisfy these criteria and therefore,
recommends denial of SP-85-37 Elting Enterprises (WJLT).
Staff also offers the following comment and recommendation:
Staff opinion is that denial of this petition would not deprive
the property owner of reasonable usage of the land. The property
is available for residential usage which would be consistent with
use of surrounding properties.
Issues raised in the petition are likely to arise again with
future requests. It may be appropriate to include locational
guidelines and other standards i~ the Zoning Ordinance to assist
future applicants in site selection.
170
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
ADDITIONAL COMMENT:
In the July 23, 1985 letter to the applicant, staff stated that:
The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must weigh the
merits of your proposal against the effects, real or perceived,
of locating an FM broadcast facility in one of the more densely
populated rural areas of the County. It is not mandatory that
you submit information requested in this letter. However, in
opinion, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the general
public purpose to be served outweighs the negative aspects of
your proposal.
Letters which attest to public service by WPED-FM are included with
this report. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that special
broadcasting would be provided for the visually impaired, a service
which is not currently provided by local radio stations."
Mr. Fisher asked for the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Horne said the
Planning Commission at its meeting on October 29,1985, recommended denial of SP-85-37 by a
vote of 5/2.
Mrs. Cooke asked which FM radio stations would be impacted if the radio tower caused
signal interference. Mr. Horne said he does not know; the applicant would know his signal
location and which would be the closest stations.
Referring to the staff report, Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is still Mr. Horne's opinion
that a zoning variance would be required to located the guy wires on the tower. Mr. Horne
said yes. That refers to a ruling by Mr. Michael Tompkins, Zoning Administrator, that the
guys constitute an integral portion of the structure. On this proposal the guys are too
close to the property lines to meet the normal setback requirements. Within the Zoning
Ordinance is a provision that the basic setback requirement for towers is the distance of the
height of the tower. Only through direct action of the Planning Commission can a tower be
located closer to the property line. If Mr. Tompkins' ruling is upheld, a variance would
need to be granted.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any place on the property where the tower could be located
so that it would be tower height from all property lines. _ Mr. Horne said no; not from all
property lines.
Mr. Way asked what would the trespassing fencing (mentioned in the staff report) consist
of. Mr. Horne said the fencing would be located immediately around the tower and possibly
the utility building, but not the entire property. It would consist of chain link fencing at
a height sufficient to keep people out of the area.
Mr. Lindstrom said the staff has recommended no conditions in the event that the Board
approved SP-85-37. Mr. Horne said staff did not present any conditions to the Planning
Commission, however conditions have been prepared that can be discussed should approval be
the pleasure of the Board. Referring to a letter dated July 24, 1985, from Mr. Robert F.
Kennedy, Airport Manager, (on file in the Clerk's office), Mr. Lindstrom asked if lighting of
the tower is one of the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Horne said yes. Mr.
Lindstrom said, therefore, regardless of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
requirement, the staff recommendation, based on the Airport Manager's request, would be that
the tower be lit. Mr. Horne replied yes.
At 8:55 p.m. Mr. Fisher called a recess.
and opened the public hearing.
At 8:58 p.m. Mr. Fisher reconvened the meeting
Mr. Elting was first to speak. Mr. Elting said he would clarify the issues of lighting
and painting of the tower. He said the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has given
its approval to erect this tower of 199 feet without paint or lighting. The Virginia
Department of Aviation concurs with the FAA and agrees that the tower would not have to
painted or lit. Representatives of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport were at the tower
site yesterday and they stated that they see no reason for the tower to painted or lit, but
they have not yet responded in writing, as Mr. Elting requested.
In trying to find a site suitable for a radio tower, Mr. Elting said his company faces
difficult conditions and requirements, some as follows: 1) the tower site must give a
city-grade signal for both Crozet and Charlottesville, which limits the site geographically
to a small area; 2)must not interfere or infringe on adjacent radio channels; 3) the terrain
features must not distort signals; 4) the site must be in accordance with FAA regulations -
it is; 5) must by-pass military flight training orders - it does; 6) must be approved by the
National Radio Observatory - it has been; 7) must be approved by Naval Research Facility in
West Virginia - it has been; and 7) it must be approved by the FCC.
Mr. Elting then distributed maps that he referred to as the Permissible Site Location
Study, which defined the sites approved for an antenna by the FCC. He said any site south of
Route 250 West is out of the question. The mountainous area to the west is permissible by
the FCC but is useless to WJLT because of the terrain and multi-path problems, and neither
the National Radio Observatory nor the Naval Research Facility would allow a tower in that
location. Mr. Elting noted several X's and O's on the map that indicate potential sites that
have been explored and rejected for the following reasons: Jarman Gap, disallowed by the
Naval Research Facility and the National Radio Observatory, because of multi-path problems
due to the mountainous area; Buck's Elbow Mountain, also disallowed; Beaver Creek Hill, could
not obtain landowner approval, and too close to the mountains; Pigeon Top Mountain, could not
obtain landowner approval; Carter Mountain, could not obtain landowner approval. Mr. Elting
called attention to the White Hall area on the map which was noted as a possible site. He
said the terrain in that area would require erecting a 500 to 560 foot tower, which he does
not want to do because it is not feasible and it is what he is trying to avoid aesthetically.
171
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Elting said a 250 foot tower would be allowed at the proposed site and still stay
within the power classification of WJLT. He said he proposes a 199 foot tower instead
because it would not have to be lit or painted with alternating red and white stripes. He
said he wants to minimize the visual presence of the tower and lessen any adverse
environmental impact.
Mr. Elting listed four main concerns that people have regarding the radio tower, as
follows: 1) Unsightliness - Mr. Elting said the 360 foot tower with painting and lights
located on scenic Route 250 would be taken down, and a 199 foot unpainted, unlit tower would
be erected; 2) Radiation and health hazard - this matter will be discussed later in the
meeting by Dr. Warren Brown; 3) Collapse - Mr. Elting said he has letters from both the
tower manufacturer and erection company verifying that the tower, which is termed as a G-25
tower, has a guide that is approximately~18 inches across and it is designed to collapse
within its radius and withstand winds u~Kll0 miles per hour; 4) Interference - Mr. Elting
said there is no existing problem with interference regarding either AM or FM at the
station's present location and he does not anticipate any problem at the proposed site. The
FCC mandates that WJLT has the obligation to correct any such problems that may arise within
0.42 miles of the antenna site. Mr. Elting said he would be happy to correct any inter-
ference problems within one-half to three-fourths mile of the antenna site.
Mr. Elting said WJLT provides music, entertainment, world and national news and
community services, especially to people in western Albemarle County. He added that WJLT is
the only night-time radio service to people in western Albemarle County. He listed several
organizations for which the radio station provided in excess of $104,000 in public service
announcements in 1984. Mr. Elting said he has agreed to provide a special public reading
service for print-handicapped people, subject to obtaining an adequate antenna site. This
service would provide by satellite, a free 24-hour-a-day reading program for the handicapped
or anyone within the signal area who desires the service. A special receiver, which costs
approximately $30, is necessary to receive the programming. Mr. Elting said there are almost
700 visually-impaired people in Albemarle County and an additional 300 in surrounding
counties. As a whole, he said an estimated 1,800 people in Albemarle County would benefit
from this service.
Mr. Elting said as a broadcaster he has a responsibility to his listeners, sponsors, and
civic organizations to provide the best possible service. He said WJLT has responded to the
community. Broadcasting has been deregulated and if he is given the opportunity, he plans to
respond more to the community.
Mr. Elting then introduced Mr. Jeff Scott, an engineer, who was present to explain why
WJLT is presently having problems and what the problem is; why the proposed tower site would
work; point out the problems areas for reception; and what problems might be encountered at
the proposed site.
Mr. Scott said the area served by WJLT was designated as a "quiet zone" several years
ago. WJLT is the first FM station allowed to serve this area. The 300 foot tower was not
tall enough to send signals over Afton Mountain, so permission was granted to add 60 feet to
its height, but the angle of the tower's signal still "over shoots" Crozet. Furthermore, Mr.
Scott said the station was required to reduce its power from 3,000 watts to 2,200 watts
because of the additional 60 feet. There is a problem of signals bouncing around and
cancelling each other out, causing multi-path problems which result in static sounds on the
radio. Mr. Scott said a solution to these problems is to locate the tower on a rise in the
center of the valley, the maximum distance from the mountains where everyone can be served
with direct signals.
