2000-09-13September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 13, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin,
Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Chief of Planning and Community Development, David Benish, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Education, $209,776.15 (Form #99086).
The executive summary states that at its meeting on August 14, 2000, the Albemarle County
School Board approved the following:
Project Return II Program
The Project Return II Program, which provides instruction at home for students who require
alternative education, has collected tuition fees from these students in the amount of $225.00. There is
a fund balance from FY98-99 in the amount of $9,551.15. These funds will help to cover the expense of
alternative education for FY99-00.
Rental – Monticello High School
The Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) rented Monticello High School
during June and July, 2000. The School Board approved the rental agreement on December 13, 1999.
Expenses and revenues were incurred in both FY99/00 and FY00/01. Budgets for each fiscal year are
required to be approved by the School Board and Board of Supervisors. Since, this is the first time that the
Division has approved a building rental application of this magnitude, there are significant unknowns
regarding expenses. A separate fund has been established to track expenses and revenues associated
with the rental of Monticello High School to AIMR.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisor’s approve the appropriations, totaling $209,776.15, as
detailed on Appropriation #99086.
By the above-shown vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99086
FUND: GRANTS/PROGAMS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL GRANTS AND PROGRAMS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************************************************
1 3122 63349 112100Wages-Teacher $9,028.27
1 3122 63349 210000FICA 747,88
1 3145 62190 114300Salaries-Other Tech 15,000.00
1 3145 62190 123500OT/Wages-Sys Pg.Analyst 835.00
1 3145 62190 210000FICA 1,211.00
1 3145 62190 301210Contract Services 5,000.00
1 3145 62190 580000Misc Expenses 5,000.00
1 3145 62190 800701ADP Equip-Repl 2,000.00
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
1 3145 62420 129000OT/Wages-Service 5,000.00
1 3145 62420 129100OT/Wages-Custodial 12,000.00
1 3145 62420 160300Pay Supp./Stipends 2,000.00
1 3145 62420 210000FICA 1,454,00
1 3145 62420 301210Contract Services 77,000.00
1 3145 62420 331000Repairs/Maint 10,000.00
1 3145 62420 510100Electrical Svc 4,500.00
1 3145 62420 510300Water/Sewer 4,000.00
1 3145 62420 510400Refuse Removal 4,000.00
1 3145 62420 580000Misc Expenses 5,000.00
1 3145 62420 600000Materials & Supplies 12,000.00
1 3145 62420 600500Janitorial Supplies 2,000.00
1 3145 62420 800100Mach/Equip 10,000.00
1 3145 62420 800101Mach/Equip-Repl 5,000.00
1 3145 62420 800201Furniture/Fix-Repl 2,000.00
1 3145 64600 331200Building Improvements 15,000.00
TOTAL $209,776.15
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************************************************
2 3122 18000 189900Misc. Revenues $225.00
2 3122 51000 510100Approp. Fund Balance 9,551.15
2 3145 15000 150201Building Rental 200,000.00
TOTAL $209,776.15
(Ms. Thomas asked if the County made or lost money with the rental of Monticello High School to
.
the AIMRMr. Tucker answered that the matter will be tracked for one more year, before the answer is
available. He explained that one of the reasons there has been a problem in determining this figure is that it
is split between two fiscal years.)
_______________
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Education, $228,596.36 (Form #20011).
At its meeting on August 14, 2000, the Albemarle County School Board approved the following:
Donation – Murray Elementary School
Murray Elementary School received a donation from the Neff Charitable Fund of the Fidelity
Investments Charitable Gift Fund in the amount of $500.00. Murray Elementary School solicited
businesses around the area to make donations to the school to support the Laptop Project. This project
will assist in the purchase of laptop computers for use by teachers and staff.
Virginia Department of Education
The Virginia Department of Education has designated $1,497.36 to Albemarle County Public
Schools for assistive technology equipment. This money will be used to purchase adaptive education
equipment for students with disabilities.
Learn and Serve Virginia Grant
Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award, Learn and Serve Virginia, from the
Virginia Department of Education in the amount of $5,375.00. This grant will provide for funding for the
Project “Reading Together to Reach the Stars”. This project will develop and implement a model
program of reading buddies which pair second and third graders with preschool children to ease
transition of preschoolers into elementary school and to provide the second and third graders with an
opportunity to be leaders and practice reading and writing skills. This project will also develop a
relationship with the Head Start program and encourage parents of preschoolers to become more active
in their children’s learning.
Special Education Local Improvement Grant
Albemarle County Public School’s Special Education Department has received a Special
Education Local Improvement Grant (SLIVER) from the Virginia Department of Education in the amount
of $16,711.00. SLIVER funds will allow special education teachers to be involved in the Language
Program. This is a staff development program for effective intervention strategy targeting special
educational and at-risk youth in the school system.
Adult Basic Education Program
The Albemarle Adult Basic Education Program requested an additional $5,756.00 from the
Albemarle County School Board to provide an increased 15% match for a $65,456.00 Federal Allocation
for FY00/01. In FY99/00 Albemarle County provided $5,795 as a 10% match to the federal allocation of
$52,154.00. The additional $5,756.00 in local funds would match a higher allocation granted by the
state and would change the mandated match from 10% to 15%. The need for an increased local match
in funds became evident after the FY00/01 budgeting process was complete. Without this increase, the
Adult Basic Education Program would not receive an additional $32,618.00 for the program.
Equity and Diversity Program
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
The FY00/01 Adopted Budget provided for the staffing of an Equity and Diversity Program. A
half-time staff member was budgeted within the Human Resources Department for the operation of this
program. As the development of this program has progressed, it has been decided that the staff
member would be more appropriately housed and overseen by the Coordinator of Training and
Development. It is requested the funding for the Equity and Diversity staffing be transferred from the
Human Resources budget to the Media Center/Training budget.
Rental – Monticello High School
The Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) rented Monticello High
School during June and July, 2000. The School Board approved the rental agreement on December
13, 1999. Expenses and revenues were incurred in both FY99/00 and FY00/01. Budgets for each fiscal
year are required to be approved by the School Board and Board of Supervisors. Since, this is the first
time that the Division has approved a building rental application of this magnitude, there are significant
unknowns regarding expenses. A separate fund has been established to track expenses and revenues
associated with the rental of Monticello High School to AIMR.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $228,596.36,
as detailed on Appropriation #20011.
By the above-shown vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
NUMBER: 20011
FUND: VARIOUS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS, DONATIONS,
ETC.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
**************************************************************************************************************
1221561101800700ADP Equipment$500.00
1211261102800701ADP Equipment-Repl 1,497.36
1312663328550100Travel-Mileage 275.00
1312663328601300Inst. Materials5,000.00
1312663328601700Copying 100.00
1321161102160300Stipend-Staff Dev7,758.00
1321161102210000FICA 643.00
1321161102580500Staff Development 8,310.00
1211393010930000Fund Transfers 5,756.00
1241060100999981Board Reserve (5,756.00)
1311563322601300Inst. Materials 4,513.00
1242062140111400Salaries-Other Mang. (25,546.00)
1242062140210000FICA (1,954.00)
1242062140221000VRS (3,301.00)
1242062140231000Health Ins (1,375.00)
1242062140232000Dental Ins (48.00)
1242062140241000VRS Group Life (204.00)
1211461311111400Salaries-Other Mang.25,546.00
1211461311210000FICA 1,954.00
1211461311221000VRS 3,301.00
1211461311231000Health Ins 1,375.00
1211461311232000Dental Ins 48.00
1211461311241000VRS Group Life204.00
1314562190114300Salaries-Other Tech15,000.00
1314562190123500OT/Wages-Sys Pg.Analyst 835.00
1314562190210000FICA 1,211.00
1314562190301210Contract Services 5,000.00
1314562190580000Misc Expenses 5,000.00
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
1314562190800701ADP Equip-Repl 2,000.00
1314562420129000OT/Wages-Service 5,000.00
1314562420129100OT/Wages-Custodial12,000.00
1314562420160300Pay Supp./Stipends 2,000.00
1314562420210000FICA 1,454.00
1314562420301210Contract Services77,000.00
1314562420331000Repairs/Maint 10,000.00
1314562420510100Electrical Svc 4,500.00
1314562420510300Water/Sewer 4,000.00
1314562420510400Refuse Removal 4,000.00
1314562420580000Misc Expenses 5,000.00
1314562420600000Materials & Supplies12,000.00
1314562420600500Janitorial Supplies 2,000.00
1314562420800100Mach/Equip 10,000.00
1314562420800101Mach/Equip-Repl 5,000.00
1314562420800201Furniture/Fix-Repl 2,000.00
1314564600331200Building Improvements 15,000.00
TOTAL$228,596.36
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
************************************************************************************************************
2200018100181109Donation$500.00
2200024000240210Sp.Ed Tech Equip 1,497.36
2312624000240306Learn&Serve Grant 5,375.00
2321124000240357SLIVER Grant16,711.00
2311524000240225Adult Ed (1,243.00)
2311551000512001Transfer-School 5,756.00
2314515000150201Building Rental200,000.00
TOTAL$228,596.36
_______________
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance, $1,329,872 (Form #20012).
The Section 8 Housing Program is an ongoing rental assistance program offered by the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Section 8-001 program provides housing
assistance with 160 subsidies. Program 8-001 is funded through June 2002. The Section 8-002 program
provides 80 housing vouchers.
The final amount of the Federal HUD grant will be determined by the final amount of assistance
rendered to residents. Fund balance will be appropriated after the fiscal year end audit is completed. It
is estimated that grant 8-001 will approximate $873,928.00 and grant 8-002 will approximate
$455,944.00, a total of $1,329,872.00.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 20012 in the amount of $1,329,872.00.
