2001-10-17October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, Chief of Planning and Community Development, David W. Benish, and,
Senior Planner, Jan Sprinkle.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no matters presented.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Martin, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, and to accept the other items on the Consent Agenda as
information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
__________
Item 5.1. SP-2001-025. Food Lion at Branchlands (Signs #29 & 32). Request for a special use
permit to display seasonal plant items outdoors in an EC at Food Lion Store loc on E side of Rt 29, S of
Branchlands Blvd & W of Hillsdale Dr. Zoned PUD & EC. TM 61Z, Sect 3, Pl 11, Rio Dist. (Notice of
public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on October 1 and October 8, 2001.) (Applicant requests
deferral until November 14, 2001.)
At the request of the applicants attorney, this request was deferred to November 14, 2001,
==
by the recorded vote set out above.
__________
Item 5.2. SP-2001-026. Food Lion at Mill Creek (Signs #25 & 28). Request for a special use
permit to display seasonal plant items outdoors in an EC at Food Lion Store loc at South Side Shopping
Center on NE corner of Avon St (Rt 742) & Mill Creek Dr. Znd PD-SC & EC. TM 77, P 47. Scottsville Dist.
(Notice of public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on October 1 and October 8, 2001.) (Applicant
requests deferral until November 14, 2001.)
At the request of the applicants attorney, this request was deferred to November 14, 2001,
==
by the recorded vote set out above.
__________
Item 5.3. SP-2001-027. Food Lion at Forest Lakes (Signs #23 & 24). Request for a special use
permit to display seasonal plant items in an EC at Food Lion Store loc in Forest Lakes Shopping Center b/t
Timberwood Blvd & Proffit Rd, W of Worth Crossing. Znd PD-SC & EC. TM 46B4, Ps 2 & 3. Rivanna Dist.
(Notice of public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on October 1 and October 8, 2001.) (Applicant
requests deferral until November 14, 2001.)
At the request of the applicants attorney, this request was deferred to November 14, 2001,
==
by the recorded vote set out above.
__________
Item 5.4. Copy of letters dated October 5, 2001, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels: Tax Map 55, Parcels 7 and
11A (property of Gladys W. Clark), was received as information.
__________
Item 5.5. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for September 18, September 25 and
October 7, 2001, were received as information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-2001-004. SNB Car Wash (Signs #88 & 89). Public hearing on a
request to rezone 0.6 acs from C-1 to HC to allow car wash. Loc on Rio Rd at corner of Rio Rd & Gasoline
Alley. TM 61, P 147. Rio Dist. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service in
Neighborhood 2.) Rio Dist. (Notice of public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 1
and October 8, 2001.)
Mr. Benish said this is a request to rezone 0.6 acres from C-1, Commercial, to HC, Highway
Commercial, to allow for a drive-through car wash. The property is located on Rio Road at the corner of
Gasoline Alley near the intersection of Greenbrier Drive. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area for
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Neighborhood Service. The property is in Neighborhood 2 of the Land Use Plan. The area is characterized
by small retail uses on the east side of Rio Road including several gas stations and an auto repair shop,
with residences on the west side of Rio Road.
Mr. Benish said staff reviewed this proposal for conformity with the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. It recommended approval with the most recent version of the proffers.
Unfortunately, based on the by-laws of the corporation involved in this request, the proffers require the
signatures of two individuals, and the applicant has not been able to get that second signature, so there is
no signed copy of the proffers at this time. The proffers offered by the applicant are not substantively
different from those reviewed by the Planning Commission which recommended approval of this rezoning
on October 2, 2001, subject to minor revisions to the proffers. These revisions were not substantive; rather,
they were needed for clarity in implementation and were requested by the County Attorney's office. In the
past the Board has gone ahead and opened the public hearing, discussed the request, and then deferred
action on the petition until the signed proffers were in hand. When the proffers are received, the request
could then be put on a consent agenda for approval, or be discussed further.
Mr. Benish said the Commission did discuss noise and hours of operation. They did decide that a
proffer regarding hours of operation was not necessary.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Jerry Northcutt, the applicant, said they tried to work with the Planning Commission in what is
fair to the County and the surrounding property owners. They are ready to get started with the business,
and would appreciate approval by the Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked the proposed hours of operation. Mr. Northcutt said they have not yet been
set. Mr. Bowerman said one of the convenience stores in the area is open until 11:00 p.m. Mr. Perkins said
some car washes are open 24 hours a day. Mr. Northcutt said the Planning Commission determined this is
the type of equipment where the noise will be diffused away from Rio Road because the facility sits parallel
to Rio Road.
Mr. Dorrier asked the definition of a laser car wash. Mr. Northcutt said it is a fancy name for a
touch free wash process. There is such a facility at Forest Lakes. It is a fairly common brand name in this
area because there is a supplier in the area. He said their facility is a drive-through.
Mr. Northcutt said when this request was first discussed, there was an issue concerning the
possibility of lights flashing across the road. He said the building is not facing the road, so the lights will
never cross Rio Road. Mr. Davis said the fourth proffer addresses that issue.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time, and the
matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said if this area had been planned, there probably would not be commercial
development there, but it has existed for years, and it is compatible with the residential. This request is
compatible with existing businesses and he agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
He then offered motion to hold this request and put it on the Consent Agenda for November 7, 2001, once
the proffers recommended by the Planning Commission are executed. For the record he would like to state
that if the proffers had been before the Board tonight, properly executed, he would have moved to approve
the application, but there is always the possibility the petition could be pulled on November 7. Mr. Dorrier
stated agreement with Mr. Bowerman statement.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-2001-003. Building site area & dimensions. Public hearing on an
ordinance to amend 4.2.2, Area regulations, 4.2.3 Location of structures & improvements & 4.2.6,
''
Exemptions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to revise the minimum size &
dimensions for certain building sites, to authorize the director of planning & community development to
modify or waive the required dimensions under prescribed conditions, to establish a procedure to appeal
the denial of a modification or waiver, to establish that accessways, public utility lines and appurtenances,
stormwater management facilities & other required public facilities are exempt from any requirement that
they be located within a building site under prescribed conditions & to make minor technical changes to
4.2.3 & 4.2.6. (Notice of public hearing published in the Daily Progress on October 1 and October 8,
''
2001.)