Mr. Scott said Crozet does not have city-grade radio coverage, not even in the studio's
own parking lot, because of the mountains. He said if WJLT can move its facility to the
proposed site, most of the problem areas will be eliminated, lea~ing only a few that will be
caused by the new site and some areas that will have problems regardless of which site is
used. Mr. Scott said with technology progress, antennae can now be located away from the
mountain range, which causes reflected signals, cancellation, an~ multi-path. The direc-
tional antenna can be replaced with a non-directional antenna which will broadcast in all
directions. Therefore, provided a quality signal, WJLT should be able to serve approximately
30,000 citizens who are unable to clearly receive signals now.
Mr. Scott said a concern of the citizens who live in the area is that the antenna is
inappropriate to the site location. He said antennae are inappropriate to almost any site,
that is why this application is for a special use permit. Referring to road access, he said
a small vehicle can be used to check on the tower site. No heavy equipment or large vehicles
would be necessary for use on the site. Mr. Scott said the property where the tower is
proposed to be located is too rough to build houses. The applicant proposes to construct a
small building and erect a tower; the land is not very suitable for anything else. The size
of the proposed site is 2.2 acres, compared to the one acre site on which the station is
presently located. Mr. Fisher asked if the landowner who sold the applicant the present one
acre site, owns the adjacent land. Mr. Scott said yes; he owns land on one side ~of the radio
station property and Mint Springs Park borders the other side.
Mr. Scott said population around the site is comparable to other areas in the city of
Charlottesville. He said the old tower is visible from more places on Route 250 than the new
tower would be, furthermore the new tower would not be lit or painted.
Mr. Scott said the radio station has never had complaints regarding interference, either
the AM or FM station. He said the proposed tower will not operate in existing multiple tower
locations. There are no other towers within its boundary (defined in information distributed
to the Board members). It must exist in a stand-alone situation, therefore, it would not
work in a transmitter farm such as the one on Carter's Mountain. Mr. Scott said a fence
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
would be built around the tower. The fence used now is six to eight feet high, wooden, and
difficult to climb. Mr. Scott then displayed photographs showing the present radio facility
and mountains, a photograph with an overlay that showed what happens to the radio waves when
they hit into the mountain, photographs of .other kinds of antennaes; and of balloons flying
at the height of the proposed tower on the site. He said the terrain itself is part of the
antenna system. The applicant wishes to move from the present radio station site to the rise
of the proposed site in order to better serve the area.
Dr. Warren Brown was next to speak on behalf of the applicant.
with a list of his credentials (on file in the Clerk's office).
He prefaced his remarks
Dr. Brown said there has been much said and rumored about radiation exposure. The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had a pronouncement which was released by the Office
of Science and Technology, Bulletin No. 65, prepared by Robert F. Cleveland, and published in
October, 1985 (on file the the Clerk's office). This bulletin affirms the position that the
FCC uses the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) document in determining whether or
not a hazard exists in any of the electromagnetic radiation. Dr. Brown explained that
accOrding to Bulletin 65, there is no radiation hazard to residents within view of the
site or on the site itself because the power is too low. Referring to Page 37 of Bulletin
65, Dr. Brown said the distance at which compliance with the ANSI standard is achieved is ten
meters, or approximately 30 'feet. He said, therefore, no one off the tower site will be
exposed to excessive radiation. Dr. Brown said if Bulletin No. 65 shows any violation to the
criteria of the ANSI standard, it will require a special environmental impact statement to be
made, for which the proper court is the FCC.
Dr. Brown said one of the most difficult siting problems of an FM station is multi-path
distortion, which is the reflecting of signals off of terrain. Multi-path causes two signals
of approximate equal strength to distort upon arriving at the receiver. This prevents the
receiving signal to be received-clearly regardless of its strength. Dr. Brown said that is
the problem with the present tower location. He said the proposed site is the only one
located in the County that is free of multi-path and also meets the remaining criteria.
Dr. Brown said the subcarrier on the main transmission known as subsidiary communication
(SCA), is necessary to broadcast the reading program for the print-handicapped. He said SCA
is more susceptible to multi-path problems (than FM signals). SCA on the present tower site
would be so poor that it would not be effective at all, however, it would be effective at the
proposed site and can be installed.
Dr. Brown said the proposed tower would not attract lightning because unlike AM
stations, facilities for FM stations are grounded and provide a "cone" of protection for the
surrounding area.
At this point Dr. Brown offered to answer questions from Board members. Referring to
Page 37 of Bulletin 6-5, Mr. Fisher asked if the power level at ten meters is one milliwatt
per square centimeter. Dr. Brown said (at ten meters) the power level is at the level that
does not exceed the ANSI standard C-95.1-1982.
Next to speak was Mr. Nick Morgan, EXecutive Director of the Virginia Voice for the
Print Handicapped. This organization is the radio reading service network for Virginia. It
is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, and serves a 35-mile area in Richmond and comparable
areas in Harrisonburg, Roanoke, and Tidewater. The Virginia Voice for the Print Handicapped
also serves the City of Charlottesville by way of Jefferson Cable Company, however that is
not a viable method of providing this service because it is very limited. Mr. Morgan said he
is not sure even one person receives the program now.
Mr. Morgan said that Mr. Elting is a member of the Board of Directors of In Touch
Networks, which is the only radio reading service that provides by way of satellite a
nationally programmed service for use by all radio~reading services around the country. Most
radio reading services operate on the subcarrier of a public (non-commercial) radio station.
He said Mr. Elting is offering the use of his subcarrier for a radio reading service free of
charge. At this time it is impossible to use the WJLT facility because of the signal
strength. If the tower is relocated the subcarrier will be a viable means to broadcast the
radio reading service.
Mr. Morgan requested that the Board consider the reading service as one of the reasons
to approve SP-85-37. He said it would provide a vehicle for physically and visually handi-
capped people to receive the reading of newspapers, magazines, and other publications on a
daily basis.
At this point Mr. Fisher called on people in the audience opposing SP-85-37 to speak.
Mrs. Victoria Dibbern, a resident of Glenaire Subdivision, was first to speak. She said
her husband is an amateur airplane pilot. He is aware of the risks of the terrain
surrounding the site of the proposed tower. Mrs. Dibbern said the existence of the proposed
unlit tower concerns both her and her husband. She noted that the tower would be 400 feet
higher than the airport. She said pilots like her husband consider an isolated unlit tower
on a mountain to be an extreme hazard in inclement weather. They do not want the possibility
of their community of 85 houses to witness a tragic plane crash.
173
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. James D. Busi, President of the Glenaire Neighborhood Association, was next to
speak. He said Glenaire is an average neighborhood - not a privileged neighborhood. The
average property value is about $100,000, which is approximately the national average
according to the newspaper USA Today. Mr. Busi said he knows of no person living in Glenaire
who supports the proposed tower. He said they do not support it for the following reasons:
1) Glenaire is a residential neighborhood which is rural in nature. The residents selected
their property because of its rural character, beauty and environmental quality. They feel
that if the tower is constructed, the character of the neighborhood will be destroyed and it
will set precedent for further development. 2) The residents feel the tower would have a
severe negative impact on the resale value of their property. Several houses were
constructed with bay windows facing Turner's Mountain. They were designed expressly for the
view of the beauty of the mountain, not for a radio tower. 3) Three houses are currently
for sale in the neighborhood and some of them face Turner's Mountain. The tower would limit
the number of people in the real estate market who would wish to purchase one of them. The
people of the neighborhood feel this situation is an undue burden to all of the residents.
4) The residents feel the tower could be an attractive nuisance and serious hazard to
children who live in the area. Based on these reasons, Mr. Busi said the people of the
Glenaire Neighborhood Association feel the request for construction of the tower should be
denied.
Next to speak was Mr. Richard Carter, an attorney representing seven landowners whose
property adjoins or are neighbors of the tower site. He said these landowners have had
personal contact with 209 family units opposing the tower and 54 family units who have
contributed financially to fight construction of the tower. He presented a petition signed
by approximately 250 people opposing the tower.
Mr. Carter cited Page 6 of the staff report, "... the Board of Supervisors must make
positive findings regarding the criteria set forth in 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance .... "
Referring to "the tower not being of substantial detriment to adjoining properties" (on the
same page) Mr. Carter said the McCrackens, whOse property adjoins the proposed tower site,
submitted a letter from a realtor who states that the tower would substantially devaluate
their property. He said the applicant introduced a letter from a realtor stating the tower
would not be seen from adjacent property. Mr. Carter said that is wrong. The applicant put
up balloons which were visible from three sites. The realtor said the balloons could only be
seen from the south at a distance, however they were seen by property owners from the north,
also from the east by the McCrackens, from the south by the Bruces, and from the west by much
of Glenaire.