By the above-shown vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
NUMBER: 20012
FUND: HOUSING
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR HUD PUBLIC ASSISTANCE HOUSING GRANTS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************************************************************
1 1227 81920 300205ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES $91,008.00
1 1227 81920 312800AUDIT 400.00
1 1227 81920 579001HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT 782,520.00
1 1227 81921 300205ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 45,504.00
1 1227 81921 312800AUDIT 400.00
1 1227 81921 579001HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT 368,760.00
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
1 1227 81921 930009TRANSFER TO GEN'L FUND 41,280.00
TOTAL $1,329,872.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
********************************************************************************************************************
2 1227 33000 330015SECTION 8-001 MOD. REHAB. ASST. $873,928.00
2 1227 33000 330016SECTION 8-002 VOUCHER PROGRAM 455,944.00
TOTAL $1,329,872.00
_______________
Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Odd Fellows Lodge, $4,000 (Form #20013).
th
At the September 6 meeting, the Board approved a $4,000 donation to the Odd Fellows Lodge
in Esmont to purchase .44 acres adjacent to the W. D. Ward Center. This additional property will be
used to provide parking for County police vehicles at the satellite substation, for community agencies
utilizing the Center, for the Southern Albemarle Neighborhood Organization, as well as participants at a
future JABA meal site.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #20013 in the amount of $4,000 to the Odd
Fellows Lodge. Funding is provided by the Neighborhood Grant Program.
By the above-shown vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
NUMBER: 20013
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION TO ESMONT ODD FELLOWS LODGE TO
PURCHASE .44 ACRES ADJACENT TO WD WARD CENTER
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
************************************************************************************************
1100012013560416NEIGHBORHOOD TEAM PROGRAM$4,000.00
TOTAL$4,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
************************************************************************************************
2100051000510100GENERAL FUND BALANCE$4,000.00
TOTAL$4,000.00
_______________
Item No. 5.5. Revision to County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Policy P-84 (Annual Leave).
By the above-shown vote, the Board approved the following revision to Personnel Policy
P-84 on Annual Leave:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-84ANNUAL LEAVE
All permanent employees of the County shall be granted annual leave by the County as follows:
A.One day per month for each month employed during the first five (5) years of continuous
employment.
B.One and one-quarter days for each month employed during the sixth through the tenth (6-
10) years of continuous employment.
C.One and one-half days for each month employed during the eleventh through the fifteenth
(11-15) years of continuous employment.
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
D.One and three-quarter days for each month employed during the sixteenth through the
twentieth (16-20) years of continuous employment.
E. Two days for each month employed during the twenty-first through twenty-fifth (21-25)
years of continuous employment.
th
F.Two and one-quarter days for each month employed during the twenty-sixth (26) and
succeeding years of continuous employment.
The maximum accumulation for annual leave is 320 hours.
Upon termination of employment, the employee will be paid for his accumulated but unused annual
leave.
Employees are required to arrange use of paid annual leave in advance with their department head
or designee. In case of a conflict because of the work schedule in a particular department, leave will be
granted at the discretion of the department head or designee. In the interest of fostering wellness and
relaxation for County employees, those employees with five or more years of service must take at least five
(5) days of annual leave per fiscal year.
_______________
Item No. 5.6. Copies of Planning Commission minutes of August 8, August 22, and August 29,
2000, were received for information.
_______________
Item No. 5.7. Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence
in Financial Reporting, was received for information.
The executive summary states that the County of Albemarle has been awarded the Government
Finance Officers Association’s Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its
1998/99 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest
form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment
represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management.
The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program
including demonstrating a constructive “spirit of full disclosure” to clearly communicate its financial story
and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR.
_______________
Item No. 5.8. Notice of Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity as
Household Goods Carrier filed with the Division of Motor Vehicles by Leon White Movers, Inc., was received
for information.
_______________
Item No. 5.9. 2000 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and
Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies as made by the Department of Taxation, was received for
information.
(Mr. Martin indicated that this item would be moved to Item #13 on the agenda.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-00-017. CV-R-318 Mt. Jefferson (Signs #34&35). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to construct 115’ tall wooden telecom pole in Bellair Subd. Znd R-1 & EC. TM 76C, Sec 2, P
2. Loc on W sd of Rt 29 bypass (Monacan Trail), approx 1/2 ml S of intersec of Rts 29 & 250 W (Ivy Rd).
Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28 and September 4, 2000.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-00-026. ALLTEL/Berman (Signs #32&33). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to construct 93’ tall monopole telecom tower, w/3 flush-mounted panel antennas & collocation
antennas, on 17.065 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM 72, P 19B. Loc on W sd of Rt 635 (Miller School Rd) at the I-
64 overpass. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28 and September 4, 2000.)
Mr. Benish reported that the applicant for SP-00-026 is proposing to install a personal wireless
communication facility with a steel, self-supporting monopole tower. The tower will be painted brown in
color and will be five feet above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet. The tallest tree within this
distance is 85 feet in height. He noted that this is one of several facilities ALLTEL is requesting in order to
provide seamless wireless coverage along Interstate 64, west of the City of Charlottesville. He stated that
three flush-mounted antennas and an RF isolator will be attached to the pole. The property is located on
Route 635 just north of the I-64 overpass, and all of the adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. The
tower site will be contained within a 1,200 square foot lease area, which is in a flat wooded area nearly 50
linear feet from the westbound lane of I-64. He commented that the staff has reviewed the request and
recommended approval. The tower base site is elevated 27 feet above I-64, and there are several mature
trees located along the right-of-way which will serve as a buffer between the tower and the road.
Mr. Benish said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has reviewed the request and recommended
approval, and the Planning Commission has recommended a condition allowing for the grounding rod to
extend two feet above the height of the antennas. The Planning Commission has also established a
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
condition which sets limits on the RF isolator’s size and location. He explained that the location must be at
or below tree top level.
Mr. Benish said revised conditions of approval have been distributed to Board members, but there
are no substantive changes in the sense that there are no changes different than the Planning
Commission’s recommendation. The staff and the County Attorney realized, after examining the original
conditions, that a more consistent set of conditions in terms of format would be desirable. During the
deliberations at the Planning Commission meeting, there was some discussion about providing continuity
and consistency with the requirements for a number of these applications being considered by this Board
tonight. He said a consistent way of measuring the height of trees relative to the height of towers was
developed by using a sea level elevation as will be seen in the first condition. He remarked that other than
corrections of errors, the conditions are consistent with the Planning Commission’s approval. However, the
language of the conditions are clearer and more concise.
Ms. Thomas called attention to the need for Board members to be educated about RF isolators.
The Supervisors need to know why they are suddenly appearing in these types of applications, as well as
how they will look, and when they will be needed. The term, “flush- mounted,” also needs to be explained
as well as what is meant by the distance the antennas project from the pole.
Mr. Benish suggested that the applicant could probably explain the RF isolator technology best.
Mr. Benish went on to say the intent of having the antennas flush-mounted is to have them located as close
to the diameter of the pole as possible, but there is a connection requirement that typically requires a 12
inch spread in order to get the coupling onto the pole. The RF isolator is a piece of equipment used to keep
calls from bouncing off the adjacent trees and going back to the lower antennas. He said it divides and
filters the calls that feed back to the pole.
Ms. Humphris pointed out that the ARB had requested that details be provided on the appearance
of the RF isolator and indicated that the visibility and impact would be reviewed. She saw there had been a
correction about the size of the RF isolator which was shown on Page Two of Attachment G as being two
feet by two feet. However, the actual size is three feet by three feet. In one place the RF isolator is referred
to as a grid, and another place it appears to be solid. She mentioned that some of the members of the
Planning Commission remarked that they think the RF isolator will be much more intrusive visually than the
antennas themselves. She said Board members need to know a lot more about this item and why it is
being requested, if there is to be no collocation on the poles.
There were no further questions for Mr. Benish, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing relating to
SP-00-026. The applicant would be allowed to speak at this time, and he asked him to answer the
questions, which were just asked by Board members. Mr. Martin went on to say that since there were a lot
of new faces in the audience, he would inform the group of the way the Board proceeds with public
hearings. He stated that applicants are limited to ten minute presentations of their proposal, and they will
be allowed a five minute rebuttal at the close of the public hearing. He added that other speakers are
limited to one appearance of three minutes.
Mr. M. E. (Dick) Gibson, an attorney with Tremblay and Smith, stated that he is representing the
applicant. Mr. Gibson noted that he wanted to make some general remarks which will apply to all six of the
applications before the Board tonight. With the Board’s permission, he would like to take more than ten
minutes with the first application, but he would take a lot less time with each successive application. He
asked if this is acceptable to the Supervisors. Mr. Martin indicated that, to an extent, this would be
acceptable.
Mr. Gibson noted that the staff has recommended approval as well as the Planning Commission.
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is recommending approval of the sites which are applicable, and the
ARB recommends approval. The proposed system has six poles along the I-64 corridor, and it is a new
system for ALLTEL. He added that ALLTEL usually uses taller towers, but this is an effort to comply with
the design guidelines that have not yet been formally adopted by this Board, but which have been
recommended by the Planning Commission. There are two different types of facilities -- core and repeater.
The objective of the facility is to have continuous coverage along I-64 from Charlottesville to the western
County border. Rather than providing service on a piecemeal basis with a single tower, each of the six
towers is an integral part of an entire system. They are designed to be Tier II facilities under the design
guidelines, which is the middle facility, and would require only Planning Commission approval. However,
the ordinance to implement the Design Manual has not yet been enacted, so the applicant is working under
the old ordinance, which requires a special use permit even with these types of facilities. This will be the
second least intrusive type of facility available to be constructed under the design guidelines, and they are
all tree top facilities. He commented that visibility is the most important factor, and each of these towers will
be either invisible or minimally visible. He said balloon tests have been conducted in order to verify this. He
remarked that the Design Manual also mentions that wooded areas are considered to be opportunity sites
and each of these facilities is in a wooded area. The Design Manual also talks about the tree top aspect of
the towers, and they are all located in the tree tops.
Mr. Gibson said he has a packet of drawings for each of the Supervisors, and there are three
different types of drawings which will illustrate the types of poles ALLTEL proposes to construct. He
explained that one type represents core sites where, in some cases, there will be a steel monopole that will
be painted a flat brown. In other cases, though, a wooden monopole is proposed to be used which would
not be painted. The monopoles will have antennas, and the only difference is the configuration of the
antennas. They will also be painted a flat brown to match the tower. There will be equipment at the base
of the towers, and the equipment shelters will be painted brown, and in one case, additional screening will
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
be added. He stated that two variations represent the repeater sites which have monopoles with a single
antenna at the top, another antenna at a lower point and the RF isolator. The third variation is also a
repeater site, and the tower has two antennas at the bottom, but the top will be the same as the first
variation.