Mr. Benish said this is a housekeeping item, a process issue. In an effort to use the Planning
Commissions time more efficiently, instead of it hearing requests for waivers as to lot size, staff
=
recommends that the director of planning and community development be granted the authority to approve
changes in building shape. Criteria to be are set out in the amendment, and an appeal process is set out
should the applicant want to appeal the directors decision. These changes were reviewed by the Planning
=
Commission and are recommended unanimously to the Board for approval.
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Perkins referred to Sec. 4.2.2.a.2., it says ... no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of
A
more than five to one as described by a rectangle .... Mr. Benish said the size has to be defined by the
@
shape of a rectangle at that ratio. Mr. Perkins asked why not just spell out the size that is required instead
of trying to determine it by ratio. Mr. Benish said the building site has to be at least 30,000 square feet, but it
can be greater.
Ms. Humphris said it would have been helpful to her to have had an example to explain what is
being recommended. That would have saved the Board members a lot of time.
With no further discussion of this item, Ms. Humphris offered motion to adopt an Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 01-18[7]) to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, Building site area and
dimensions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 01-18(7)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.2.2Area regulations
Sec. 4.2.3Location of structures and improvements
Sec. 4.2.6Exemptions
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions
Each building site shall be subject to the following minimum area and dimension
requirements:
a.Building sites
Uses not served by a public or central sewerage system.
for uses not served by a public or central sewerage system shall be subject to the
following:
1.. Each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an
Dwelling units
area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions
that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as
described by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have
adequate area for locating two (2) septic drain fields approved by the Virginia Department
of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter.
2.. Each building
Development subject to section 32 of this chapter
site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have an area of thirty
thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one
dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a
rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for
all buildings and structures, two (2) septic drain fields approved by the Virginia Department
of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter, parking and loading areas, storage yards
and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements.
3.. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5 of this
Modification or waiver
chapter, the director of planning and community development may modify or waive the
rectangular shape required by subsections (1) and (2) if, after receiving the
recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health, the director of planning and
community development finds, based on information provided by the developer, that: (i)
the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical
condition; (ii) no reasonable alternative building site exists; and (iii) modifying or waiving the
rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels than if
those dimensions were adhered to.
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
4.. A developer may appeal the denial of a modification or
Appeal
waiver to the planning commission and, thereafter, to the board of supervisors, pursuant to
section 4.2.5.
b. Building sites for uses served
Uses served by a central sewerage system.
by a central sewerage system shall be demonstrated by the applicant to have adequate
area, as follows:
1. Each building site in a residential
Residential development.
development shall have adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) together with an area
equivalent to the sum of the applicable required yard areas for the applicable zoning
district and, if parking is provided in bays, the parking area.
2.. Each building
Development subject to section 32 of this chapter
site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have adequate area for all
structures, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth
disturbing activity related to the improvements.
Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements
Except as otherwise permitted pursuant to section 4.2.2, the provisions of this
section shall apply to the location of any structure for which a permit is required under the
Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site development
plan pursuant to section 32.0 of this chapter. (Amended 11-15-89)
Sec. 4.2.6 Exemptions
A lot, structure, or improvement may be exempt from the requirements of section
4.2 as provided herein:
a.Any structure which was lawfully in existence prior to the effective date of
this chapter and which is nonconforming solely on the basis of the requirements of section
4.2, may be expanded, enlarged, extended, modified and/or reconstructed as though such
structure were a conforming structure. For the purposes of this section, the term "lawfully
in existence" shall also apply to any structure for which a site development plan was
approved or a building permit was issued prior to the effective date of this chapter, provided
such plan or permit has not expired.
b.Any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the
effective date of this chapter shall be exempt from the requirements of section 4.2 for the
establishment of the first single-family detached dwelling unit on such lot or parcel;
provided that section 4.2.3.2 shall apply to such lot or parcel if it contains adequate land
area in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent for the location of such structure. For
the purposes of this section a manufactured home shall be deemed a single-family
detached dwelling unit.
c.Accessways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater
management facilities, and any other public facilities necessary to allow the use of the
parcel shall not be required to be located within a building site and shall not be subject to
the requirements of this section 4.2.2, provided that the applicant demonstrates that no
reasonable alternative location or alignment exists. The county engineer shall require that
protective and restorative measures be installed and maintained as deemed necessary to
insure that the development will be consistent with the intent of section 4.2 of this chapter.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-2001-012. Wireless. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend 3.1,
'
Definitions & add 5.1.40, Personal wireless service facilities, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle
'
County Code, to add a definition of "personal wireless service facility," to establish requirements for
applications for personal wireless service facilities & to establish regulations pertaining to the siting of
personal wireless service facilities on a lot, including setback & yard requirements & exempting personal
wireless service facilities from having an approved site plan. (Notice of public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 1 and October 8, 2001.)
Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Senior Planner, said the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy was adopted
by the Board in December, 2000. This is actually the first phase of implementation of that policy. The
purpose of this amendment is to remove the setbacks of the individual zoning districts, and to allow the by-
right addition of certain antenna to certain existing structures. A definition of personal wireless services
A
facilities has been added. All tower structures have been exempted from the area and bulk regulations or
@
minimum yard requirements of the zoning district in which the facility will be located. Administrative
approval has been added for approval or reduction of the height to the property line setback (5.1.40.b.2.) if
an easement is obtained on the adjacent property. Also, in some cases, certain antenna will be allowed by
right (5.1.40.c).