Mr. Carter said the proposed tower is different from the WCHV tower and the tower at
Hollymead, because those towers are on industrial property reserved for that purpose. He
said the 30,000 people that the applicant Said would be able to hear WJLT are not people who
cannot receive any radio reception. He said being able to hear WJLT and the proposed reading
program is a good idea, but the problem is that the proposed tower site is in the wrong
place. It is in a residential neighborhood~with 86 families within one-half mile. It does
not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carter said the request is for a special use not
permitted without special cause, and he maintains that the applicant has not shown special
cause.
Mr. Carter said one criteria listed in the staff report is that the tower would not
change the character of the district, He said a 199 foot tower with a micro relay will spoil
the area. Mr. Carter then distributed photographs of several sites within view of the
proposed tower including the McCrackens' property and Route 250, which he noted to be a
scenic highway. He said his clients had also put up balloons at the proposed site and they
were seen from Peacock Hill, Spring Hill, Locust Hill, and other areas.
Noting in the staff report (Page 7), "... The tower would be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance .... ", Mr. Carter said the intent of the Ordinance is to
conserve elements of the County's scenic beauty. Quoting the Zoning Ordinance and staff
report further, Mr. Carter read "... to treat lands which are similarly situated and environ-
mentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and
character of properties." He said that would not be done with the proposed tower.
Mr. Carter said another danger of approving the proposed tower is the setting of a
precedent regarding radio towers. He said WPED (now WJLT) has been before the Board many
times before. He said the applicant first requested an FM station to serve the public from
sun-down to sun-up. The tower was erected at Little Yellow Mountain near Mint Springs.
Later the applicant requested to add to the height of the tower to serve the public. Now the
applicant requests to move the tower to another location to serve the public. Mr. Carter
said he maintains that the reason "to serve the public" is not true. He said they are in the
business to make a profit and he has no problem with that, but if you make a bad business
deal, why intrude in a prohibited area in order to put more money in your pocket.
Regarding hazards relating to the tower, Mr. Carter said he read an article in
Business Week, dated August 19, 1985, which stated in summary that what all concerned parties
want is agreement among scientists and regulators about what is safe. Until that happens,
community unrest is certain to continue, but even wi~h 200 research reports issued over the
past two years, no definitive answers are in sight. He said if there is a question of
safety, why take the chance?
Mr. Carter said the staff recommended denial and the Planning Commission also
recommended denial by vote of 5/2. He requested that the Board also deny the petition.
Mr. Arthur E. Freedlender was next to speak. He said there is disagreement among
experts in radiofrequency radiation. He noted that the ANSI value for safety is five times
greater than that recommended by the Council on Radiation Protection as well as the
International Radiation Protection Association. Mr. Freedlender said Dr. Kayhill published a
paper regarding health physics in 1983, entitled "A Suggested Limit for Regulation of
Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation", which recommends an exposure limit ten times less
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
than
Envi ....
~¢~(regardin¢
?\~lVliterat~
that proposed by ANSI. Mr. Freedlender read the summary of a publication by the
Environmental Protection Agency, which basically stated that serious methodological problems
g biological effects of radiofr~ncv radiation exposure) in human studies
ure make results equivocal, b~8~ ~s~rmOuntable. Presently data on human beings
exposed to radiofrequency radiation
are not?~adequat~in determining exposure limits for the
general population. Mr. Freedlender said a~'~.a scientis~ he is concerned and does not know
what the answer is. ~'~ oo~ ~~ ~~
Next to speak was Mr. Bill Perkins, a resident of Glenaire. Mr. Perkins said he is a
graduate electrical engineer and has more than eleven years of experience in the manufacture
of FM transmitting and receiving equipment which operates on a similar frequency band to the
FM transmissions that are being discussed tonight. He has been a licensed amateur radio
operator for approximately thirty years, holding the highest grade of license issucd by the
FCC~from a nonccnvcrsicn&l point of view. Mr. Perkins said he would like to take issue with
c~er~ain aspec~f the presentation by Mr. Elting's technical specialists.
Mr. Perkins said there are generally three ways to increase signal strength: 1)
increase transmission power, 2) higher antenna height, and 3) use some type of directional
antenna ray. Of the three, he said a directional antenna would probably accomplish the same
end and be less expensive than what the applicant proposes. Being located against the Afton
Mountain range, use of a directional antenna ray with a reflector that allows all of the
energy to be directed to the east would substantially increase signal strength in receiving
areas. Mr. Perkins said this would also help eliminate multi-path problems. He explained
that FM transmissions have "capture effect", which means whenever one signal is stronger than
another, the FM receiver actually captures the stronger signal, therefore the listener does
not experience the multi-pathing characteristic. Mr. Perkins said if an antenna is installed
that has a reflector to strengthen the signal from the major lobe to the antenna over the
Charlottesville and Crozet area, any reflection from mountains or other outlying obstacles
will not effect the signal.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that both the National Radio Observatory and the Naval Research
Facility are located in West Virginia. These two facilities might permit WJLT to raise its
power limit using a directional antenna, which would cancel out all transmissions toward the
west in the area of those installations. This would also increase the power load and further
strengthen the signal to the east.
Mr. Perkins said the subtransmitter for the reading program can easily be installed in
the existing transmitter and will operate effectively. Technically he sees no reason that
the signal strength would be different for that subcarrier.
Mr. Perkins said one type of signal interference of concern to people in the Turner
Mountain area that can occur with the applicant's proposed antenna is the "swamping" or
over-loading of the front end of a receiver by extremely heavy signal strengths.
Regarding radiation hazard, Mr. Perkins said most of the studies have been initiated
within the last five years. Enough time has not been allowed to determine the long-range
effects of radiofrequency radiation on people.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how a directional antenna would eliminate the problem of the
mountain in front of the present antenna as illustrated previously by the applicant.
Mr. Perkins said if the signal strength is increased, the people on the other side of
the mountain will receive the signal. The mountain will absorb some of the signal, but will
not totally reflect it.
Dr. Chave McCracken was listed as next to speak, however he said he had nothing to say
about the proposed tower that had not already been said.
Mrs. W. Chave McCracken said the people who oppose the proposed tower are almost 400
strong with a wide geographical range. They are diverse and democratically mixed. They care
about their community and its ecology and they believe in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. McCracken said they are willing to stand up and be counted and stand by their
convictions.
Dr. Robert M. Blizzard was next to speak. He said he speaks as a constituent of
Albemarle County, a neighbor, a physician who has worked with radiation and is concerned
about health implications if the tower is built, an environmentalist, and as one who believes
that the County government has been designed so a logical decision can be made.
Dr. Blizzard said both the Planning Commission and County staff have reviewed this
request and recommended that it is not a good plan. This recommendation is based on studies
of health, environment, and precedent issues.
Dr. Blizzard said on May 30, 1985, he wrote a letter to Mr. Donnelly, Director of
Planning and Community Development, registering his opposition to the proposed tower until he
is convinced that it will not be a health hazard or visual blight to the community. He is
concerned that nonionizing radiation may be transmitted as far as his home, approximately
2,000 feet from the proposed tower site, as well as other homes within a one-half mile
radius. On October 17, 1985, Dr. Blizzard wrote a follow-up letter to Mr. Donnelly stating
that the data he obtained failed to ascertain the safety of the nonionizing radiation that
would be generated from the proposed tower. He concluded that no one has adequate data
proving that people living in the immediate proximity of the proposed tower would not be
jeopardized.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Dr. Blizzard said Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the proposed use
at the location selected will not endanger the health and safety of workers or residents in
the community and will not be detrimental to neighboring property. He said this requires
positive findings that these effects will not occur, as opposed to demonstration that they
will occur. He said the burden of demonstration is the responsibility of the applicant.
Dr. Blizzard said he is in agreement with Citizens for Albemarle which on June 23, 1985,
adopted a resolution which he read as follows:
"In view of the fact that our organization was the one which petitioned for
including a Scenic Highways provision in the original Comprehensive Plan, we
feel obligated to remind you that this was done with the signatures and
support of more than 90 percent of the resident property owners along Route
250 West at that time.
They voluntarily accepted restrictions--limiting the size of highway signs,
screening parking lots with shrubbery, setting back new buildings off the
highway--and other expedients for preserving the rural beauty of the
historic landscape. All our efforts have resulted in having parts of three
county roads--one of them being Route 250 West--accepted into Virginia~s
Scenic Byways loop, to the considerable enhancement of the local travel
industry and of adjacent property values.