Ms. Thomas asked if the drawings are identified to show which poles will be at the different
locations. Mr. Gibson answered that he will discuss the type of pole in each of the drawings with the Board.
He will also distribute photographs which pertain only to the core sites and the RF isolator.
Mr. Gibson said the RF isolator will be a three foot by three foot grid, and it will be mounted
according to the Planning Commission’s condition which puts it below the top of the trees so it will not be
visible from nearby roads. He stated that representatives of ALLTEL went to the CFW I-64 west site and
attached an RF isolator to its facility. One picture was taken from the ground looking up, and the other one
was taken from the viewing point of the public at a distance. He remarked that these pictures illustrate the
fact that the RF isolator will be completely concealed by the trees. He also has a series of computer
generated drawings relating to the RF isolator which illustrate the principle explained by Mr. Benish. RF
isolators are essentially designed to prevent radio frequency feedback from the top antennas to the lower
antennas at the repeater sites. He said in order to accommodate the interference, the power level at the
lower antennas would have to be increased significantly to the point that the facility loses its effective
purpose. The drawings he distributed will illustrate that with the addition of the RF isolator, the RF energy
from the top antennas is directed over the trees rather than into the trees. If the RF energy is directed into
the trees, there will be feedback into the lower antennas.
Mr. Gibson said there are a couple of conditions general to all six applications that are causing the
applicant some concern. The biggest concern relates to the height of the facility itself. The Design Manual
provides that a Tier II application will be a facility which is no taller than ten feet above the height of the
tallest tree within 25 feet of the facility. He explained that ALLTEL engineered this system with the criteria in
the Design Manual in mind. He pointed out that when the test transmissions were conducted, the tallest
tree within 25 feet was located. He noted that ALLTEL representatives went ten feet above that point for
their test propagations and placed these sites strategically along the corridor based on that information.
When the applicant went before the Planning Commission everything seemed to be going very well, but
without any discussion or reason, a motion was made to limit the height of the structure to five feet above
the tallest tree. He noted that when such short facilities are being considered, every foot is extremely
important. ALLTEL representatives have tried to prevail upon the Planning Commission to leave the height
at ten feet above the tallest tree, but all of the poles were limited to five feet except one. He then proposed
that this condition be changed in order to enable ALLTEL to have facilities ten feet above the top of the
trees for several reasons. He reiterated that the Design Manual specifies that a Tier II application will be
one that is not greater than ten feet above the tops of the trees. ALLTEL relied on this specification and
planned a system based on it. Secondly, he pointed out that visibility is the only issue involved, and the
balloon test was conducted at ten feet above the tops of the trees at each of the sites. The balloon tests
established that either the balloon was invisible or barely visible. He said at ten feet brown painted
antennas might project a couple of feet above the top of a tree from a distant visibility point, and at five feet
they will not be projecting above the tops of the trees at all. He noted that ten feet above the trees is not an
important factor for visibility, but it is a very important factor for RF propagations. He also pointed out that
the ARB heard the application based on a proposal for a ten foot height above the tops of the trees for the
cases where it had jurisdiction, and gave approval. He noted that the ARB is the gatekeeper of visibility and
appearance, and it had no problem with the poles being ten feet above the trees. He then respectfully
submitted that it is appropriate in all cases to change the condition from five feet above the tops of the trees
to ten feet. He said it is very important, not only for these applications, but for future planning as well, that
the ten foot height above the trees be restored. If there is a Design Manual and applicants are trying to
conform to it, but changes are done arbitrarily, it makes it very difficult to understand what County officials
want.
Mr. Gibson then mentioned that he was just handed the revised conditions, so he is unsure if some
of his concerns have been addressed. However, the conditions of approval have two conflicting provisions
about the height of the tower. He called attention to Condition Number One which correctly states the
condition of approval that was discussed at the Planning Commission. However, Condition Number Three
(c) adds another condition of height that conflicts with the first condition. He thinks it would be appropriate
to eliminate Condition Number Three (c) from each of the applications. Mr. Davis said this has already
been done.
Ms. Humphris asked which site relates to the Berman site. Mr. Gibson replied that the Berman site
is a repeater (1) site.
Ms. Humphris next asked for an explanation of the difference between Attachment B Page Five in
the material given to the Supervisors as to the design of the antennas. Mr. Gibson stated that the design of
the antennas included with the application is in error. The one he gave to the Board tonight, which was also
given to the Planning Commission, is the correct one. He pointed out that only one type of antenna was
submitted with the application to cover all the sites, and that is not the case. He stated that neither the RF
isolator nor the antennas were shown at the two different heights.
Ms. Humphris remarked that this is something new, because she is accustomed to dealing with the
flush mounted antennas as shown on Attachment B, Page Five. The repeater (1) site diagram shows two
feet by four feet panel antennas with side reflectors. She asked if a picture is available to illustrate this. Mr.
Gibson said he could provide Ms. Humphris with such a picture.
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the picture shown on the next to the last page of the staff’s material for
the Board provides the illustration to which Ms. Humphris referred. Ms. Thomas then inquired about
antennas in the picture with a four and one-half inch wingspread. Mr. Gibson responded that this type of
facility is new to ALLTEL, so he does not have a picture of an existing facility to exactly show the
appearance. However, he has a photograph of the exact type of wing panel antennas that will be used, but
they are not flush mounted. The Supervisors will be able to see the type of antenna that is being proposed,
but they will have to view it and collapse the antenna next to the tower. He added that now there are side
arm brackets which are much longer than the side arm brackets proposed to be used. These will be flush
mounted antenna in a down tilted position so the bottom of the panel antenna is actually touching or
perhaps an inch or two away from the tower itself. The top will be no more than twelve inches from the
tower, and there is a mounting bracket in the middle that is probably eight inches long. He explained that it
is mounted as close to the tower as possible so it can be down tilted in order to provide the proper
coverage.
Ms. Humphris wondered if the wings cause it to protrude further than 12 inches. Mr. Gibson
answered that the wings do not make it protrude further. The two by four foot panel antenna in the middle
is solid, but the wings on the outside of the antenna are grid so at any distance they become invisible.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the total extension from the top of the pole is going to be 12 inches plus
eight inches. She added that it looks as though the panels are eight inches long. Mr. Gibson responded
that the panels are eight inches in depth. Ms. Thomas asked if the panels extend from the pole. Mr.
Gibson replied affirmatively.
Ms. Thomas noted that this does not meet the condition. The condition will either have to be
rewritten or the applicant will have to make a change with the panel. She called attention to Condition
Number Four (c) which states that, “In no case, shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12
inches.” Mr. Gibson responded that the applicant can meet this condition. He explained that the top tilt
portion of the antennas would be no more than 12 inches from the side of the tower. Ms. Thomas stated
that it appears the wings protrude further. Mr. Gibson said the wings flare out to the side, and he distributed
a photograph to verify his statement. The wings are not to be flush mounted, but the applicant is proposing
to move them in close to the tower.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the RF isolator looks transparent in the photograph, but there was
discussion about it being painted dark brown. She wondered if it might look transparent directly from below,
but if viewed from another angle it would appear brown in color. Mr. Gibson said it is a couple of inches
thick, so if it is being viewed in a head-on fashion, it will look brown. He stated that it will appear to look
more solid when it is viewed from different angles.
Mr. Martin commented that the RF isolator is basically flat and a grid, so when it is being viewed
from below, the sky can be seen above. However, when it is being viewed from head-on, it can be seen in
a more solid fashion. Mr. Benish explained that the RF isolator will be at tree height.
Mr. Dorrier said he can understand that ten feet above tree height is necessary to deliver a clear
signal. He noted that trees grow each year, and he wondered if the trees grow as tall as the tower, will
ALLTEL officials want to add another ten feet to the tower. Mr. Gibson answered that if the trees grow that
much, it may be necessary to extend the tower to a taller height.
Mr. Perkins stated that mature trees will not grow much taller. Mr. Gibson said if the trees grow,
and it becomes an issue, the height of the tower would have to be extended. He added, though, the way
Condition Number One is now written, the tower could never be anything more than five feet above the tree
tops. He reiterated that he hopes the condition can be changed from five feet to ten feet above tree level.
Mr. Dorrier inquired if the Planning Commission changed this condition from ten feet to five feet with
no comment. Mr. Benish remarked that further discussion about this issue may be needed. The staff
report indicates that this project was proposed at five feet above the tree tops, and he believes the condition
is tied to the variance that was issued which had a tower height of 90 feet. He thinks this is where the five
foot height originated with this particular application.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the request in Attachment A is for a tapered monopole of 93 feet, and
this is five feet above the tallest tree within the 25 foot radius. Mr. Gibson responded that in this particular
case, the applicant made a mistake in determining the height of the tallest tree and didn’t discover it until
after the application was filed. He said it was further complicated by the fact that the trees were so dense a
balloon could not be floated, because the balloon could not be fed up through the trees. He then
requested that this application be amended to state that the monopole be allowed to extend ten feet above
the tops of the trees to be consistent with other applications.
Ms. Thomas asked if it will be possible for the Board to make such a change since there is a
variance involved. Mr. Benish stated that he does not believe it is possible for the tower to extend ten feet
above the tree tops based on the variance. He suggested that Mr. Stephen Waller, a County planner,
comment on this matter. Mr. Benish said he asked Mr. Waller to come to the meeting tonight, since he
attended the Planning Commission meeting and has dealt with the project.
Mr. Waller remarked that the condition for the variance stated that the variance was being granted
only for the 90 foot tower described herein. Any tower of a taller height would require an amendment of the
variance.
Mr. Benish indicated that the Commission started with a different assumption from Mr. Gibson that
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
five feet was acceptable in this location. He said, though, as other sites were reviewed, the five foot height
became the Commission’s standard of review as to what would be appropriate and a technically functional
height.
Mr. Gibson emphasized that he explained to the Planning Commission that this was not the case,
and that the mistake was unintentional. He pointed out that one application indicated a five foot height
above the tree tops, and the others requested ten feet, so it was obvious that there was a mistake. The
Commissioners offered no explanation even though he indicated to them that the system was designed
based on ten feet above the tops of the trees.