Ms. Sprinkle said staff and the Planning Commission agreed on everything in the proposed text
except for whether or not by-right installation should be allowed on all existing structures including towers,
or whether installation should be allowed just on structures such as buildings, water tanks, etc. without
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
towers. That is the one remaining issue to be resolved. She said the Commission did favor requiring a
special use permit review for all co-locations on towers and poles. Staff believes by-right co-locations
which meet certain criteria follows the Boards adopted policy better. Staff believes co-locations should be
=
permitted on all structures regardless of type.
Mr. Tucker asked if staff had determined that co-location could be approved by right on certain
antennas and structures. Ms. Sprinkle said research shows that since 1998, 24 different co-locations have
been approved. That stemmed from a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) made in August,
1998, where the Zoning Administrator determined that a tower company could not add onto a certain tower.
There was an appeal of that decision. The BZA upheld part of the Zoning Administrators decision by
=
saying the company could add to the tower itself, but could not add structures on the ground. That is the
main reason for this by-right permission.
Ms. Humphris asked how the BZA got the authority to determine whether there could be co-
locations on a tower. Ms. Sprinkle said the Zoning Administrator made a determination that a particular
tower could not have co-location because it was a non-conforming tower. That decision was appealed to
the BZA and the BZA only upheld half of the Zoning Administrator's decision. It was the BZAs interpre-
=
tation of the ordinance that some additions to a tower were allowed under existing ordinance provisions. Mr.
Davis said that decision was only applicable to that particular tower. In that instance the addition of the
equipment was not an expansion of the nonconforming use of that tower. It was a very fact specific
situation. Based on that finding, the Zoning Administrator determined that, on a case-by-case basis,
equipment could be added to nonconforming towers that did not make the tower more nonconforming.
Under those circumstances, the Zoning Administrator has approved additional equipment to noncon-
forming towers which is consistent with the BZAs ruling. He said the BZA decision did not mandate that
=
position, but that is the way the Zoning Administrator has interpreted it.
Ms. Thomas asked what happens when there is a request for co-location and that request does not
come before this Board. Ms. Sprinkle said new ground equipment cannot be added. The applicant who
appealed to the BZA had to go into a building with a company that already had a building on the site. Mr.
Davis said there were approvals of some special use permits a number of years ago when the Countys
=
policy was encouraging co-location. Then, the County switched from that approach to not favoring co-
location. There are a number of approved SUPs which do not allow co-location; those SUPs will control
==
those towers. There will be several different categories of towers the Board will have to deal with on
requests for co-location.
Ms. Humphris said the Planning Commission did not agree with staffs recommendation to not
=
include the words other than a tower or a pole in section 5.1.40.b.6. They had grave reservations about it,
A@
as she has. Some mistakes have been made along the way, and she does not want to be a party to
compounding those mistakes.
With no further questions at this time, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Valerie Long was present on behalf of Triton PCS, Suncom Wireless. She thanked the
Planning Commission and the Board for taking on this project. Her client appreciates that things are
moving forward on this part of implementation of the wireless policy. They request that the Board move
forward with implementation of the tiered-approval process which is the heart of the wireless policy. She
supports staffs suggestion that the language be modified in Subparagraph b, section 6, to delete the
=
language "other than a tower or a pole" so as to allow by-right co-location on existing structures. She said
Mr. Davis and Ms. Sprinkle clarified that if the existing special use permit conditions of that facility prohibit
co-location or include certain specific limitations, the co-locating applicant would be required to comply with
all of that. There are plenty of checks in place to insure, particularly when combined with all of the existing
regulations of this proposed ordinance, that only co-locations which meet all the criteria will actually occur.
Co-location by-right creates an incentive for the wireless carriers to use existing structures. There are a
number of towers and poles in the community that would make excellent co-location sites. If those are by-
right, it will reduce pressure to have additional towers in the community.
Ms. Long said she has a clarification to offer on two sections. Section 5.1.40.b.2 gives the ability to
waive what she calls the 1:1 setback, the setback requirement says the tower has to be setback from the lot
line a distance equal to the height of the pole. This provision would allow that to be waived if the applicant
obtained an easement which prohibited development on a portion of the abutting lot line. In general that is
a good approach, but perhaps there might be a landowner who would grant an easement even without
prohibiting development. That owner might have a fence or a shed where they are willing to take the risk.
The applicant could provide engineering certifications or something to that adjacent lot owner that would
give that owner the security of knowing that if the tower fell, or a piece of ice fell off the top of the tower,
either there would be no risk or there would be a negligible risk he was willing to accept. The owner could
enter into an agreement so if something falls on their property, the tower company would compensate them
for any damage. That is her suggestion. The Board might either eliminate prohibiting development or
A@
somehow address that situation in some manner. Her client has had to come and ask for the waiver of the
1:1 setback on many occasions when the best locations for a treetop tower from a visibility prospective was
somewhat closer to the lot line than the height of the tower.
Ms. Long said section 5.1.40.c.3, says ... (i) the number of antennas shall be limited to three, at the
A
sizes shown on the application; .... She asked if that would be three different carriers on the same building.
@
Ms. Thomas said she had the same question. The Board will discuss this after the public hearing is closed.
Ms. Long asked why flexibility would be limited by this provision. If everyone installed flush mounted
antennas in matching colors, that might be a reason to allow more co-locations.
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Jeff Werner said he was present to represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. He
referred to a statement he had given to the Planning Commission on September 25, 2001 (on file in the
Clerks Office). In part, he referenced Section 5.1.40.c.3 which discusses the requirement for a tree
=
protection plan, and Section 5.1.40.c.4 which discusses the requirement for disassembly and removal of
any facility whose use is terminated. He said the PEC is pleased to see both of these conditions, but
requests that the Board clarify the extent of applicability for each provision. PEC suggests it would be wise
to have these provisions applicable to not only those facilities attached to an existing structure but also to
A@
any and all facilities and structures that are new. Therefore, these conditions should fall under
A@
subheading a of the more general section, 5.1.40, Personal wireless service facilities, which states ...