Therefore, with these considertions in mind, we request you to deny permis-
sion for any structure whose intrusively commercial presence would be
inappropriate beside a Scenic Highway. The proposed tower would be doubly
inappropriate, as it would be tall enough to overlook also a Scenic River."
Dr. Blizzard said he is writing to Mr. Bowman of the Piedmont. Environmental Council,
urging that the Council deny the application for the radio tower until the County has time to
create an overlay district~ for these types of towers, such as the districts that exist for
airports.
As a neighbor of the proposed tower, Dr. Blizzard said the residents in that area are
not wealthy people as implied by the applicant. He read a portion of a letter of opposition
to the proposed tower from Mr. William Battle to Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman of the Planning
Commission, stating that Mr. Battle is a native resident of Albemarle County and he believes
that granting this special use permit would be a serious mistake.
In summary, Dr. Blizzard said the Planning Commission has made a recommendation on the
basis of intensive studies of environment, health and need, and it seems inappropriate to
violate the County's system by supporting this special use permit.
Ms. Mary Jane Divine was next to speak. She said she lives off the lane leading to the
proposed tower site, which to her Understanding might have to be enlarged in order to
construct the tower. This would have a direct effect on her property. Ms. Divine said
although it is not planned to paint or light the proposed tower, that matter is beyond the
applicant's control because the federal regulations may be changed at any time. She is also
concerned about the tower collapsing while it is under construction. Regarding exposure to
radiofrequency radiation, scientists do not know the status of this issue. Ms. Divine said
it seems to her that the closer you live to the tower the more you think there is likely to
be hazardous radiation, and the farther away you live from the tower, the less likely you
think there may be a hazard.
Next to speak was Ms. Helen C. Milius of Citizens for Albemarle. She said she is
present to read the resolution adopted by that organization that has already been read by Dr.
Blizzard. She said four members of Citizens for Albemarle having ecological interests
attended the Planning Commission meeting at which this matter was discussed and none of them
felt the arrangements for the tower were necessary, but that other alternatives are possible.
Ms. Milius said the existing tower seems like "toothpicks" as seen from Route 250 West in
comparison to the proposed tower. The tower to be erected on Turner's Mountain would be
eighty percent as tall above Route 250 West as the Washington Monument is above the Tidal
Basin.
Mr. David J. Gibson was next to speak. He believes there is no evidence to guide the
Board to go against the Planning Commission and staff report recommendation. Something
should be presented to indicate that Charlottesville and Albemarle County will benefit from
permission to erect a radio tower on Turner's Mountain. Mr. Gibson said he has heard nothing
at the meeting tonight to support the request other than the reading program for the
handicapped, which he said has no guarantee to continue if the radio station was sold at some
time in the future.
Next to speak was Mr. Edgar McVoy, a resident of Glenaire. Mr. McVoy said the view of
the proposed radio tower would be on the horizon at his front door. He purchased his
property approximately eight months ago, unaware of any probability that the tower would be
there. Mr. McVoy said if he had known about the tower he might not have purchased the
property.
176
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Richard T. Selden was next to speak. Mr. Selden said it seems to him that in a
mountainous area such as Albemarle County, there are bound to be areas of poor FM radio
reception. Referring to a map presented by the applicant indicating areas of poor reception
marked in red, he said an important question would be, how many people live in the areas that
are adversely effected. He noted that one red area is on the east side of Turner's Mountain
where nobody lives. Mr. Selden said he consistently keeps his automobile radio tuned to 102
FM and he believes the station has a strong signal. He has received its broadcast in areas
north of Charlottesville, although there is interference in the vicinity of the University of
Virginia as well as other areas. He believes WJLT has a wide coverage area.
At this point, Mr. Fisher allowed the applicant, Mr. Elting, opportunity for rebuttal of
statements made by those opposing SP-85-37.
Mr. Scott addressed the concerns of those people opposing the request on behalf of the
applicant. Regarding collapse of the tower, he said there is an extreme unlikelihood that
the tower would collapse onto adjacent property. Referring to Mr. Selden receiving broadcast
of 102 FM north of Charlottesville, he said there is a 102.3 FM station that broadcasts from
Washington D. C., which might have been what he was receiving.
Mr. Scott said with all due respect, he believes Mr. Perkins is incorrect regarding
several of his opinions of how the present radio facility could be improved. He said WJLT
already has a directional antenna, as Mr. Perkins suggested. He agreed that a subcarrier
transmitter can be installed on the existing tower, however due to the terrain, problems
occur when the signal leaves the site. Regarding radiation concerns, Mr. Scott said he
wonders how many people-own microwave ovens or use them where they are employed.
Next to speak was Mr. Joseph Beail, WJLT Station Manager. He said a survey had been
conducted involving people who live in the area surrounding the existing tower. Forty-five
residents in the Crozet Park area were interviewed. He said 100 percent of the people said
they do not find the existing tower objectional; 100 percent said as familiar as they are
with the tower, they would not object to its construction today; and 100 percent said they
are not constantly aware of the proximity of the tower. Mr. Beail said many of the people
had to be shown the tower. Of the forty interviewees, twenty have bought their homes since
the tower was erected fifteen years ago. He said none of these people felt the property
value has been lowered.
Dr. Brown said the FCC reviewed all other probable standards that exist (for radio-
frequency radiation) with extensive investigation, and set them aside. He said FM "capture
effect" (referring.to Mr. Perkins explanation of same) with regard to stereo signals is
different from that of monaural signals, so it does not apply. Further, Dr. Brown said the
multi-path signals are sensitive to as low as one-tenth of the main signal level.
Mr. George-Baitey was next to speak. Mr. Bailey referred to the Virginia General
Assembly and land use regarding the rights of owners private property. He believes he has
complied with the ordinance. In comparing the proposed site-at Turner's Mountain with the
five tower sites at Route 29 North, he said approximately 900 people live within one-half
mile of the towers at Route 29 North, including Hollymead Subdivision. Mr. Bailey noted
three people he spoke to who live near the 50,000 watt station east of Charlottesville
(unidentified), near Ashcroft Subdivision, and heard only one complaint which was in regard
to the lighting. He also talked to the people who live near the WPED tower who only
complained about the lighting. They have no problem with interference. Mr. Bailey said he
leaves his home'to go to work before daylight and does not return until after dark. He said
WPED is the only radio station he can receive after dark.
Mr. John Zunka, counsel for the applicant, was next to speak. He said the Board has the
classic job of balancing. Mr. Zunka believes the concerns of the citizens have been
answered. A number of facts have been made by expert testimony. The FAA has approved the
proposed tower site without lights or paint; a letter from a realtor, Mr. Gordon Wheeler,
advises that there is no effect on property values in the area; there is no radio signal
interference; the tower is safely designed and will fall within its guy wires; the tower will
serve as a lightning rod; the WPED engineer has demonstrated that Turner's Mountain is the
only available site; there is no radiation involved according to Dr. Brown and the FCC.
Mr. Zunka said he does not fault the residents of Turner'.s Mountain for not wanting a
tower there. That is an interest the Board will have to consider. The other is the
competing interest of Albemarle County residents. Referring to the map that was part of the
applicant's presentation, he reiterated that the red trouble areas will be eliminated and
30,000 people will have radio reception if the request is approved. For many of those people
that station will be their only radio reception after dark. He also mentioned the 1,800
print handicapped people who cannot be serviced by the reading program with WPED in its
present location. If the tower site is moved, they will have a service that is not now
existent in Albemarle County.
Mr. Zunka said he trusts the Board will make a proper decision in balancing community
needs versus the neighborhood interest.
Mr. Fisher then reopened the floor to the opposition for rebuttal.
Ms. Prue Thorner who lives approximately one-half mile from the proposed tower site on
Route 676, said she has radio reception after dark on an ordinary radio from station WWWV (in
Charlottesville) and also from the city of Staunton. She said residents hope that the Board
will uphold the Comprehensive Plan and not permit chaos to take place in development in this
part of Albemarle County.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
177
Next to speak was Mr. John Booker, a landowner with property adjoining the proposed
tower site. Mr. Booker said he is concerned about the basic disruption of the beauty of the
area where he lives. He is concerned about the safety and comfort of the tenants reSiding in
his present home. Mr. Booker said he is also concerned that the private road to the tower
site will be used for commercial purposes.