Ms. Thomas referred to the fact that the BZA set the lower height for this application. She said it is
only a 90 foot permit. Mr. Gibson agreed. The applicant would have to get an increased variance.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Benish if towers approved for other locations in the County have all been ten
feet above the height of the trees. Mr. Benish replied that different heights have been approved based on
the locations and evaluations of the particular applications. The staff members focus on visibility, and they
start with the impact to visibility of a particular request. He stated that if staff members feel there is minimal
impact in terms of visibility, and the application is consistent with the standards and policies proposed in the
County’s tower policy, then they will generally recommend favorably. However, there have been heights
requested from five feet to ten feet and in one case, twelve feet. The Commission generally tries to keep
the towers down to the lowest height to minimize the aspect of visibility, and they work from the point of the
lowest height that is functionally feasible with the least community impact.
Mr. Davis added that from prior applications, it has been confirmed that five feet above the tree tops
provides a functional tower.
Ms. Humphris stated that she did not understand Mr. Gibson’s answer to Mr. Dorrier’s question
when he asked if a taller height above the tree tops will allow for a clearer signal. She asked if it is true that
the signal would be clearer or is it true that the signal will be effective for a longer distance. Mr. Gibson
answered that it would be both. He explained that there will be less interference because there will be
fewer trees to interfere with the signal, and there will be less dissipation of the signal since there will be
fewer trees coming in direct contact with it.
Ms. Humphris asked how the signal can come into direct contact with the trees if the tower is above
them. Mr. Gibson stated that even though the tower will be above the trees, it will be sending and receiving
signals through the trees. The top of the pole will not be seen from I-64 at the Berman site because of the
difference in elevation from I-64 and the site itself with the dense tree coverage in between. The more trees
there are in the immediate vicinity of the antennas, the greater the signal dissipates, so every foot above the
tops of the trees decreases the dissipation. He went on to say the second point is that the taller the tower
the larger the footprint of the signal. He stated that both of these points are important. He said when the
system was engineered, it was engineered with the assumption that ten feet above the tops of the trees
would be acceptable since this was the information contained in the Design Manual, and the location of the
towers was predicated on that point.
At 7:40 p.m., Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for SP-00-026. He asked if there was anyone
present who would like to speak to this application. No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Thomas referred to Condition Number Four (d) which indicates that the RF isolator shall be
located below the height of the tallest tree. She said in this case, the tallest trees in the 25 foot radius are
behind and they are 90 feet tall. She stated that in front of the site the trees are 75, 85 and 87 feet in
height. She remarked that if the RF isolator was at 88 feet it would meet the condition, but it would still be
visible. She thinks this is one of the best sites, and it would be amazing if anyone ever sees this monopole
once it is installed. She is asking these questions for general information and not because she thinks this
particular pole has any chance of becoming an eyesore. She then inquired if the isolator can be below
most of the trees or whether it has to be close to the top of the tower.
Mr. Benish said the applicants will have to explain the technology. However, the way the condition
reads is that the location is being determined by using the same methodology of picking the tallest tree. He
stated that the isolator will be above the tallest trees to the front because the tallest trees are to the rear of
the site. He is uncertain if the RF isolator can be lowered below the height of the trees at the front of the
site and still be functional.
Mr. Gibson remarked that the placement of the RF isolator is important, and the original proposal
was to have it just under the top antennas on the receiver sites because the closer it is to the antennas the
more it will be able to direct the RF signal over the tops of the trees. He stated that the more it is moved
down, the more the RF signal will be hitting the tops of the trees to make the possibility for RF feedback
greater, as well as the need to reduce the power level from the lower antennas. There is a direct
correlation between the distance between the bottom of the top antennas and the mounting of the RF
isolators.
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would like for the RF isolator to be as close to the 89 foot level
as possible whether the pole is 93 feet or 98 feet in height. She wondered if the RF isolator would defeat its
purpose if it is at the 75 foot level. Mr. Gibson responded affirmatively.
Ms. Humphris noted that the original condition had indicated that the isolator would not be visible
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
from any public road. She asked if the location of the RF isolator at this particular site will be visible from
any public road. She does not think this condition has been revised, and she wondered why it was not
carried over in the revisions. Mr. Benish stated that at this particular site, he does not believe the RF isolator
will be visible from a public road. The intent when the conditions were modified was that given this location
at the height of the tallest tree, the RF isolator would not be visible. He is unsure if it would be clearly visible
through the trees from the other direction, although it is felt that it would not be visible from the public road,
if the height was based on the tallest tree.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Davis if the Board should take action before the applicant goes back to the
BZA to get the height increased to ten feet above the trees. Mr. Davis answered that nothing precludes the
Board from taking action, and then it would depend upon the BZA to approve the request for the greater
height or not approve it. The danger to the applicant is that if the BZA does not approve the request, he will
have to make a new application to the Board of Supervisors to acquire the desired height, if the BZA
conditions are inconsistent with the conditions of the special permit conditions.
Mr. Tucker clarified and Mr. Davis concurred that if the Board approves a ten foot height above the
tree tops, and the BZA does not approve this height, then the applicant could still construct a tower five feet
above the trees without having to come back to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dorrier remarked that the sole purpose of a tower is to give a good signal, and if it does not
accomplish this purpose, then there is no need for the tower. He will defer to the experts who indicate they
need a ten foot height above the trees in this case. If the whole tower will not be as effective because it is
not ten feet above the trees, then he thinks the Board of Supervisors should consider amending the
application, especially since it seems that the Planning Commission didn’t give any reason for setting the
height at five feet above the tallest tree.
Ms. Thomas commented that she believes the Planning Commission wanted to be consistent as
far as the visible impact of the towers. This site happens to be the perfect site because there are trees
located behind the proposed tower. She went to the site and even though there are contours going
downward, they soon start upward again. There is a thick bank of trees behind the pole as well as around it
and in front of it. She said because there is a thick stand of trees behind it, she thinks having a higher
height for the pole would be visually acceptable because it is not breaking the tree line. She stated that
County officials have been very consistent as far as breaking the tree line is concerned. She is not
concerned about being consistent as far as whether a tower is five, seven or ten feet above the tallest tree.
However, she is concerned about being consistent as far as breaking the tree line.
Ms. Thomas said she is inclined to make a motion in this case that would never allow the pole to
exceed ten feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the facility for this particular site. She said
though her motion will contain the words, “flush mounted,” and she is not convinced that this is what has
been described tonight. She referred to Condition Number Four (c) which states that in no case shall the
antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches, and the applicant has indicated that this condition
can be met. She will agree to the RF isolator being located below the top of the tallest tree in this
particular location, but she is not convinced this will always be the visual stance the Supervisors will want to
take.
Next, Ms. Thomas made a motion to approve SP-00-026, ALLTEL/Berman, with the 11 revised
conditions given to the Board of Supervisors at this meeting, and with a modification to Condition Number
One to indicate that the top of the pole shall never exceed ten feet above the top of the tallest tree. Mr.
Dorrier seconded the motion.
Ms. Humphris stated that she will support the motion. However, she emphasized that she hopes
the County Attorney will protect the Supervisors since they are seeing these conditions for the first time.
She had so much trouble with the information that came to the Supervisors from the Planning Commission
as compared to the modifications made from the staff report. She added that she needs to be assured that
everything has been translated correctly into these conditions because she did not have the time nor the
ability to go through them all at this meeting.
Mr. Davis informed Ms. Humphris that he is reading the conditions as the Supervisors are reading
them. He has discussed this matter with the Planning staff, and the conditions appear to be sufficient.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the conditions include the stipulation that no existing trees shall be removed
within 200 feet of the pole, equipment or building. Mr. Davis answered affirmatively. He is certain the
revised conditions contain all of the standard conditions reworded more consistently, and he is certain that
Condition Number One has captured the height requirement as intended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that this site is actually in the White Hall District, although the staff report
indicated it was in the Samuel Miller District. Ms. Thomas apologized to Mr. Perkins for making the motion
but, after reading the staff report, she thought the site was in her district.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
1. The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet
above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same
base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with
the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole.
2. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The metal pole shall be painted the same color as the bark of the trees;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth on the attached
plan entitled “ALLTEL/Berman”;
e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not to
exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f. An RF Isolator, if required for the functioning of the facility, shall be located below the top of
the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1);
g. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
h. Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in
feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level;
i. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit;
3. The pole shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled “ALLTEL/Berman”;
4. Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “ALLTEL/Berman”;
b. Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches.
d. One RF isolator, not to exceed three (3) feet by three (3) feet in size, shall be allowed on
the pole and shall be located below the height of the tallest tree located within twenty-five
(25) feet of the pole, measured from the same base elevation above sea-level as the pole;
5. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, 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 installation
associated with the pole and equipment building, 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 of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall
not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A
special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility;
6. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the
pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8. No slopes associated with construction of the pole 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;
9. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; and
11. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A fence surrounding the
lease area is not a requirement of this approval; however, should a fence be installed, the materials
and height shall be restricted to those shown in the approved plan entitled “ALLTEL/Berman”.
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
____________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-00-027. ALLTEL/Yancey Mills (Signs #46&47). PUBLIC HEARING on
a request to construct 90’ tall monopole telecom tower, w/3 flush-mounted panel antennas & collocation
antennas, on 14.195 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM 71, P 37J. Loc near Yancey Mills on E sd of St Rt 824
(Patterson Mill Rd) between Rt 824 & I-64. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August
28 and September 4, 2000.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report for SP-00-027. The applicant is proposing to install a
telecommunication facility with a self supporting steel monopole tower, painted brown, ten feet above the
height of the tallest tree within 25 feet. The tallest tree is 80 feet in height, so the tower proposal is 90 feet
tall. He said three flush mounted four foot antennas are proposed with an RF isolator. The proposed tower
site is located on a 30 by 40 foot lease area at an elevation of 675 feet above sea level in the Samuel Miller
District, and it is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Area 3. The property is accessed from
Route 824 (Patterson Mill Lane), and it is located between Route 824 and I-64. He pointed out that all the
adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. The 1,200 square foot lease area for the facility is located
against the property line shared with the I-64 right-of-way, and the tower is located in a heavily wooded area
on a hill nearly 50 feet from the westbound lane and 37 feet above the edge of the pavement. He
commented that the nearest dwelling unit is approximately 600 feet from the site. The Planning
Commission recommended a five foot height again in the revised conditions, as well as a two foot extension
of the grounding rod above the top of the pole.