A@A
Each personal wireless service facility ... shall be subject to the following:. He understands this particular
@
text amendment is to address existing facilities. The Commission said to him that the ZTA covers those
applications that do not require a special use permit. New facilities will require a special use permit that will
require these standard conditions. He asked that that be confirmed.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked that staff interpret 5.1.40.c.2 ... the number of antennas shall be limited to
A
three .... Mr. Davis said the intent of that wording is that there could be three panel antennas, not three
@
users. He understands this is for by-right co-location and there was concern about having too many
antennas attached to an existing structure creating some cumulative visual problems. It there are to be
more than three, it would have to go through the special use permit process.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not understand, and gave an example: four flush-mounted antennas
would be allowed as part of an individual application as part of its design, but three would not be allowed.
Mr. Davis said if there were already three antennas on a structure, that person could not take advantage of
this section of the ordinance. If there were already two antenna on the structure, one could be added by
right.
Ms. Thomas asked if antenna means one panel or wire or does it mean one set of three panels.
She said most applications involve two or three panels flush-mounted to the pole. Is each of those
applications an antenna by this wording?
Mr. Perkins said a lot of poles only have two antennas because the antennas are aimed in a certain
direction, and there would be no need to have an antenna on the back side.
Ms. Humphris said a clarification is needed.
Ms. Thomas asked what staff had in mind with this wording. Ms. Sprinkle said arrays of antennas
would be the proper wording. Mr. Benish said there probably would be no antenna array that has less than
three panels. He thinks the intent was array. Ms. Sprinkle said the sentence should read: ... the total
A
number of antenna arrays attached to the existing structure shall not exceed three .....
@
Ms. Thomas said that is better, since if a structure has one, it can have two more arrays, but each
piece of the array has to be mounted within 12 inches of the existing structure, has to be the same color,
and any new ground equipment would have to be shielded in a way that meets the approval. She was
puzzled about this wording when thinking about existing towers. There is an impressive one at the old
Virginia Power Building on Fifth Street. It has one or two on it, and there are all the power transmission
towers which the Board has encouraged people to use. Up until now, they have added the crown things
instead of the flush-mounted type. This would not allow the crowns to be bright. She asked what other
types of structures and towers people are fearful of when they think that flush-mounted would be a bad
thing. She asked for some examples.
Ms. Humphris said the WINA radio tower was discussed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas
said she thinks the Board did a good thing when it limited how high the panels could go on that tower. The
tower can be seen from all over the area, but, only a thin tower is seen. However, up close, one sees the
array of all the panels. This says an array could go at the very top of such a structure. Ms. Sprinkle said
that is true, as long as it did not exceed the height of the tower.
Ms. Humphris said that is the kind of thing the Planning Commission was concerned about, and
they ended up with a 5:1 vote against including the words other than a tower or pole in Section 5.1.40.b.6.
A@
She said the Board has made mistakes in the past in permitting some towers. She does not want the
Board to make worse mistakes. Ms. Thomas asked for an example. Ms. Humphris said the one at Boyd
Tavern is particularly awful. The one at Camp Holiday Trails has already been added to. There were times
when the Board did not know it should limit what would happen in the future. There is a tower near her
home where the Board allowed the crown on the top to go in the wrong place. She could go on naming
towers which would be much worse if the Board did not retain control over them.
Mr. Martin asked for staffs and the Planning Commissions thoughts on this question. Ms. Sprinkle
==
said the Planning Commission was concerned that there are things which are not being brought to mind at
this time; things which could be visibly unattractive. Staff thought that as long as the flush-mounted twelve
inches is maintained, something that cannot be seen from a distance, not like the crown which was allowed
in the past, would be fine allowed by-right. It would give the carriers incentive to use existing structures
rather than creating new towers.
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Humphris said the WINA Radio tower is the most obvious example of where this would allow
an antenna to go. Ms. Thomas said the permit to allow that tower specifically limited how high the panels
could be mounted. Ms. Sprinkle said, at the present time, staff checks every tower to see whether there is a
special use permit and, if there is a permit, what it says about co-location. Mr. Bowerman suggested
adopting the ordinance as staff has recommended and leaving out other than a tower or a pole" that the
A
Planning Commission added in 5.1.40.b, and bring the ordinance back for review in about nine months. It is
an incentive, but if it proves to be a problem, the ordinance could be changed. Ms. Sprinkle said when
Phase II (the Tier system), is ready for presentation, staff can look at this provision then. Staff can keep
track of all by-right permits issued between now and the next phase.
Ms. Thomas said the change could allow one really ugly facility. Ms. Sprinkle said that since 1998
she found only 24 co-locations allowed on towers by right. Mr. Davis said that under the zoning
interpretation, applicants have not had to meet all the criteria in the ordinance. If anything, the ones that
would be approved prospectively, will be less visually a problem because these criteria will be more
restrictive.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mr. Bowermans suggestion.
=
Ms. Thomas said his suggestion does allow staff to say to an applicant that they feel the Board will
regard their proposal as truly ugly, and if the applicant goes forward with anything, the law will be changed
immediately. This might be helpful in dealing with anything staff feels will be visually intrusive.
Mr. Martin said the ordinance provisions can be changed easily. If there are too many restrictions,
the Board might never know what the providers can come up with.
Ms. Thomas said she attended a meeting where the GIS positioning system was described. This
may lead to many more cell sites in the rural areas. In some of those rural areas there are power lines
going across the countryside and there may be more co-location requests. She thinks there may be
greater desirability for having cell sites on existing towers in the future.
Mr. Davis said there was another issue raised by Ms. Long regarding easements. It was staff's
position that in those situations where there were no health/safety issues involved, it should be easy for the
applicant to administratively obtain a waiver. But, if there were property at risk, or development existed or
could exist, it was an issue for the Planning Commission to analyze. If the Board wants staff to evaluate the
health/safety/welfare issues and say they could be adequately satisfied by an easement, the Board could
do that.