Mrs. Ernest Bruce was next to speak. Mrs. Bruce said she and her husband bought their
property on Turner's Mountain twenty-one years ago and built their home there in 1970. She
and her husband are opposed to the radio tower. Her house is twenty-five feet from the road
leading to the tower site, which is approximately 300 feet from her front door. Mrs. Bruce
said the area is a beautiful home site for the people who live there. They bought their
property knowing the road was there, but never thought a tower would be located in the area.
Dr. Walter Hauser was next to speak. Dr. Hauser said he and his wife live within the
one-half mile radius of the tower. Referring to the statement of the engineer who said that
the 2.2 acre tower site is not suitable for anything else, he said it is suitable for the
trees that are now there. Dr. Hauser said accordingly, the residents of the one-half mile
radius and beyond urge the Board to deny this special use application.
Mr. Bill Perkins rose to speak again. Referring to technical issues that were discussed
previously, he said there are several types of directional antennae. .An antenna with more
gain, therefore forcing more signal in a particular direction. The existing antenna can be
improved to gain that effect. Mr. Perkins maintained that capture effect would work in this
particular instance. He said other locations with existing antennae that have not been
mentioned are Carter's Mountain, Heard's Mountain, and Bear Den Mountain. Mr. Perkins said
it has been suggested that these kinds of locations could be designated for tower sites.
Mr. Perkins said the subcarrier for the reading impaired program can be installed on the
existing antenna and transmitter with additional signal strength made possible by an improved
antenna ray.
At this point Mr. Fisher asked the people to stand who are in favor of the application,
and in turn asked those people opposing the application to stand also. Mr. Fisher then
closed the public hearing and called for a brief recess of the meeting at 10:47 p.m.
Mr. Fisher reconvened the meeting back to order at 10:52 p.m.
Mr. Fisher said according to economics regarding similar matters, some economists say if
a tower like the WJLT tower is truly a benefit to the public, that public should'be willing
to pay to compensate the people who are damaged by it. If this were a market case, the
decision would be made that way. In this case the radio station's existence has a small
benefit that is free to everybody who is there. Some people will value it more than others,
but the costs to the people living close to the tower are real. Some people are threatened
by imagined or perceived damages and that is why the Board is here to mediate. Mr. Fisher
said it is unfortunate that there is not a good way to resolve this case where everybody
wins.
Mr. Fisher said he is a physicist. He has worked with receivers but has little
experience with transmitters and he does not proclaim to be an expert. There are questions
of interference, biological damage to living tissue, not only people, but also animals and
perhaps vegetation. He said the issue in his mind however, is that the tower site is too
small. It does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirement for tower height clearance.
That requirement is intended to assure adjacent property owners that they can enjoy their
property without threat of "having the sky fall". It is a protection for adjacent neighbors
that the parcel of land should be large enough for the tower to fall straight in any
direction without falling on any other property.
Mr. Fisher noted that the road leading to the tower site is a small private road with no
real maintenance agreement that he is aware of. He pointed out the visual problems of the
tower as brought to the Board's attention by the staff and Planning Commission. He is
convinced that this is the wrong property on which to erect a tower. Mr. Fisher said he does
not wish to approve an application that will have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
for variances. He believes that in this sort of zoning case, if compliance with zoning laws
is attempted by cramming something onto a marginal property, it will only make matters worse.
The tower may be required to be taller, have lights put on it, or to have other requirements.
Mr. Fisher said the history of this station's ability to predict what will happen when
it builds a tower is not very good. He said he does not know how many tower sites the Board
should approve before the applicant finds the right location. Mr. Fisher said he believes
this situation has gone far enough; he does not believe this is the right location for the
tower, and he cannot support the application.
Mr. Lindstrom said his balancing is that the impact upon the people within the one-half
radius is greater than can be justified by the benefit to the people who are not now able to
receive reception. For these reasons, he cannot support the application.
Mr. Henley said the existing tower is in his district and perhaps the only good thing
that can happen is that it will be taken down if the proposed tower is approved. He said he
has a problem with the setback requirements. He did not know until tonight that the appli-
cation would have to go to the BZA, It was not known until this week that the application
did not meet this requirement.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Horne said that Mr. Tompkins, Zoning Administrator, has determined that the guy
wires and anchors are part of the tower structure, therefore, they are closer than the normal
yard requirements for that district. Given that determination, the BZA would have to grant a
variance as if the tower were a normal structure. Mr. Henley asked if the applicant would
normally go to the BZA before it goes before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said
normally the Board of Supervisors does not approve anything that requires a variance. A
request of this nature seldom occurs and when it does, sometimes the BZA does not want to act
until they know whether or not the Board will approve the zoning.
Mr. Horne said Mr. Tompkins made the ruling regarding the tower structure after the
application had been resubmitted to staff for restructuring. Staff felt that halting the
application process in order to go before the BZA for a variance and then beginning the
public hearing procedure again would be a disservice to the public.
Mr. Elting said it is possible to meet the requirements without a variance by moving the
tower to the center of the lot. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne to comment regarding the tower
being moved so that no variance will be required. Mr. Horne said without seeing a plan for
exactly how that can be accomplished, it is difficult for him to say whether that can be
done. There are two separate issues - the normal yard regulations that deal with the guy
wires in this case, and exceptions to the height regulations. He does not see how the tower
could be moved to meet the tower height yard regulation. Under the ordinance that would
require a waiver by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Way said he shares the concern regarding the size of the proposed lot. He said if
approved he believes it should have lighting. He believes if the history of the tower
continues to be consistent, there will be a request in the future to increase its size. Mr.
Way said he realizes there are existing towers with large residential areas surrounding them
but in most cases those houses were built after the tower was there. Also, due to their
proximity to the urban area, those towers are not that much of a faCtor.
Mr. Way recalled that the Board overruled the Planning Commission regarding a mobile
home, which he supported because he feels that issue was providing a home for someone. He
would not object to having a mobile home next door to him, but he would object to a tower
because he feels it is an intrusion in a residential area. For those reasons, he cannot
support this application.
Mrs. Cooke said she attended the Planning Commission meeting regarding this matter. She
believes it is admirable of the radio station to propose to better serve the community and
people who are reading impaired. She said however, the tower site is in a residential area
and the Board is being asked to approve something that conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan.
It is not fair to people who have "put their roots down" depending on their representatives
to adhere to the policies they have made. She would like to see the radio station find a
home for their tower. However, after listening to the arguments presented, 'she does not feel
this is the proper place to locate the tower,. Mrs. Cooke said she feels she must deny the
application her support.
Mr. Bowie said he has read the material regarding the application, walked over the area
of the proposed tower site and other possible sites, went to the various subdivisions, drove
the roads in the area, and he cannot see any problem with the location. Mr. Blizzard sent
him a letter requesting that he vote as if the tower was going to be located near his own
home. Mr. Bowie said he lives near a 300 foot painted tower and it is not an issue to him.
Mr. Bowie said it is not a mandate that the Planning Commission and staff be in
agreement. The final decision is up the the Board of Supervisors; that is why the Board is
here.
Mr. Henley said he has a problem approving something that does not meet zoning
requirements. He would probably be willing to support the application if there was not so
much opposition. He is willing to postpone voting on it, but he cannot support it as
presented tonight.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to deny SP-85-37.
and carried by the following recorded vote:
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way,
None.
Item No. 8. SP-85-76. Branchlands Land Trust 1 and 2. To allow for congregate care
housing for the elderly at Banchlands Retirement Village on about four acres of a 30.412 acre
parcel zoned PUD. Property located within Branchlands Village on west side 'of Branchlands
Drive. Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 03-4. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on November 19 and November 26, 1985.)
Mr. Horne commented on the following staff report:
Request:
Congregate care facility for the elderly (20.3.2.3).
Acreaqe:
Approximately four acres.
Zoninq:
PUD (Residential).
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, parcel
4 (part), is located within Branchlands PUD on the west side of Branchlands
Drive.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
178
Character of the Area:
This site, a portion of Area C in Branchlands PUD, is located in an area of
steep terrain and floodplain. Construction of the proposed 24,000 square
foot building area, parking, and other improvements will require detailed
engineering and careful execution.