Mr. Dick Gibson, representing the applicant, said he would not repeat the general statements he
has already made. This is a core site, and it is very similar to the Berman site. A balloon test was
conducted on this site, and it was very positive. The only way the balloon could be seen was to stop by the
side of I-64, and have someone point to the location of the balloon, and even then it could not be seen with
the naked eye. He indicated that the balloon test was conducted at ten feet above the top of the tallest tree
within 25 feet of the pole. The ARB has conditionally approved the Certificate of Appropriateness, and the
only issue with this application is the same as the last one which relates to the height of the tower above the
tallest tree. He then respectfully requested that the Board modify the conditions of approval to change the
height of the tower to ten feet above the tallest tree versus five feet. The same factors that were in favor of
the Berman application would apply to this request also.
Ms. Thomas stated that this is a very different site from the Berman site, because the trees are very
sparse. She said it is a scrub area, and because it is so sparsely treed and the interstate can be seen
through the trees so easily, it seemed to her that some of the arguments for the tower being ten feet above
the tree tops were mitigated. She realizes it is not to the applicant’s advantage to give the Board a technical
okay of this issue, and she wishes there was a neutral consultant present. However, she asked Mr. Gibson
if he would explain the difference between sparsely treed and densely treed locations in terms of the
request for the tower to be ten feet above the tallest tree.
Mr. Gibson indicated that the more trees there are, the more the height becomes a factor, but he is
not sure when the number of trees makes the difference. He is also unsure if an RF expert could make this
determination. The independent people in other jurisdictions all agree that significant degradation of the
signal occurs when there are trees in the path of the signal, although the only way to prove this is to test the
signal in the field. The type of tree involved also makes a difference, but given the elevation above I-64, the
potential for visibility will be the same as it was at the last site. He remarked that people will be looking up
through the trees to try to see the tower which can barely be seen above the tops of the trees. If people
were 90 feet in the air, they will see it ten feet above the tallest tree, but if they are 50 or 60 feet below the
base level of the tower and looking up through the trees, the top will not be seen. He reiterated that the
balloon test was done ten feet above the tops of the trees.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for SP-00-027. No one came forward, so he
closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas asked if the landowner is present. Mr. Gibson indicated that the landowner was ill and
was not present.
Ms. Thomas mentioned her concern about the road leading to the site, and she wanted to make
sure there would not be further degradation of it because of ALLTEL’s equipment. She is not talking about
the road that is going to be moved, but she is talking about the private road that is self crushed asphalt. Mr.
Gibson stated that ALLTEL has a lease with the landowner, and the lease requires that if there is any
damage to the property, including the driveway, ALLTEL will have to repair it.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that the reason the trees are so sparse is because the area was primarily in
pines a number of years ago. The beetle hit the area, and it was logged. The large pine trees were taken
out, and these are just remnant trees that are left.
Mr. Dorrier noted that this request was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission, and
there appear to be no objections from neighbors. He is not in a position to recommend that the tower be
five or ten feet above the tree tops. However, if the signals won’t be adequate at five feet and they will be
adequate at ten feet, then he thinks the applicant’s request should be granted, unless there is a good
reason not to do so. The fact that there is no one present to protest the application must mean everybody
accepts it.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Gibson indicates that the balloon was flown at ten feet, and the site is not a
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
place that will impact on people except for the use of the road. If the road is not maintained, it will probably
impact the house beyond the site. She added, though, that if this is part of the lease agreement, it is as
good as the Supervisors adding a condition to this effect.
At this time, Ms. Thomas offered a motion to approve SP-00-027, ALLTEL/Yancey Mills, with
Condition Number One amended to allow for the top of the pole to be ten feet above the top of the tallest
tree within 25 feet of the facility. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten (10)
feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility at or below
the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or
equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2.The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The metal pole shall be painted the same color as the bark of the trees;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antennas and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth on the attached
plan entitled “ALLTEL/Yancey Mills”;
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not
to exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f.AN RF Isolator, if required for the functioning of the facility, shall be located below the top
of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1);
g.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
h.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in
feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level;
i.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled “ALLTEL/Yancey Mills”;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “ALLTEL/Yancey
Mills”;
b.Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited;
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, 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 installation associated with the pole and equipment building, 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 of Planning and Community
Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the
pole and equipment building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future
tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height
of the pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole 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;
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10.The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; and
11.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A fence surrounding the
lease area is not a requirement of this approval; however, should a fence be installed, the
materials and height shall be restricted to those shown in the approved plan entitled
“ALLTEL/Yancey Mills”.
____________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-00-028. ALLTEL/Ivy Exit (Sign #49). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to
construct 107’ tall monopole telecom tower, w/3 flush-mounted panel antennas & collocation antennas, on
2.97 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM 74, P 2C. Loc on St Rt 637 (Dick Woods Rd), approx 1/2 mile S of the Ivy Exit
(Exit 114) off of I-64, between I-64 & Rt 637. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 28 and September 4, 2000.)
Mr. Benish said the applicant is proposing to install a telecommunication facility with a self-
supporting steel monopole painted brown ten feet above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the
facility. Three 48 inch long flush mounted antennas with winged edges and an isolator are proposed. He
explained that due to the presence of one tree at 96 feet in height within the 25 feet, the applicant originally
requested a 106 foot tower. However, the average height for all the trees within 25 feet are approximately
80 feet with the second tallest tree being 84 feet. In order to lessen the visual impact of the tower, the
applicant is now requesting permission to construct the tower at 94 feet in height. Instead of removing the
tallest tree in order to reduce the probability of signal interference, the applicant is requesting permission to
cut some limbs from the top portion of the 96 foot tree. The tower will be located within a fenced 30 by 40
foot lease area at an elevation of 630 feet above sea level. The site is located off of Route 637 just west of
the I-64 interchange. The 1,200 square foot lease area is located in a wooded area on a hill nearly 500 feet
from Route 637, and it is approximately 250 feet north of the closest dwelling which is located on the same
parcel. The facility will be accessed by a 20 foot wide easement with a 12 foot wide gravel service road
extending north from the existing driveway that serves the property. The tower will be located in a grove of
mature trees on a hill facing I-64 approximately 98 feet from the two side property lines and approximately
900 feet from I-64. According to the information submitted by the applicant, the trees surrounding the tower
have a height of 80 feet, and the top of the facility will extend ten feet above the existing tree canopy, but the
wooded hill gradually slopes higher as it nears Route 637. He said based on the field visits and the test with
the balloon which was flown at a height of 94 feet, staff has determined that the highest portion of the tower
ten feet above the canopy will be minimally visible from properties adjoining the subject parcel.
Mr. Benish then referred to the Planning Commission’s review and its recommendation of a tower
height of five feet above the tallest tree. The Commissioners added a condition which exempted the 96 foot
poplar from the calculations, and also recommended the extension of the grounding rod two feet above the
tower. He pointed out that there have been comments from the Rosemont community regarding the impact
of the tower.
Ms. Thomas stated that she did not measure the trees in the same way as the staff measured
them. She thinks the trees are 70 foot trees except for the tallest tree, taking into account the elevation
difference of the pole. Mr. Benish asked if Ms. Thomas is talking about the average height of the trees. Ms.
Thomas answered that there are only three trees within the 25 foot area, and two of them are 70 feet, and
one of them is the one that is being excluded. She said with the elevation, one of them should count as 71
feet and five feet above the trees amounts to 76 feet which is where the balloon was flown. She stated that
if the condition is not to exceed five feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet excluding the one tree
that is higher than the others, then the height the balloon was flown is important.
Mr. Martin inquired if Ms. Thomas is saying that her calculations about the height of the trees are
different from the staff’s calculations. Ms. Thomas said apparently this is true. She and the applicant
agree, though, because the balloon flew at 76 feet.
Mr. Waller indicated that the staff report reflected the height the balloon was flown prior to the
Planning Commission’s recommendation. The height of the balloon test yesterday was at the height
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
There were no further questions from the Board for staff, so Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would
like to speak.
Mr. Dick Gibson, representing the applicant, informed the Board that the general points are
essentially the same for this site as they were for the other sites. He stated that height is also an issue for
this request. He concurred that the balloon was flown at five feet above the tallest tree excluding the 96
foot poplar, and he respectfully requested that the approved height of the pole be at ten feet above the
tallest tree. He referred to the balloon test yesterday which was significantly below the tops of the trees
when viewed from Rosemont, and it could not be seen at all from the three closest subdivisions nor from
any of the roads surrounding the area. The visual impact is zero at five feet above the tree tops, and it will
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
be zero at ten feet above them. He said given the fact that the pole’s height has been diminished, the
height in this case is extremely important. He mentioned that a couple of things have been done to help
assure the residents of Rosemont that this is not something that will be of concern to them. There are two
trees which were not originally within the tree preservation plan but they are directly in line of sight between
this facility and the Rosemont subdivision. He has a plan with him tonight incorporating these two trees
within the tree preservation plan so they will be retained. He noted that the access road is being re-routed
because one of the trees would have been taken down for this road in the original plan. He then distributed
photographs to the Supervisors showing views from one of the landowners’ backyard and the Ray property
next door.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Supervisors were supposed to be informed about the balloon test. Ms.
Thomas responded that she learned about it from people in the neighborhood.
Mr. Gibson continued to discuss the photographs he was distributing, and he explained that they
were photographs from Langford Farms and Rosemont. The balloon could not be seen from these points
with binoculars except in one case where it blew down substantially within a break in the trees. He also
passed out a copy of the plan showing the trees to be preserved. He mentioned that this is a core site
which is important because the core sites do not have the potential concern with the RF isolator. The
balloon test proved conclusively that the pole will be below the top of the trees. There are trees behind the
site to provide additional backdrop screening, and the antennas will be a painted brown. Given these facts,
he respectfully requested that the condition of approval relating to the height of the tower be increased from
five feet to ten feet above the tree tops. He said otherwise everything is the same as the other applications
the Board has just approved.
Ms. Thomas remarked that it is good that one tree will not be disturbed and the road will be moved.
She mentioned, though, that there were two trees in the Gallihugh’s yard. She asked if they are part of the
tree conservation plan. Mr. Gibson answered affirmatively. Ms. Thomas inquired if this can be part of the
conditions of the special use permit. Mr. Gibson then corrected his answer to Ms. Thomas’ question. He
noted that the two trees to which Ms. Thomas referred are not shown on the plan, but they will be
preserved. They will not be cut down nor topped.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. He noted that three people had already signed
up to speak, but if anyone else would like to make comments, they will be allowed to do so.