Mr. Bowerman asked the point. Mr. Davis said what is at issue is that the setback for a tower
basically requires that when the tower falls it does not hit anything. Often there are waiver requests of that
provision, because, as Ms. Long pointed out, sometimes the best location is within striking distance of
adjacent property. If there is any development and the wireless provider gets an easement from the
adjacent property owner, staff can waive that setback requirement administratively. What Ms. Long
proposed was, if the adjacent property owner was willing to grant an easement dealing with existing
structures or future structures in a way that was acceptable to the adjacent property owner, why should that
not also be administrative? In drafting this ordinance, staff did not go that far. It basically said that if there
are no health/safety/welfare issues, and that can be assured by an easement, that can be done
administratively. If there are health/safety/welfare issues because there is development or the possibility of
future development, that is something the Planning Commission should weigh in granting a waiver. Staffs
=
philosophy has been that it is not necessarily just the current owner, but the future owners and the public at
large, which should be addressed. That is something which is more easily dealt with by the Commission
than by staff.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a waiver goes with the application and the property. Mr. Davis said the
easement runs with the land, so goes to a new owner.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board should accept Mr. Bowermans idea concerning the main issue.
=
It has been clarified that it is three arrays and not three antennas. The Board can add the other issues to
changes to be discussed at a later time.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were two things before the Board. In the staffs report for
=
ZTA-2001-012 in Section 5.1.40.b.6 the staff wishes to delete some wording. Mr. Davis said it is just one
zoning text amendment. He understands that the Board wishes to adopt the staffs recommendation for
=
5.1.40.b.6 and wishes to modify 5.1.40.c.2. to clarify that it is an array of antennas. Ms. Thomas said that is
correct, and someone needs to make a motion to adopt.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board adopt an Ordinance (Ordinance No. 01-18[9]) to Amend
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, and Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, with two changes to what is included in the staffs report (on file in the Clerks
==
Office) which is to remove in Section 5.1.40.b.6, the words other than a tower or pole and in Section
A@
5.1.40.c.2 to insert the word "arrays in front of of so it reads total number of arrays of antennas". Mr.
@A@A
Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Humphris.
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
ORDINANCE NO. 01-18(9)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, AND ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, and Article II, Basic Regulations, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1Definitions
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.40Personal wireless service facilities
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
A facility for the provision of personal wireless services,
Personal wireless service facility:
as defined by 47 U.S.C. 332 (Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996),
'
including those Federal Communications Commission licensed commercial wireless
telecommunications services such as cellular, personal communications services (PCS),
specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), and
unlicensed wireless services and common carrier wireless exchange access services. The
use identified in this chapter as "microwave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers,
substations and appurtenances" includes personal wireless service facilities.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.40 Personal wireless service facilities
The purpose of this section 5.1.40 is to implement the personal wireless service facilities
policy, adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. Each personal wireless service facility
(hereinafter "facility") shall be subject to following:
a. Each request for approval of a personal wireless service
Application for approval:
facility shall include the following information:
1.A completed application form, signed by the owner, the owner's agent or
the contract purchaser. If the owner's agent signs the application, he shall
also submit written evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. If
the contract purchaser signs the application, he shall also submit the
owner's written consent to the application.
2.A recorded plat or recorded boundary survey of the parcel on which the
facility will be located; provided, if neither a recorded plat nor boundary
survey exists, a copy of the legal description of the parcel and the
Albemarle County Circuit Court deed book and page number.
3.The identity of the owner of the parcel and, if the owner is other than a real
person, the complete legal name of the entity, a description of the type of
entity, and written documentation that the person signing on behalf of the
entity is authorized to do so.
4.Except where the facility will be located entirely within an existing structure,
a scaled plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawings,
calculations, and other documentation required by the director of planning
and community development, signed and sealed by an appropriate
licensed professional. The plans and supporting drawings, calculations
and documentation shall show:
(a)The location and dimensions of all proposed improvements,
including the maximum height above ground of the facility (also
identified in height above sea level).
(b)The design of the facility, including the specific type of support
structure and the design, type, location, size, height and
configuration of all proposed antennas and other equipment.
(c)Except where the facility would be attached to an existing
structure, the topography within two thousand (2,000) feet of the
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
proposed facility, in contour intervals not to exceed ten (10) feet.
(d)The height of all trees within fifty (50) feet of any proposed
monopole or tower relied upon to establish the proposed height
and/or screening of the monopole or tower
(e)All existing and proposed setbacks, parking, fencing and
landscaping.
(f)The location and design of all proposed accessways.
(g)Except where the facility would be attached to an existing
structure, residential structures, residential and rural areas zoning
district boundaries, agricultural and forestal district boundaries
and parcels subject to conservation easements within two
thousand (2,000) feet of the facility.
(h)The proximity of the facility to commercial and private airports.
5.Photographs of the site.
6.For any proposed monopole or tower, photographs taken of a balloon
test, which shall be conducted as follows:
(a)The applicant shall contact the department of planning and
community development within thirty (30) days after the date the
application was submitted to schedule a date and time when the
balloon test will be conducted. The test shall be conducted within
sixty (60) days after the date the application was submitted, and
the applicant shall provide the department with at least seven (7)
days prior notice; provided that this deadline may be extended due
to inclement weather or by the agreement of the applicant and the
department.
(b)The test shall consist of raising one or more balloons from the site
to a height equal to the proposed facility.
(c)The balloons shall be of a color or material that provides
maximum visibility.
(d)The photographs of the balloon test shall be taken from the
nearest residence and from appropriate locations on abutting
properties, along each publicly used road from which the balloon
is visible, and other properties and locations as deemed
appropriate by the director of planning and community
development. The applicant shall identify the camera type, film
size, and focal length of the lens for each photograph.
b. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, each facility
General regulations:
shall be subject to all applicable regulations in this chapter.