Staff Comment:
Under previous review of Branchlands PUD, traffic generation was a principle
concern in regard to proposed land use changes. The proposed congregate
ca~e facility would consist of 120 one-bed units, which would compare
favorably to traffic generation figures accepted by the County at that time
(staff has counted these 120 units as part of the 312 maximum units for
Area C.)
Staff would take this opportunity to comment on general aspects of
development:
As proposed, development of the site would require intrusion into the
open space of the stream corridor, filling in the floodplain, and
realignment of the stream into a concrete channel. Section 4.7.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance requires that open space "shall be maintained in a
natural state and shall not be developed with any man-made feature"
unless otherwise specifically approved by the Planning Commission.
Among uses which may be permitted in open space areas are "stormwater
detention and floOd control devices." Currently, no agreement has been
reached between the applicant and the County Engineer as to the design
of the drainage facility. This project may require flood easement on
property of others. Staff will recommend as a condition of this
special use permit that these issues be resolved prior to site plan
presentation to the Planning Commission.
Conditions of Branchlands PUD state that "improvements will be required
in accordance with conditions contained herein in the order in which
development occurs. Improvements required shall not be deferred to a
future phase of development." More specifically Condition C.2 requires
that "the extension of Greenbrier Drive shall be constructed to
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards and
dedicated for acceptance into the State Highway System, and Access Road
2 from Route 29 North to Area C shall be constructed to private road
standards at the time of development of Areas C and/or D."
To date, the County has held bond for the construction of Access Road
2, however, construction of the Road will be required with development
of the congregate care facility, which would bring final approvals in
Areas C & D to 194 units. Currently, bikeways are also bonded through
Areas C & D. At various-times, one or more owners in Branchlands have
discussed various amendments including deletion of the bikeway and
Access Road 2, however, no amendments have been processed to date.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Congregate care facility limited to 120, one-bed units;
Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26/SP-80-63;
Resolution of stormwater drainage facilities and acquisition of flood
easements (if any) prior to scheduling of site plan for Planning
Commission review.
Mr. Horne pointed out that the Staff Comments and Condition No. 1 in the staff report
were corrected at the Planning Commission level, as follows: 1) The 120, one-bed units were
determined upon discussion with the applicant to be 120 units. 2) Regarding original
conditions placed on the Branchlands PUD and related matters forthcoming at the preliminary
site plan review, there will be extensive improvements or alterations to the floodplain and
stream in the area. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that this issue be resolved
prior to the site plan appearing before the Planning Commission because they are complex and
expensive issues. Mr. Horne said there are also a number of road improvements required as
conditions for the PUD that would come into effect in the development of this section,
primarily the building of a second access road that would run through the existing front area
of the PUD and connect an interior roadway. Mr. Horne said staff continues to hold discus-
sions with Mr. Langman and the other participants of the PUD about changing the plan. Some
changes may be proposed regarding the conditions of the PUD which could affect the physical
improvements when the PUD is built.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval in accordance
with staff's recommendations, with the only change being in Condition No. 1, amending it to
read "120 units".
Mr. Fisher asked if there is a question as to egress and ingress of traffic. Mr. Horne
said no; there is a connection to the existing Branchlands Village area on Branchlands Drive
which is off of Greenbrier Drive. However, as a part of the conditions to the PUD, due to
some limitations on the design of Greenbrier Drive and other traffic considerations governing
the entire PUD, there is a condition placed on Section C of the PUD which includes this area.
When it is developed, a second access road is to be built to connect with an internal
Branchland$ through-road that ~would ultimately go through Squire Hills and connect with Rio
Road. The purposes of that condition are to relieve Greenbrier Drive of traffic pressure and
to improve access to the congregate care retirement village area.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Horne explained the site plan on a map, showing its relationship to Route 29, the
existing retirement village, the Manor House, church, and floodplain which is proposed to
have a concrete channel for a stream bed. He then pointed out the location of the congregate
care facility, its primary access, parking area, site for a rectangular building, floodplain
area proposed for improvements for a courtyard and areas for walking and passive recreation.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne to define "congregate care center". Mr. Horne said it is a
mode for caring for elderly people that does not provide the immediate high intensity care of
a nursing home, but rather apartment units with services and low-level care to help maintain
their health and life-style.
Mr. Fisher asked if the through north-south road will be improved or hindered by this
development. Mr. Horne said this road will not be directly affected by the congregate care
facility, but will be effected by further development in this plan. The primary road
improvement directly effecting the through-road is the second access road which would go from
that through road to Route 29 North. This is in some ways a replacement to the existing
Branchlands Church road. Mr. Fisher advised that nothing should be done that will intrude on
the north-south road. Mr. Horne said the development of the PUD will not cause or hinder
development on that through-road. Mr. Fisher asked who will build the road. Mr. Horne said
that will be discussed with the developer in the near future. The road is largely related to
development of the commercial front phases. Mr. Fisher suggested that each area as it is
developed contribute to the construction of the road. Mr. Horne said this would be the last
%section to be developed; it will not be directly tied to any portion of the through road.
Mr. Henley asked who owns the land through which the access will pass. Mr. Ronald
Langman, Jr., Project Manager for Branchlands Corporation, said he owns the easements to
Route 29 along'the road. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Langman if he plans to pay for construction of
the access road. Mr. Langman indicated he would unless he can get it removed from the PUD.
Mr. Fisher said he would not support doing away with any of the roads. At this point, Mr.
Fisher opened the public hearing.
Mr. Langman said congregate care is preventive versus crisis care. He said congregate
care puts elderly people on a health maintenance program and gives them the tools necessary
to keep themselves healthier longer. There will be 24-hour service at the facility in case a
resident has a health problem. The final phase of the building will have a recuperative care
center. Mr. Langman said it is not his intention to build a nursing home. He believes there
are better ways to 'deal with the problems of-aging people such as good nutrition, physical
therapy, and social interaction.
Mr. Langman said the Branchlands Retirement Village consists of about 26 acres of the
100 acres of the PUD. H~ii~d~ii~ his responsibility to have the bike path built to Fashion
Square Shopping Center from a connection that supposedly will be made by the City. Mr.
Langman said he carries a bond with the County for $87,000 to build the secondary access road
to private road standards. His position regarding this road is that it may be necessary in
the future, however this building will not cause the road to be necessary according to
vehicle trips per day. An emergency access haS been provided, which is a dual set of
sidewalks at the gate for fire trucks.
Mr. Fisher asked where Mr. Langman is planning to build a private road. Mr. Langman
said acCording to the conditions of the PUD plan, he is required to build a secondary access
road when his property is developed. At the time of the development of Section E, which is
owned by Dr. Hurt, that road must be upgraded to a public road and the easement will revert
to Dr. Hurt. Dr. Hurt is required to build the whole collector system within the
development, which is tied to Sections F, E, and A.
Mr. Fisher asked how many people can live in a unit of the congregate care facility.
Mr. Langman said only one normally, mostly women (referring to widows). There will be a few
couples living there. The total population of the units will fluctuate from 100 to 140,
depending on vacancies. Mr. Fisher asked how many staff members would be present. Mr.
Langman said the ratio of staff to residents would be one to four, or one to three and
one-half, which is in keeping with the national average.
Mrs. Cooke said according to Mr. Langman's explanation, her understanding of a one-bed
unit is that it is an efficiency apartment with one bedroom, living area and kitchen where
people can live somewhat independently. This clarifies her concept that congregate care is a
type of nursing home.
With no one else in the audience wishing to speak regarding the application, Mr. Fisher
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to ask again What are the conditions that the PUD must
comply with before construction can begin. Mr. Horne said currently it is the construction
of the secondary access road to private road standards. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the bond is
already posted to cover that road and it is staff's opinion that the amount of the bond is
sufficient. Mr. Horne agreed. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that is the only condition. Mr. Horne
said a bike path must also be built unless that condition changes.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion for approval of SP-85,76 with conditions recommended by the
staff and Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
181
The conditions of approval are set out below:
Congregate care facility limited to 120 units;
Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26/SP-80-63;
ReSolution of stormwater drainage facilities and acquisition of flood
easements (if any) prior to scheduling of site plan for Planning
Commission review.
Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of Minutes: September 12, 1985.
Mrs. Cooke said she has read Agenda Items 10a through 20 of the Board meeting of
September 12, 1985. She offered motion to accept those minutes as read. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments. No nominations for appointments were made.
Agenda Item No. 11. Adoption of Health Care Group Insurance Plan.