Ms. Charlotte Hogue indicated that only one parcel separates her property from the proposed
tower site. She is opposed to a tower so visible and so close to the many families living in this area. She
noted that there are three subdivisions near the site, and anyone driving on Route 637, Dick Woods Road,
will also see the tower. She has questions about how and where visibility checks were made, since she can
plainly see the tree top line from her property and even from inside her house. The Ivy valley has been
described as having one of the prettiest views in the County, and she does not think this tower will enhance
the view for either tourists or the families living nearby. It will only be a blight on the entire community. She
also wonders why ALLTEL needs so many towers so close together. At the Planning Commission meeting,
the ALLTEL representative said all the towers were needed to make the system work. She said, though,
ALLTEL is not sure it will even work, and the system was described by the representative as “experimental.”
She has also heard that technology is being used which will soon be obsolete, and she wondered what
happens to this tower if the system doesn’t work. She asked if ALLTEL will be allowed more towers on this
site. She has turned down tower site requests on her property, and she spoke in opposition to a tower site
five years ago which was less than a quarter of a mile from this proposed tower. The Board denied that
request. She then requested that the Supervisors delay approval until another visibility check is made
preferably when the leaves are gone, since there are mostly hardwood trees in the area. She also
requested the Board to delay approval until ALLTEL can furnish better information about its system and its
need for so many towers.
Mr. Richard Simon stated that he and his wife are building a house in the Rosemont Subdivision
and will be moving there in approximately two months. The beautiful view is one of the reasons they chose
this subdivision. He wears bifocals, and he could see the balloon from outside the house he is building
when the test was done. The balloon test was at 76 feet, and from where he was viewing it, it was not
objectionable. He inquired, though, if the tower height will be 76 feet or 94 feet. There is also discussion in
the staff report about making it even taller. He then urged the Board members, if they must approve the
tower, to make a clear statement of the height limit on the tower. He said now there is quite a bit of
ambiguity in the proposal and in the staff report. He commented that if the tower is taller than 76 feet, it will
become quite prominent on the northwest horizon for many places in Rosemont. The other reason he is
emphasizing the 76 feet is that if the original proposal is examined, a tower height is discussed that could be
interpreted as high as 106 feet with a possible extension up to 122 feet. This would be extremely
objectionable, since it would be 40 feet taller than the average tree height in the area and would be an
incredible blight. He mentioned that the ALLTEL representative has distributed a number of materials
tonight that none of the neighbors have seen. These things could have been presented at the Planning
Commission meeting, such as visibility tests and examples of the appearance of the tower. The neighbors
have only a limited description of how the tower will actually appear. He then mentioned Ms. Thomas’
concerns about the equipment that is being installed at the top of the tower, and whether flush mounted
really means that it is 12 inches away from the surface of the tower. He told Board members that they have
to control the height of the tower because the character and beauty of the County need to be preserved, not
just for people who are traveling at high speeds along I-64, but also for residents and visitors who might not
have a chance to either admire or complain about the decisions being made tonight.
Mr. Robert Hogue reported that Ms. Shirley Ray, an adjoining property owner, could not attend this
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
meeting tonight because of health problems, so she asked him to read her letter of objection to the
proposed cell tower. She noted in her letter that her objections relate to visibility concerns and the fact that
there are so many towers being proposed so close together, as well as the fear that the tower will cause
property values to be lowered. (See letter from Ms. Shirley O. Ray to the Board of Supervisors dated
September 13, 2000.) Mr. Hogue then said the County requires that trees not be cut down in a 200 foot
radius of this tower. He wondered, since Ms. Ray’s property is so close to the proposed site, will her
property be included in this regulation. If so, how will she be compensated. He also mentioned that on
ALLTEL’s right-of-way, there is a 32 inch maple tree, and he wondered if ALLTEL can eliminate this tree.
He questions the need for cell towers to be built so close together, and he pointed out that there is no
mountain between the cell tower spoken of in Ms. Ray’s letter and the proposed site. He asked if ALLTEL
has given this Board the distance between the proposed towers. He wondered what happens to the tower
when it becomes obsolete, and he asked if ALLTEL can modify it, rent it or sell it. He also inquired if the
trees around the tower die, or blow down, will ALLTEL have to lower the tower. He urged the Supervisors
to think about the safety on the roads, and he referred to a television program which stated that a person is
as likely to have an accident driving while using a cell phone, as driving while intoxicated. This is another
distraction for drivers, especially young people. He said with all the money ALLTEL officials spend on
advertisement, they should be able to provide this Board with pictures. He suggested if the Supervisors
cannot deny this application then they should at least delay the decision until the questions are answered.
He gave a copy of Ms. Ray’s letter to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Allen Serber remarked that he is a resident of the Rosemont community directly across the
road from where the tower is proposed to be located. He is a cell phone user, and he enjoys the benefits of
a cell phone. However, he thinks the towers can be constructed in such a way as not to be visible. This
particular site has the potential of having a highly visible antenna, and for this reason he is opposed to any
height variation from the height used in the balloon test. He mentioned that the balloon test was barely
visible, but everyone forgets that the leaves come off the trees in the winter time. For this reason, the site
will be visible from the road and from Rosemont during the winter. He is an electrician and an electrical
engineer graduate, but he is not a PCS communications expert. He said, though, he knows something
about RF communications, and he does not believe ALLTEL has invented a way to violate the laws of
physics as to whether its antennas are ten feet high or five feet high. He remarked that as long as they are
above the tops of the trees, there will be no attenuation of the signal within its zone, so there will be no
benefit to the people within the radius of the antennas whether they are ten feet or five feet above the tree
tops. He would like to hear from ALLTEL about this matter.
Mr. Harry Bowen, a resident of Rosemont, mentioned that there are 44 lot owners there now, and
57 lots will eventually make up the entire Rosemont community. He was very disturbed with the Planning
Commission’s specifications for this particular tower, because he feels the issue was addressed from the
aspect of those people traveling I-64, with little consideration given to the people in the three communities
who will be directly impacted every time they drive out of their driveways. He then emphasized that he
wanted to support the things that have already been said. He saw the balloon test at 76 feet, and he thinks
the tower can be acceptable at that height. However, he does not support an extension of the tower from
five feet to ten feet above the tree tops, and he does not support any cutting of the trees. This is the
minimal concession ALLTEL needs to make in order to create the tower and, if this is not acceptable, he
would recommend that an alternative site be found. It is very important to keep the beautiful corridor in its
natural, beautiful state everyone has come to accept throughout the years, and he asked the Board to
consider this fact. There are a lot of people who will have to see the tower every single day, and once the
leaves are off the trees, it will become more visible.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin asked Mr. Gibson if he would like to respond to
the concerns.
Mr. Gibson referred again to the photographs he showed the Supervisors, and he pointed out that
Ms. Hogue’s property is farther away from the point where the photograph was taken. He noted that the
balloon is below the tops of the trees, and he called attention to a utility pole with a silver transformer
mounted on top of it and a silver conduit running down the side of it which he said is far more visible than
the pole depicted by the balloon. He then referred to the concern about the trees expressed by the three
gentlemen from Rosemont, and he said the two trees added to the tree preservation plan will address their
concern. Even though these are deciduous trees, deciduous trees have branches, and the overlapping of
the branches will provide screening when the leaves are off the trees. He asked the Supervisors to keep in
mind that this is a facility that will be painted the color of the trees, and he mentioned that the balloon in the
picture is red in color. He said a brown balloon would not have been seen at all. He also mentioned that
the brown facility will have a backdrop of other trees. He asked that this facility be compared to the utility
poles that are along the route leading into Rosemont, and he reiterated that they are far more visible than
this facility will be. The residents of Rosemont look down on the utility poles every day, so this pole will not
be spoiling any view that, perhaps in their judgment, is already spoiled by the utility poles that line the road.
He then referred to Mr. Bowen’s remark about no trees being cut. Mr. Gibson said obviously some trees will
have to be cut in order to construct the site, and the top of the tree between I-64 and the site has to be
trimmed, which will allow for the tower to be as short as it is. He reiterated that another five feet of height
will not make any difference as far as visibility is concerned, but it will make a difference in the effectiveness
of the tower. He respectfully requested the Board to approve this application at a height not to exceed ten
feet above the top of the tallest tree, excluding the 96 foot tall poplar.
Mr. Dorrier inquired about the main difference between a core antenna and other antennas. He
asked if the five extra feet of height is more critical when it involves a core antenna. Mr. Gibson responded
that it is not more critical, but the core site has the most electronics associated with it, and it manages the
RF signals from the repeater sites. He explained that there are two core sites, and he compared them to
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
the brain of the central nervous system. The repeater sites need the core sites in order to function.
Mr. Dorrier referred to the comments from the neighbors about the sites being so close togther. He
asked if any of the sites could be eliminated. Mr. Gibson answered that none of them can be eliminated,
and the reason they are so close together, is because the towers are short. He said if the tower was 150 to
250 feet tall, then probably only two would be needed to cover the whole Ivy valley. Since they are so short,
there have to be more, because the shorter they are, the less coverage area is involved. He also
mentioned that the core sites do not have the RF isolators, so the potential for any visibility is diminished
when the RF isolator is eliminated.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the remark in Ms. Ray’s letter about property values. She has been told
there has been a study done on this issue. She added that she went to the County Appraiser’s office and
asked this question, but she has not gotten an answer, yet.
Mr. Gibson showed Ms. Thomas a copy of a study that was done several years ago. The study is
not referring to the poles being discussed at this meeting but, instead, it refers to towers 200 feet or above
in height. The study mentions neighborhoods that were developed with towers close to them, such as
Ashcroft, where there was an existing 300 foot tower in proximity. He indicated that the tracking of property
values indicate that the property values increased at the same rate for this subdivision as they did for
comparable subdivisions in Albemarle County. The conclusion is that there is no detrimental impact on
property values as a result of a 300 foot tower located next to a nice subdivision. He noted that there are
other similar examples in the report where subdivisions have either expanded or been developed initially
within the direct viewshed of towers that are several hundred feet tall, and the presence of the towers have
not had a detrimental effect on property values. He stated that if a 300 foot tower didn’t have a detrimental
effect on property values, then a brown pole buried in the trees will not have a detrimental effect. The pole
in question is no different from a utility pole, and in the case of the lady who raised the issue about the
property values, there is a utility pole directly in her line of sight if she were to be looking in the direction of
the location of the proposed ALLTEL facility.