1.Notwithstanding section 4.2.3.1 of this chapter, a facility may be located in
an area on a lot or parcel other than a building site.
2.Notwithstanding section 4.10.3.1(b) of this chapter, the director of planning
and community development may authorize a facility to be located closer
in distance than the height of the structure to any lot line if the applicant
obtains an easement acceptable to the county attorney prohibiting
development on the part of the abutting lot sharing the common lot line
that is within the facility's fall zone (e.g., the setback of an eighty (80)
foot-tall facility could be reduced to thirty (30) feet if an easement is
established prohibiting development on the abutting lot within a fifty (50)
foot fall zone).
3.The area and bulk regulations or minimum yard requirements of the
zoning district in which the facility will be located shall not apply.
4.Notwithstanding section 4.11 of this chapter, a facility may be located in a
required yard.
5.Notwithstanding section 32.2 of this chapter, a site plan shall not be
required for a facility, but the facility shall be subject to the requirements of
section 32 and the applicant shall submit all schematics, plans,
calculations, drawings and other information required by the director of
planning and community development to determine whether the facility
complies with section 32. In making this determination, the director may
impose reasonable conditions authorized by section 32 in order to assure
compliance.
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
6.A facility, other than a microwave dish, attached to an existing structure
and which does not exceed the height of the existing structure and is flush
mounted to the structure, shall be permitted as a by right use; provided,
however, it shall be subject to all applicable regulations applying to the
existing structure and to the regulations set forth in subsection 5.1.40(c).
7.A facility located entirely within an existing building shall be permitted as a
by right use; provided, however, it shall be subject to all applicable
regulations applying to the building. Such a by right use facility may
include a self-contained shelter or cabinet not located within a building if it
is screened from public view or a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in
diameter which exceeds the height of the existing building.
c. A by right use
Regulations applicable to a facility attached to an existing structure.
facility described in subsection 5.1.40(b)(6) shall be installed and operated subject
to the following regulations:
1.The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: (i)
guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be
permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens
emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by
section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within
the existing structure shall be screened from public view; (iv) a whip
antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the
existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two
feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch in diameter at the base
and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility or the
structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation
of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the department of
planning and community development certifying that the height of all
components of the facility complies with this regulation.
2.Equipment shall be attached to the structure only as follows: (i) the total
number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the
pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application; (ii)
only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no antenna shall project
from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting
equipment, and in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12)
inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each antenna and associated
equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure.
3.Prior to beginning construction or installation of any equipment cabinet not
located within the existing structure, or installation of access for vehicles or
utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist,
specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any
existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access
easement and lease area shall be submitted to the director of planning
and community development for approval. All construction or installations
associated with the equipment cabinet, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree
conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by
the director, the applicant shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access.
4.The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety
(90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is
discontinued.
5.The applicant shall submit a report to the zoning administrator by July 1 of
each year. The report shall identify each user of the existing structure that
is a wireless telecommunications service provider.
6.No slopes associated with construction of the facility and accessory uses
shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls,
revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county
engineer are employed.
7.The regulations in section 5.1.12(a), (b) and (c) of this chapter shall apply.
8.Any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be: (i)
fenced only with the approval of the director of planning and community
development; (ii) screened from all lot lines either by the terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the
department of planning and community development's landscape
planner.
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-2001-013. Outdoor lighting. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend
4.17.2, Applicability, 4.17.3, Definitions, 4.17.4, Standards, & 4.17.5, Modification, waiver or variation, of
''
Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to revise the applicability of the outdoor lighting
regulations, to delete the definitions of "decorative luminaire with full cutoff optics" and "initial lumens," to
revise the standards for each outdoor luminaire, to allow facilities for all organized sports, rather than just
those for baseball, softball, football & soccer, to be eligible for a modification, waiver or variation under
4.17.5(a)(1), & to make minor technical changes to these sections. (Notice of public hearing advertised in
'
the Daily Progress on October 1 and October 8, 2001.)
Mr. Benish said that at the time of adoption of the Lighting Ordinance on August 12, 1998, the
Board requested that a review of the waiver provisions be completed after one year to determine if any
changes were warranted. Staff reviewed both waiver provisions and troublesome lighting-related issues
that had arisen repeatedly since adoption of the ordinance. Review identified several areas that needed
further study, with the potential of making further recommendations for ordinance amendments which
would improve plan review and enforcement procedures. On February 22, 2001, the Board adopted a
Resolution of Intent to amend the Lighting Ordinance to address the identified lighting issues. Staff broke
the issues down into two phases. The first phase is related to housekeeping changes (listed as Nos. 1 - 8 in
the Executive Summary). They focus primarily on spill-over lighting waiver provisions, how spill-over is
measured and to what sources of lighting the spill-over provisions apply. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Bowerman said when the ordinance was originally adopted, staff had major concerns about
measurement of lights at the property line. He asked if the proposed amendments address those concerns
in terms of enforcement. Ms. Sprinkle said the amendments do address those issues.
Mr. Dorrier said it is mentioned in the Executive Summary that Phase 2 issues (glare, overall
lighting levels, lighting measurement, pole height, education and nonconforming lights) will be brought to
the Planning Commission after staff work and round table/committee review is completed. He asked how
these issues will be studied. Ms. Sprinkle said there is a committee of about six persons working on issues.
The first of these issues is pole height. They have had three field trips where they measured light poles
and looked at the site plans for those poles. This committee will make a recommendation, either to add
regulations to control pole height, or determine that what is happening in the industry is fine, and the county
will continue to accept pole heights as proposed. At this time, they are just gathering data.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the committee will go out at night and look at glare. Ms. Sprinkle said that glare
is an entirely separate issue which they have not yet begun to study. It is much more involved.