Mr. Agnor referred to two memorandums he had sent the Board regarding the health
insurance plan, as follow:
DATE: November 27, 1985
RE: Health Insurance Plan
Meetings with employees explaining the proposed KeyCare health insurance
plan have been completed. The response from general government employees
has been positive in their recognition that cost containment measures are
common in health insurance groups, and that such measures are essential in
the County's health plan to keep the plan viable and affordable. There was
no negative reaction to the proposal to convert from the current 7510 plan
to the KeyCare plan, and to continue with the current mental health
coverage.
The school division is considering a recommended change in the contract year
from October 1 to July 1 to match the contract to'a fiscal year cycle.
Blue Cross has offered several pricing options for the~period January 1,
1986 through June 30, 1986, which will change the current rates, as
indicated:
OPTION
RATE CHANGE
Continue the current 7510 plan with 30 day
inpatient and $2000 outpatient psychiatric
benefits.
5.3%
Continue the current 7510 plan with 70 day
inpatient and $3500 outpatient psychiatric
benefits.
+ 10.0%
Convert to the KeyCare plan with 30 day
inpatient and $2000 outpatient psychiatric
benefits.
- 5.0%
e
Convert to the KeyCare plan with 70 day
inpatient and $3500 outpatient psychiatric
benefits.
Discussion of these options is planned for the joint meeting with the School
Board on December 4."
DATE: December 3, 1986
RE:
Health Insurance Plan Rates
The following are the rates for the health insurance plan which require your
approval:
ae
Current monthly rates on twelve month payment effective October 1, 1985
for 7510 plan with 30 day inpatient and $2000 outpatient psychiatric
benefit:
Subscriber
Subscriber w/Minor
Subscriber w/Family
County Employee
Rate Pays Pays
$ 57.36 $57.36 $ 0
80.38 57.36 23.02
161.88 57.36 104.52
Total annual cost of County payment per subscriber = $688.32
Total budgeted in FY 85-86 = 670.00
Difference $ 18.32 or 2.7%
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Be
(1)
Option 1 to continue the current 7510 plan with 30 day inpatient
and $2000 outpatient psychiatric benefit.
(2)
Option 2 to continue the current 7510 plan with 70 day inpatient
and $3500 outpatient psychiatric benefit.
(3)
Option 3 to convert to the KeyCare plan with 30 day inpatient and
$2000 outpatient psychiatric benefit.
(4)
Option 4 to convert to the KeyCare plan with 70 day inpatient and
$3500 outpatient psychiatric benefit.
Subscriber
Subscriber w/Minor
Subscriber w/Family
Current Option Option Option Option
Plan 91 ~2 93 #4
$ 57.36 $ 60.39 $ 63.64 $ 54.35 $ 57.28
80.38 84.63 89.16 76.17 80.24
161.88 170~43 179.56 153.39 161.60
Percentage Increase (Decrease)
over Current Plan
+ 5.3% +10.0% - 5.0% 0
Mr. Way asked if it is essential that the Board act on this matter tonight. Mr. Agnor
said no, however it was scheduled for the meeting tonight because the County's payroll system
has to close early in December so the school system employees can be paid before the
Christmas holidays, which makes the payroll deadline this Friday, December 6. Action can be
deferred for one week, the payroll deadline can be made flexible if necessary. He went on to
explain~that these rates will effect payroll deductions for coverage of families and minors
for the month of December in order that the rates will be in effect by January, 1986. Mr.
Fisher noted that the School Board will review this matter at its meeting on Monday,
DeCember 9. A decision made by the Board tonight might provide some guidance for the School
Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to act tonight.
Mrs. Martha Wood, President of the Albemarle Education Association (AEA), asked to make
a statement. She urged the Board not to adopt the KeyCare plan as currently known. M~mbers
of the AEA she has spoken to are concerned that the University of Virginia Hospital and
doctors who serve that hospital are not under written contract at this time. Although the
AEA has been told that they will sign at any moment, it has still not occurred. A large
number of AEA members use that hospital and its services and facilities. They feel that
KeyCare will increase their expenses, particularly if they continue to use the University of
Virginia Hospital, and it is not a part of the KeyCare program. Meetings held to explain the
Keycare program were not well attended because they were scheduled at difficult times for
many employees. One meeting was held on the day that grades were to be entered into the
computer, which created problems. People are concerned about further decreases in benefits.
Mrs. Wood said the AEA calls on the Board to look closely at the 7510 plan with an eye toward
maintaining that program until the end of this fiscal year. The AEA members feel that a
decision regarding the KeyCare program should be postponed until other alternatives can be
considered, more people can be adequately informed about the provisions, and the University
of Virginia Hospital and its doctors have signed a contract. The teachers have indicated
that the KeyCare program is totally unacceptable to them if the University of Virginia
Hospital is not in that program. The AEA members would like to see the expanded benefits
that have been suggested in one of the options before the Board rather than taking more cuts
in benefits. They urge the Board not to adopt the KeyCare program with thirty days inpatient
and the $2,000 outpatient provisions.
Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Wood (not as a representative of the AEA) if she would prefer to
pay some portion of the difference in costs herself as a payroll deduction. Mrs. Wood said
yes. Mr. Fisher said that is what he has begun to hear. Mrs. Wood said she believes others
would agree with her.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is in favor of the concept of the KeyCare program and believes it
is a responsible way to deal with problems in health care coverage. He said his support of
the program will not be contingent upon the University of Virginia Hospital contracting with
KeyCare because he believes many people will not insist on using that hospital. Mr.
Lindstrom said he is concerned about employees having rules changed in the "middle of a
stream". He does not want to suggest deferring action in order to wait for the University of
Virginia Hospital to contract with the KeyCare program.
Mr. Lindstrom said he supports contracting with the KeyCare program with 70 day
inpatient coverage and $3,500 outpatient psychiatric care. He said he is also willing to
postpone Board action until this fiscal year is over.
Mr. Bowie said he is prepared to support the KeyCare plan starting now, particularly in
light of the County Executive's memorandum. He is concerned about making a complete
adjustment at this time, but is afraid that if higher prices continue to be paid to the
University of Virginia Hospital, there will be less incentive to come in line with the
KeyCare program. Mr. Bowie said he supports converting to the KeyCare program now. He would
like to hear comments on psychiatric care.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the impact on employees if the County converts
to KeyCare now, and for that reason he is willing to defer the matter. He believes the
Board's decision will influence the decision of the University of Virginia Hospital; if the
County does not contract for KeyCare, the University of Virginia Hospital will not.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night .Meeting)
(Page 24)
183
Mr. Agnor explained that the whole principle of the KeyCare program is the "preferred
provider". If an individual goes to the Martha Jefferson Hospital for hospitalization, it
has contracted with Blue Cross to provide services at a discount below the usual and
customary charges. If .the Martha Jefferson cannot provide the needed service, then that
individual may go to the University of Virginia Hospital and the KeyCare plan will pay for
the services; University of Virginia Hospital services are not lost. The individual must
choose between the two hospitals; that is what preferred provider means.
Mrs. Henley said of the four options listed in Mr. Agnor's memorandum dated November 27,
he believes Option No. 3, contracting for KeyCare with thirty days inpatient coverage and
$2,000 outpatient psychiatric care, is preferable. If the Board opts for more coverage
through this fiscal year, he supports Option No. 4, seventy days inpatient coverage with
$3,500 psychiatric care, then convert to Option No. 3.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned because Mrs. Wood said many teachers use the University
of Virginia Hospital, which means their personal physicians are there. In order for them to
take advantage of the KeyCare program, they would have to change physicians. She would not
want to do that, especially after having years of care with one doctor. She believes this is
something the Board should seriously consider.
Mr. Agnor said they would not have to change doctors. However, if the doctor is not a
KeyCare participant, Blue Cross would pay him the KeyCare rate, and the patient would pay the
additional costs. Mrs. Cooke said that is not what she understood to have been said. Mr.
Angor explained further that if a person elects to go to the University of Virginia Hospital,
KeyCare will pay that hospital only the amount they would pay a KeyCare facility; the patient
would pay the difference. If a person elects to go to the University of Virginia Hospital
for a service that is not provided by the Martha Jefferson Hospital, Blue Cross will pay
whatever the usual and customary fee is for that service with no discount or limitations; the
patient probably would not pay anything.
Mr~ Lindstrom said he feels the real consideration is that the patient must pay the
difference which would have been covered under the 7510 plan. Mrs. Cooke agreed. She said
that it reduces benefits of the the employees treated at the University of Virginia Hospital
as opposed to those who already go to the Martha Jefferson Hospital.