Mr. Perkins referred to the Weber site which is approximately a mile west of the site where ALLTEL
has a proposal to build this tower. He is not sure, but the tower is probably proposed to be at a higher
elevation. He said Intelos also has a tower at the Weber site and another one to the west where ALLTEL is
requesting one, but he does not think Intelos has another site to the east. He then asked why ALLTEL
needs this particular site at the Ivy exit, if Intelos can have service without it.
Mr. Gibson replied that he does not know where Intelos has other towers, and he is unsure of its
spacing system. He cannot speak to how the Intelos system is engineered, and he can’t make the
representation that Intelos does not have as many site locations as ALLTEL is proposing. He added that
when ALLTEL’s system was engineered, the spacing was determined based on generally accepted RF
propagation studies taking into consideration the topography and the distance these sites at these heights
will propagate signals. This is heresay, but he has heard it from three separate sources that the people
from Intelos are having concerns about the functioning of their facilities and have plans to come back to
seek to increase the height of their poles. He said it is questionable as to whether the Intelos sites are
working properly.
Ms. Jessie Wilmer, representing Intelos, stated that Intelos representatives are also looking for a
site in the Ivy Valley. They are present tonight to see how ALLTEL’s site is being received.
Ms. Thomas indicated that the only reason this room isn’t packed with people is because the
balloon was flown at 76 feet, and that height is acceptable. When the balloon was flown before, many
more people could see it, even though the word was not spread about the test. She stated, though, that the
word about the 76 foot balloon test was well spread throughout the community. This is not like the previous
sites discussed here tonight, because it is not an ideal site, since it does not have a backdrop in terms of
keeping the tower from being skylined. She said it has a potential of being a skyline pole that sticks up even
though it is a long distance away, and the people’s eyes at Rosemont will focus on the pole. She will
answer some questions that were raised from the audience, because unless people have been coming to
the meetings, they do not realize how this issue has proceeded. The County used to have a lot of tall
towers, and if people use the Ivy entrance to get onto I-64 and drive toward Charlottesville, an example of a
tall tower can be seen. Towers such as this one are sometimes the picture of how cell towers will appear in
Albemarle County. She noted that Albemarle County has over 60 cell sites, and the people in the Ivy area
see one of the biggest and most visible. However, most of them are almost invisible. The visibility of them
depends on them being very carefully sited, and either painted brown or designed with wood like poles.
She remarked that they should also be just above the tree line in height. This site is not like the others
because it is not an ideal site, but she believes it can exist at 76 feet. She emphasized that to put it higher
will not be acceptable to the people who live near it. She said no one is present from Langford Farms and
Blue Springs, but they would also be seeing the tower if it was higher than the balloon was flown.
Ms. Thomas then informed the audience that as far as when towers are not being used and the
technology becomes obsolete, the company will have to take them down. She explained that the
companies have to report to the County every year about their use, so the landscape will not be littered with
useless towers. She realizes it would be better to do the test without the leaves on the trees, but she thinks
the balloon test showed a good idea of where the tower will be located even if the leaves are gone. She
said Condition Number Five should include language about the two trees in the Gallihugh’s yard, as well as
the one located in what was previously called the entrance to the site. She then read from Condition
Number Five, “ . . . 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
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
outside the access easement and lease area . . .” She explained that the words “or trimmed” need to be
added after the word “removed” because the Planning Commission talked in terms of a tree being topped.
She has verified Mr. Bowen’s comments that he does not believe a certified arborist would ever agree that a
tree should be topped. However, being trimmed is not as unacceptable and may well be of assistance in
terms of getting a line of sight down to the highway, which is the concern. There is no condition shown that
allows a tree to be topped. She said if any trees fall down, the condition is that the height of the tower shall
never exceed five feet above the height of the tallest tree excluding the one 96 foot poplar. She added that
if a tornado takes down the trees, the tower will have to be lowered. She remarked that this is a very good
point and one about which the County officials were also concerned some weeks ago. She thinks the
difference between five feet and ten feet above the tree tops will matter in this site significantly.
At this time, Ms. Thomas made a motion for approval of SP-00-028, ALLTEL with the changes in
Condition Number Five she had suggested and with Condition Number One as it stands indicating that the
top of the pole shall never exceed five feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the facility, and
excluding the 96 foot tall poplar shown on the tree survey. She noted that this will put the top of the tower at
76 feet which is where the balloon was flown, and she emphasized that ALLTEL did this voluntarily. She
then asked the County Attorney if her suggestion for the language in Condition Number Five meets with his
approval.
Mr. Davis responded that the wording is fine although he would capture the language indicating that
the plan shall include Tree H and the Gallihugh’s trees shown on the attached tree plan. The tree plan will
then be attached to the conditions of the permit. He also noted that the words “or trimmed” will be added
after the word “removed” in Line Four of Condition Number Five.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Perkins referred to Mr. Hogue’s question as to whether or not the trees on the adjoining
property would come under the 200 foot regulation relating to towers. Mr. Davis said this permit will not
restrict the adjacent property owner from removing trees, but it would restrict the applicant and the property
owner of the site from removing any trees.
Mr. Martin stated that he thinks the owner of the adjoining parcel was concerned that her trees
would be removed without her consent. Mr. Davis reiterated that neither the applicant nor the owner of the
property of the proposed tower site can remove trees on the adjoining landowner’s property without her
permission.
Ms. Humphris mentioned Mr. Simon’s statement that information was given out here tonight by the
applicant that the Planning Commission did not have. She asked if this is true. Mr. Benish said he was not
present at the Planning Commission meeting, but it is probably true as far as some of the information such
as the balloon test results, because he is not sure there was any written information regarding the test. He
stated that a number of these applications have had a lot of information added up to the time of the
Planning Commission meeting, as well as afterwards, based on changes in the proposals and Commission
concerns.
Ms. Humphris commented that it makes her very unhappy when the Board of Supervisors is looking
at something very different from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is supposed to have
seen everything and sent it forward to the Board of Supervisors in a complete form. Mr. Benish stated that
he is uncertain in this particular case if there is a significant amount of new information. Ms. Thomas
mentioned that the Planning Commission apparently did not have the illustration of the three different pole
types. She was informed that the Planning Commission did see one of the illustrations. Ms. Thomas went
on to explain to the audience that the pole for this location is the plainest because it does not have the RF
isolator attached.
Mr. Dorrier said he could barely see the balloon in the pictures because at the tree top level, it was
fairly well concealed. He will not support the motion because this is a core site, and he is uncertain whether
or not the tower should be ten feet above the tallest tree instead of five feet.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed five (5) feet above
the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base
elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the
exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. For the purposes of this
condition, the ninety-six (96) foot tall poplar shown on the tree survey shall not be considered when
determining the height of the tallest tree;
2.The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The metal pole shall be painted the same color as the bark of the trees;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
number nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antennas and all equipment attached to the pole shall
be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the
attached plan entitled “ALLTEL/Ivy Exit”;
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not
to exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f.An RF Isolator, if required for the functioning of the facility, shall be located below the top of
the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1);
g.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
h.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole measured both in
feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level;
i.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled “ALLTEL/Ivy Exit”;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “ALLTEL/Ivy Exit”;
b. Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, 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 or trimmed 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 installation associated with the pole and
equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in
accordance with this tree conservation plan. The tree conservation plan shall include the
tree identified as “H”, at the entrance of the site, on the tree location sketch in the plan
entitled “ALLTEL/Ivy Exit”, and the two trees near the Gallihugh’s house which must also be
shown on the plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of
Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within
two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot
buffer, after the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the
pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole 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;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10.The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; and
11.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A fence surrounding the
lease area is not a requirement of this approval; however, should a fence be installed, the materials
and height shall be restricted to those shown in the approved plan entitled “ALLTEL/Ivy Exit”.
____________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-00-029. Alltel (Mechums River) (Signs #52&53). – PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow communication fac including 95' high monopole communication
tower w/3 flush-mounted panel antennas, 2 equipment cabinets & emergency generator on a 1200 sq ft
leased section of 34.23 ac parcel in accord w/§ 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. Znd RA. TM 72, P 43B. Loc N
of I-64 at end of Rt 683 at 107 Shelton Mill Rd . White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August
28 and September 4, 2000.)
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Benish announced that he was going to ask Ms. Joan D. McDowell, a Senior Planner, to do the
presentation for next two special use permits. He explained that she handled these applications, and she
attended the Planning Commission meetings. He stated that Ms. McDowell is from Chesapeake. She
worked for the City of Chesapeake, and one of her responsibilities was tower review. She is new to the way
Albemarle County does things, but she is very experienced in tower issues.
Mr. Martin welcomed Ms. McDowell.
Ms. McDowell indicated that the applicant has proposed to construct a 95 foot high communica-tion
metal monopole on a 1,200 square foot lease area of a 34.23 acre parcel. The property is zoned Rural
Area and is within a Comprehensive Plan Rural Area land use designation. The street address is 107
Shelton Mill Road which is a private road approximately 780 feet from the I-64 right-of-way. The proposed
site is on a rise above I-64. Photographs of the balloon test were distributed, and she noted that the closest
dwelling is approximately 1,300 feet away from the proposed site. There is an existing CFW tower on the
site on the other side of the trees, and it was approved at five feet above the tree level a year ago. She
added that it has a wooden fence around the bottom of it, but a fence is not needed for this tower, since it is
proposed to be outside of the normal pasture area. The conditions of approval recommended by the
Planning Commission were at five feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the facility. She
pointed out that staff had originally recommended ten feet above the trees, which is the height of the
balloon shown in the pictures. The tower is proposed for a very isolated area, and she noted that she drove
on both sides of the interstate and could not see the balloon at any time. The staff thought ten feet above
the tree tops was appropriate, but the Planning Commission, desiring to be consistent with previous
approvals, recommended five feet.
There were no questions for Ms. McDowell, so Mr. Martin asked the applicant if he would like to
speak.