With no further questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. No one from the public
rose to speak, so the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff expects Phase 2 to address any lingering concerns it has about the
ordinance before the Board tonight. Ms. Sprinkle said yes.
A@
Ms. Thomas said she is glad that sports lighting was not totally exempted. She saw some very
good sports field lighting while visiting in Seattle, Washington, and she believes that it will be done a lot
better in this community in the future. Ms. Sprinkle said staff knows there is not lighting manufactured which
would totally meet the ordinance for sports lighting. Staff wants to make all developers aware that they
have to go through a procedure, and staff can check on the industry at that particular moment to see if
there is new lighting technology available.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the lights at Albemarle High and Monticello High fit within the parameters in the
ordinance. Ms. Sprinkle said they do not.
Mr. Dorrier asked if changes in those lights will be required after adoption of this ordinance. Mr.
Bowerman said the ordinance is not retroactive. The lights for Monticello High School were bought before
the ordinance was adopted.
At this time, motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to adopt An Ordinance (Ordinance No. 01-18[8])
to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, in section 4.17, Outdoor lighting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 01-18(8)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
By Amending:
Sec. 4.17.2Applicability
Sec. 4.17.3 Definitions
Sec. 4.17.4Standards
Sec. 4.17.5Modification or waiver
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.17 Outdoor lighting
Outdoor lighting regulations are set forth in sections 4.17.1, 4.17.2, 4.17.3, 4.17.4,
4.17.5 and 4.17.6. These regulations are in addition to the performance standard
pertaining to glare set forth in section 4.14.3 of this chapter.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
Sec. 4.17.1 Purpose
The purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations are to protect dark skies, to protect
the general welfare by controlling the spillover of light onto adjacent properties, and to
protect the public safety by preventing glare from outdoor luminaires. To effectuate
these purposes, these regulations regulate the direction of light emitted from certain
luminaires, and limit the intensity of light on certain adjacent properties, as provided
herein.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
Sec. 4.17.2 Applicability
Except as provided in sections 4.17.4.b and 4.17.6, these outdoor lighting regulations
shall apply to each outdoor luminaire installed or replaced after the date of adoption
of these regulations which is:
a.Located on property within a commercial or industrial zoning district, or is
associated with a use for which a site plan is required by section 32.0, and is
equipped with a lamp which emits three thousand (3,000) or more initial
maximum lumens; or
b.Located on property within a residential or the rural areas zoning district and is
associated with a use for which a site plan is not required by section 32.0, and is
equipped with a high intensity discharge lamp, regardless of its maximum
lumens.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98; Ord. 01-18(8), 10-17-01)
Sec. 4.17.3 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the implementation and enforcement of these
outdoor lighting regulations:
The term "full cutoff luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture
Full cutoff luminaire.
shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the
lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane.
. The term "high intensity discharge lamp" means a
High intensity discharge lamp
mercury vapor, metal halide, or high pressure sodium lamp, and for purposes of this
section 4.17, a low pressure sodium lamp.
. The term "lamp" means the component of a luminaire that produces light. A
Lamp
lamp is also commonly referred to as a bulb.
. The term "lumen" means a standard unit of measurement of luminous flux.
Lumen
. The term "luminaire" means a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp
Luminaire
or lamps together with the components designed to distribute the light, to position and
protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. A luminaire is also
commonly referred to as a fixture.
. The term "outdoor luminaire" means a luminaire which is
Outdoor luminaire
permanently installed outdoors including, but not limited to, devices used to illuminate
any site, structure, or sign, except that it does not include an internally illuminated
sign.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98; Ord. 01-18(8), 10-17-01)
Sec. 4.17.4 Standards
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
The following standards shall apply to each outdoor luminaire:
a.Except as provided in section 4.17.6, each outdoor luminaire subject to these
outdoor lighting regulations shall be a full cutoff luminaire.
1.For each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations
pursuant to section 4.17.2.a, whether a lamp emits three thousand (3,000)
or more maximum lumens shall be determined from the information
provided by the manufacturer of the lamp including, but not limited to,
information on the lamp or on the lamp's packaging materials.
2.For each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations
pursuant to section 4.17.2.a, the following rated lamp wattages shall be
deemed to emit three thousand (3,000) or more maximum lumens unless
the zoning administrator determines, based upon information provided by a
lamp manufacturer, that the rated wattage of a lamp emits either more or
less than the three thousand (3,000) initial maximum lumens:
a.Incandescent lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or more watts.
b.Quartz halogen lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or more watts.
c.Fluorescent lamp: thirty-five (35) or more watts.
d.Mercury vapor lamp: seventy-five (75) or more watts.
e.Metal halide lamp: forty (40) or more watts.
f.High pressure sodium lamp: forty-five (45) or more watts.
g.Low pressure sodium lamp: twenty-five (25) or more watts.
3.If a luminaire is equipped with more than one lamp, the lumens of the lamp
with the highest maximum lumens shall determine the lumens emitted.
b.Each parcel, except those containing only one or more single-family detached
dwellings, shall comply with the following:
1.The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in
residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half (1/2) foot
candle. Spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the
property line or edge of right-of-way or easement, whichever is closer to the
light source.
2.All outdoor lighting, regardless of the amount of lumens, shall be arranged
or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away
from adjacent roads.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98; Ord. 01-19(8), 10-17-01)
Sec. 4.17.5 Modification or waiver
Any standard of section 4.17.4.a may be modified or waived in an individual case, as
provided herein:
a.The commission may modify or waive any standard set forth in section 4.17.4.a
in an individual case, and the commission may impose conditions on such a
modification or waiver which it deems appropriate to further the purposes of
these outdoor lighting regulations, in either of the following circumstances:
1.Upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forward the
purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or
welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the owner would satisfy the
purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at least to an equivalent
degree.