Mr. Fisher asked about physicians who have contracted with KeyCare separately from a
hospital. Mr. Agnor said some have contracted separately, but not many of those doctors are
affiliated with the University of Virginia Hospital. Some have contracted practice at both
hospitals but primarily at Martha Jefferson. Mr. Agnor said more than seventy physicians had
contracted at last count.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that employees need more time to digest the changes
in the KeyCare provisions. He is willing to continue with the present program until the end
of the fiscal year in order to give people time to make whatever adjustments are necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom reiterated that he feels the Board should change to the KeyCare program whether
the University of Virginia Hospital contracts with it or not.
Mrs. Cooke said she can support the position taken by Mr. Lindstrom. It gives employees
time and the Board time for the University of Virginia to contract with the program as Mr.
Agnor has said it will, and she has faith in what he has told the Board.
Mr. Agnor said the doctors will not be totally signed up once the University of Virginia
Hospital has signed. He feels the doctors will resist the KeyCare program even after people
are covered by it because they will not want to allow the fifteen percent discount.
Mr. Way said he is willing to support the position taken by Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs.
Cooke. Converting to KeyCare is inevitable in terms of budgetary purposes, therefore he
believes the Board should plan to make related changes in June.
Mr. Bowie said he believes the Board should convert to the KeyCare program now, in
accordance with Option No. 4, and in June, he would like to see the Board support Option
No. 3.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve Option No. 2, to continue the current 7510 plan
with seventy day inpatient and $3,500 outpatient psychiatric benefits, for health insurance
coverage until the end of fiscal year, June 30 1986, at which time the County will convert to
Option No. 4, convert to the KeyCare plan with seventy day inpatient and $3,500 outpatient
psychiatric benefits, regardless of the status of the University of Virginia Hospital with
the program. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said he does not plan to support
the motion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Messrs. Bowie, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve Option 4, convert to the KeyCare plan with seventy
day inpatient and $3,500 outpatient psychiatric benefits until June 30, 1986, at which time
the County would covert insurance to Option No. 3, 'the KeyCare plan with 30 day inpatient and
$2,000 outpatient psychiatric benefit.
Mr. Henley suggested that the Board decide on insurance coverage only through June, 1986
and then discuss further action at that time. Mr. Bowie agreed. Mr. Fisher said the Board
needs to act for the School Board and budgetary purposes.
184
December 4, 1985 (Regular-Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Lindstrom said people became employed by the County with the expectation of having
certain benefits. He believes that changes must be made in the face of economic constraints
that the Board faces regarding health care programs. He said that is why the Board has made
a drastic change in psychiatric benefits in one "fell swoop", and he supports that. However,
changing coverage from 365 to seventy days is a substantial shift. He does not believe it is
unreasonable to change to seventy days inpatient care as recognition of a substantial shift
in coverage and as a way to phase in the KeyCare program at the end of the fiscal year, as
suggested. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not willing to make his decision based on what the
University of Virginia Hospital will do.
Mrs. Cooke said another point was made at the joint meeting of the School Board and the
Board of Supervisors earlier this afternoon, that being the teachers' contracts that will be
signed in April, 1986. The point was also made that many teachers are in the Albemarle
County system because of health benefits. By April, those teachers will know what the health
care situation will be and they will have time to choose whether to accept the program or
not. Mr. Henley said that is a sorry reason to teach in the school system. Mr.
Lindstrom said he knows of feW people who accept a job without considering the benefits.
There are more important considerations, but if he was applying for a job, that is one thing
he would look at. Mrs. Cooke said if health benefits are in fact the reason some teachers
are in the system, they will have the opportunity to reject the contract.
Mr. Henley said since there was no second to Mr. Bowie's motion, he would offer motion
to approve Option No. 4, convert to the KeyCare plan with seventy day inpatient and $3,500
outpatient psychiatric benefits, and discuss a health plan for the next fiscal year later.
Mr. BOwie clarified that Mr. Henley referred to Option No. 4 of the November 27 memorandum,
and then seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board members are "in a lather" to do this quickly. He said he
did not agree with the merit plan being established for only twenty-five percent of the
employees rather than the thirty-three percent recommended by staff, because he believes it
was an abrupt change. He does not feel it is unreasonable to phase in a program for
employees rather than just "hitting them with it". Therefore he cannot support the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he feels the KeyCare program is being phased in. Mr. Henley agreed. Mr..
Bowie said the health plan reserve funds have been reduced from $300,000 to $20,000 and the
Board has no guarantee in what manner the rest will be paid. It has been studied and
discussed and he believes it is time to take action. He is prepared to support the motion.
Mr. Henley said he thought-employees would be more upset about an increase in rates
rather than Option 4 (referred to in his motion).
Mr. Fisher said he believes the Board should determine the health plan to be effected in
July and not wait for six weeks to make that decision.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered a substitute motion to approve Option No. 1, to continue the
current 7510 plan with thirty-day inpatient and $2,000 outpatient psychiatric benefits. Mr.
Way seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he intended for the motion to include conversion
to Option No. 4, seventy-day inpatient and $3,500 outpatient psychiatric benefits, on July 1,
1986.
Mr. Bowie said he does not want to obligate the Board at this time to coverting to
Option No. 4 effective July 1; he will not support the substitute motion.
Roll was called and the substitute motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way.
Roll was then called on the motion offered by Mr. Henley to approve Option No. 4, to
convert to the KeyCare plan with seventy day inpatient and $3,500 outpatient psychiatric
benefits, and discuss a health plan for FY 1986-87 at some time in the future. The motion
failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, and Henley.
Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
Mr. Way then offered a motion to approve Option No. 1, to continue the current 7510 plan
with thirty-day inpatient and $2,000 outpatient psychiatric benefits, until the end of the
current fiscal year. He suggested that the Board approve Option 3 or Option 4 during the
budget planning process for FY 1986-87.
Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the Board members should let employees know what health
plan will be in effect at the end of the current fiscal year, even if they have to wait a
week to make the decision.
There being no second to Mr. Way's motion, Mr. Lindstrom offered a motion to approve
Option No. 1, to continue the current 7510 plan with thirty-day inpatient and $2,000 out-
patient psychiatric benefits, until the end of the current fiscal year, converting to Option
No. 3, thirty-day inpatient and $2,000 outpatient psychiatric benefit on July 1, 1986. Mr.
Way seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher clarified the motion, that Option No. 1 would be effective from January 1 to
June 30, 1986, converting to Option No. 3 on July 1, 1986. He said Option No. 1 is the same
health benefits now in effect. The Board will have to appropriate additional funds if the
motion is approved, but he can support that appropriation through the balance of the current
fiscal year knowing that the KeyCare plan will be effective on July 1. He feels this is the
soundest way to move forward.
December 4, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
185
Mr. Lindstrom requested to amend his motion to delete reference to psychiatric care,
leaving that benefit to be determined in the future. He said this would put people on notice
as to what is going to happen.
Mrs. Cooke said the amendment to the motion gives employees and the School Board some
idea of what direction this Board will take in terms of a health plan, She feels the Board
should approve the amended motion in fairness to employees so they can count on something and
make their plans accordingly.
Mr. Bowie said he does not feel the amended motion is any more fair to employees than
not making a decision by July 1 because they will sign contracts without knowledge of health
benefits effective next year. Mr. Bowie said he supports Option No. 1 for the balance of the
current fiscal year, converting to Option No. 3 on July 1, 1986, if the Board is going to
lock into a plan for next year.
Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion as amended. He said he believes employees will
know what the health benefits are by April because it will have had to be budgeted by then.
Mr. Fisher said he will support the motion as amended, but when the Board decides on
psychiatric coverage, he feels he will support Option No. 3.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the amended motion with the understanding that he too
will support Option No. 3 when the Board decides on psychiatric coverage.
Roll was called for the amended motion to approve Option No. 1, to continue the current
7510 plan from January 1 through June 30, 1986, deleting any reference to psychiatric care,
which would be determined in the future. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciates the staff's work on the recommendations for a health
insurance plan. He believes the matter was handled well with general government employees.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the division between the two segments of government is
unfortunate.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
No other matters were brought to the Board's attention. The hour being so late, Agenda Item
No. 4.1 (removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion) is to be included on agenda of the
next Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. Mr. Fisher adjourned the Board meeting at 12:25 a.m.
Cha~rrman