2.Upon finding that an outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires,
required for an athletic facility cannot reasonably comply with the standard
and provide sufficient illumination of the field facility for its safe use, as
determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America for that type of facility and activity or
other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable.
b.Prior to considering a request to modify or waive, five (5) days' written notice
shall be provided to the owner, owner's agent or occupant of each abutting lot or
parcel and each parcel immediately across the street or road from the lot or
parcel which is the subject of the request. The written notice shall identify the
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
nature of the request and the date and time the commission will consider the
request.
c.The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of this section
only as follows:
1.The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or
waiver with conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to
the board of supervisors as an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in
section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as provided in sections
32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver pertains. A
modification or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an
application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board
of supervisors.
2.In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the
modification or waiver based upon the finding set forth in subsection (a),
amend any condition imposed by the commission, and impose any
conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in subsection (a).
Otherwise, neither the grant nor denial of a modification or waiver may be
appealed to the board.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01; Ord. 01-18(8), 10-17-01)
Sec. 4.17.6 Exempt outdoor lighting and related acts
The following outdoor lighting and related acts shall be exempt from the requirements
of these outdoor lighting regulations:
a.Lighting which is not subject to this chapter by state or federal law.
b.Construction, agricultural, emergency or holiday decorative lighting, provided
that the lighting is temporary, and is discontinued within seven (7) days upon
completion of the project or holiday for which the lighting was provided.
c.Lighting of the United States of America or Commonwealth of Virginia flags and
other non-commercial flags expressing constitutionally protected speech.
d.Security lighting controlled by sensors which provides illumination for fifteen (15)
minutes or less.
e.The replacement of an inoperable lamp or component which is in a luminaire
that was installed prior to the date of adoption of section 4.17.
f.The replacement of a failed or damaged luminaire which is one of a matching
group serving a common purpose.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of January 2, 2002.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: April 25, August 1 and September 12, 2001.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of April 25, 2001, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of August 1, 2001 (pages 1 - 15) and found them to be in order.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of September 12, 2001, and gave two typographical
corrections to the clerk.
Motion to approve the minutes which had been read was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by
Mr. Bowerman, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker said Ms. Humphris will resign as a member of the VACo Board of Directors on
November 11, and there will be a caucus regarding members for this region of VACO on November 11 at
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
4:15 p.m. at the Annual Conference. He knows that other localities in this region are interested in having
one of their board members fill this seat. If any of our Board members are interested in filling the seat, they
need to be at that causus.
Mr. Perkins asked if this is for the new region. Mr. Tucker said the new region will be composed of
members from Albemarle, Buckingham, Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland, Nelson and Powhatan. Ms.
Humphris said she has talked with each of the county administrators about this causus. The administrator
in Nelson has nominated Mr. Harry Harris for this position. Mr. Harris is Chairman of the Nelson County
Board of Supervisors, Chairman of the TJ Planning District Commission, Chairman of VENTURE, and also
Chairman of the WIA Board.
__________
Ms. Humphris noted a copy of letter which had been given to the Board tonight from Mr. Leonard
Dreyfus regarding problems associated with the recent improvements on Route 20 North from Route 610 to
Barrsden Road. Mr. Martin said he will discuss the situation referred to with VDOT.
__________
Ms. Thomas said Charlottesville has joined in a program to establish an endowment to help low
and moderate income residents have college scholarships. The money will be matched by private funds.
She has been asked informally if the County has any interest in doing the same thing. This would not add
to what Charlottesville is doing for its residents, but would be an Albemarle County program only. She
suggested that staff look at this proposal when it looks at all items in the next budget.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much money was allocated by the City. Ms. Thomas said it was
$250,000. Mr. Martin said it started at Venable School where some of the students were adopted by
A@
businessmen in the community and promised a college education if they did certain things. He thinks this is
part of that program. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is a self-replenishing fund? Ms. Thomas was not sure. Mr.
Martin said he thinks the concept is good, but the Board needs more information.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Virginia Employment Commission has been working with the Virginia
Workforce Center to develop a new building that will include a one-stop job search facility. They are
A@
trying to determine if anyone else has any interest in space in this new building. She knows an Albemarle
County staff person has attended one of their meetings, but now they have sent in a survey to be filled out.
She handed the survey to Mr. Tucker.
__________
Ms. Thomas said homeowners in Farmington are connected to the public water system, and the
water system needs to be replaced. The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has said the project
will not start until 80 percent of the homeowners agree to paying what amounts to about $10,000 per
household (paid over a 10-year period). She said that more than 80 percent have already agreed to pay
this cost, but they are concerned about the people who have not signed up to do this. They would like for
the County to adopt an ordinance requiring mandatory hookup. She wanted the Board members to know
that she has asked the County Attorney to look into this request.
Mr. Bowerman said sewerage connections should be included. He thinks it would be best to look
at both.
Mr. Perkins asked who wants this ordinance, the ACSA or the residents in Farmington. Ms.
Thomas said it is the ACSA and the people in Farmington who have already signed to do this. Mr. Davis
said procedurally, the ACSA has to adopt either by regulation or resolution a mandatory connection policy
that would then have to be approved by this Board. He has discussed this with Jim Bowling (ACSA
attorney) and he is working on an approach that would be acceptable.
Mr. Bowerman said he mentioned sewerage service because often the ACSA does questionnaires
in a neighborhood for extension of sewer lines and they need a certain percentage to sign. There are
always a certain number of people who want the service, but never enough, and where there is an area
where people want the service, there has always been the issue of requiring mandatory connections.
Ms. Thomas said it is different with Farmington because the service is already there. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the policy would be specific to Farmington. Mr. Davis said that most likely it would be
because Farmington has been classified as its own rate area for this particular project. As to sewer service,
State law for that is different than with water service. There is a provision which says that even if you adopt
a mandatory connection policy for sewer, you cant impose it as long as existing drainfields are functioning.
=
There would be no way to mandate that someone abandon a drainfield.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
October 17, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Supervisors
Date: 12/05/2001
Initials: LAB