Mr. Dick Gibson, representing the applicant, informed Board members that he worked very closely
with Ms. McDowell in Chesapeake, and she did a good job there, and he is sure she will do a good job for
Albemarle County. He went on to say that this is a repeater one type of site. He referred to Ms. McDowell’s
comment about the height of the balloon test at ten feet above the tallest tree, which was not visible
anywhere except from right on the property, itself. It is 780 feet from the tower to I-64 and 1,300 feet to the
nearest residence, and there is a CFW facility nearby. The ARB has issued a conditional approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness at ten feet above the top of the tallest tree. The issue with this application is
the same as with the others. He said given the fact that visibility is the driving factor behind the proposed
Design Manual, and the criteria was satisfied by proposing a facility that is not visible ten feet above the
trees, he respectfully requests that the condition of having the tower height five feet above the tops of the
trees be modified to ten feet.
Ms. Thomas said this is another place with a very poor dirt road that goes to houses beyond so it
would be impacted with ALLTEL’s use of it. She asked if ALLTEL has an agreement to keep this road in
good repair. Mr. Gibson answered that this situation involves the same agreement that he explained
previously with the other application. It requires ALLTEL to repair all damages it creates to the property
including the access road. Ms. Thomas inquired if ALLTEL will be responsible for damages to the road
down to the end of the State maintenance. She is not sure about the property ownership. Mr. Gibson
responded that ALLTEL contracts with the private landowners. He explained that if there is a need to have
lawful access across someone else’s property, the same agreement is used, but he does not think that is
the case at this site. The pole may not be on a landowner’s property, but ALLTEL has to enter into an
access easement agreement, and the language is standard that ALLTEL will repair any damage.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin
closed the public hearing.
At this time, Mr. Perkins made a motion to approve SP-00-029, ALLTEL (Mechums River), with the
ten conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission but with a modification to Condition
Number One which will allow for the pole to be ten feet above the top of the tallest tree located within 25
feet of the facility. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Humphris.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Humphris if the height of the tower was the reason she did not support the
motion. Ms. Humphris responded that she supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation which
she found was well-grounded, and feels that a five foot height above the tree tops is sufficient.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above
the top of the tallest tree located within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, at or below the same
base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the
exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2.The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
a.The pole shall be a metal pole and painted dark brown in color;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached
plan entitled “Alltel/Mechums Site”;
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not
to exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f.AN RF Isolator, if required for the functioning of the facility, shall be located below the top
of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1);
g.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
h.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in
feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level;
i.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as follows:
a.The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled
“Alltel/Mechums Site”;
b.The proposed facility shall be located not more than twenty-five (25) feet from the existing
access road;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “Alltel/Mechums
Site”;
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole;
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, 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 installation
associated with the pole and equipment building, 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 of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall
not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A
special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer after the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the
pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole 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;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A fence surrounding the
lease area is not a requirement of this approval; however, should a fence be installed, the materials
and height shall be restricted as follows:
·
an earth-tone painted or natural wooden privacy fence along the perimeter of the lease area.
____________
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-00-030. ALLTEL (I-64 West) (Signs #54&55). PUBLIC HEARING on
a request to allow a personal wireless fac including 53.5’ high monopole, 3 panel antennas, 2 equipment
cabinets & emergency generator on 1200 sq. ft. leased portion of 83.17 ac parcel in accord w/§ 10.2.2.6 of
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
the Zoning Ord. TM 53, P 6. Znd RA. Loc N of I-64 W of St Rt 650 & St Rt 690 near Newtown Rd. White
Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28 and September 4, 2000.)
Ms. McDowell reported that SP-00-030 is a proposal to construct a metal monopole type of a
communication facility, north of I-64 on a fire road in a heavily wooded area. She noted that a scenic
overlook located off of I-64 is approximately 1,000 feet to the southwest of this facility. She said if a vehicle
is exiting the overlook, an existing CFW tower can be seen. A picture of a balloon test was distributed. It
was a triple purpose balloon test because it was used for SP-00-041, which is also on tonight’s agenda.
Another purpose of the test was to see the result of a metal pole expanded 15 feet. Also this particular
balloon test was used to see if this site would be consistent with the CFW tower. She said because of the
texture of the pole and the fact that the CFW pole is so successfully hidden from view, staff members
recommended that this tower be a wooden pole and not a metal one, and they restricted the height to
seven feet above the height of the tallest tree. She added that again the Commissioners wanted to be
consistent with the existing CFW tower so they recommended that the tower be seven feet above the tallest
trees within 50 feet which is a change from the other applications. This was CFW’s request at the Planning
Commission meeting, and it was granted.
There were no questions for Ms. McDowell, so Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would like to speak.
Mr. Dick Gibson, representing the applicant, stated that he has nothing to add to this presentation.
He noted that a compromise was worked out with the Planning Commission because of the existing tower
next to the proposed site. He said height is not an issue because of the taller elevation. This is an excellent
example of how well a communication facility can blend into the surrounding landscape. He then
respectfully requested that the Board approve this application.
Mr. Perkins asked why a metal monopole was requested for this site rather than the wooden ones
used at other locations. He asked about the cost factor involved, etc. Mr. Gibson answered that metal
poles have several advantages because they will last longer. He said conduit can be run on the inside of
them, whereas it has to be put on the outside of wooden poles. Another reason for the metal pole to be
used is that it is easier to add a section to a metal pole, if the trees grow taller. He said a wooden pole
would have to be taken down and another one installed. He added that metal poles are more durable and
from an appearance standpoint, a flat brown painted metal pole at a distance is not distinguishable from a
wooden pole. He mentioned that when other approvals for CFW were studied, it was noted that collocation
was required. It would be extremely difficult to collocate another carrier’s antenna on a wooden pole.
However, the constructional capacity would be available on a metal pole.
There were no more questions for Mr. Gibson, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for SP-00-
030. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
At this time, a motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-00-
030, ALLTEL (I-64 West), with the ten conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above
the top of the tallest tree within fifty (50)) feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as
the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the
grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2.The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The pole shall be a wooden pole, dark brown in color;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached
plan entitled “Alltell/I-64 West Site”;
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not
to exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f.AN RF Isolator, if required for the functioning of the facility, shall be located below the top
of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1);
g.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
h.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in
feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level;
i.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as follows:
a.The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled “Alltel/I-64
West Site”;
b.The proposed facility shall be located not more than twenty-five (25) feet from the existing
access road;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “Alltel/I-64 West
Site”;
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole;
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, 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 installation
associated with the pole and equipment building, 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 of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall
not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A
special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the
pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole 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;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply; and
10.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted.
____________
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-00-031. ALLTEL (I-64 East) (Sign #56). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow a personal wireless service fac w/a 92’ high monopole, 3 panel antennas, 2 equipment
cabinets & an emergency generator on a 1200 sq ft leased portion of 10.3 ac parcel in accord w/§ 10.2.2.6
of the Zoning Ord which allows for micro-wave & radio-wave transmission & relay towers. Znd RA. TM 73,
P 31D. Loc on the E sd of Rt 708 S of I-64 & N of Rt 637 at 271 Malvern Farm Rd. (This property is not
located in a designated growth area.) Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28
and September 4, 2000.)
Ms. McDowell commented that ALLTEL is requesting a 90 foot high communication metal
monopole on property located in the Samuel Miller District. She is calling this to the Board’s attention,
because the staff report erroneously listed the site as being in the White Hall District. The location of the
proposed facility is on the east side of Route 708 about 1/2 mile from Route 637 and approximately 500
feet south of I-64. She pointed out that there is an existing wooden CFW tower located on the site which
was allowed to extend seven feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower. She said it is very close
to the road so this particular application, as well as the CFW one, received a variance to allow the tower to
be located 15 feet from Route 708. It is in the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan, the site is fairly flat,
and there are some trees between the existing tower and the road. However, it is very clear that there is a
need for some landscaping at the base of the proposed tower. This has not been requested before
because the other towers were in groves of trees. She remarked that this site is behind the trees, it is
clearly visible, and all the equipment would be visible. The condition is requiring more evergreens than
deciduous type of landscaping.
Mr. Dick Gibson, representing the applicant, stated that this is a repeater one site, and the only
issue here is the height of the facility. The Planning Commission recommended a height of five feet above
the tallest tree, so the argument would be the same as for the other sites. He called attention to the fact
that CFW’s request was approved on May 27, 1999 for a tower not to exceed seven feet above the height of
the tallest tree, plus the antennas may extend three feet above the height of the tower. The fact that ten
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
feet was allowed at CFW’s site a year ago, makes him think it would be appropriate to increase the height
from five feet to ten feet above the trees for this application.
Mr. Martin then opened the public hearing for SP-00-031. There was no one present who wished
to speak to this matter, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas agreed with staff about the necessity for landscaping. She stated that Condition
Number Eleven pertaining to a landscaping buffer is very important. She said people driving through on the
public road will have an eye level view of the site, because the road is lower than the surrounding ground.
The buffer inside a barbed wire fence will be very important, and she thinks the condition is worded
sufficiently. She had planned on making a motion to raise the tower seven feet above the tree tops.
However, she had forgotten about the extra three feet that had allowed CFW to put its antennae on top of
the tower. She thinks it is appropriate to have both towers the same height, unless staff feels differently.
Ms. McDowell responded that the staff has no objections to this height.
At this time, Ms. Thomas moved for approval of SP-00-031, ALLTEL (I-64 East), with the eleven
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with a modification to Condition Number One that
the top of the pole shall never exceed ten feet above the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the facility.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Martin told Mr. Gibson that the Board appreciates the fact that ALLTEL is now using the wooden
poles. Mr. Gibson thanked the Board for the approvals of the sites.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed five (5) feet above
the top of the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base
elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the
exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2.The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The pole shall be a wooden pole, dark brown in color;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached
plan entitled “Alltel/I-64 East Site”;
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not
to exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f.AN RF Isolator, if required for the functioning of the facility, shall be located below the top
of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1);
g.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
h.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in
feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level;
i.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as follows:
a.The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled “Alltel/I-64
East Site”;
b.The proposed facility shall be located not more than twenty-five (25) feet from the existing
access road;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “Alltel/I-64 East
Site”;
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole;
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
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 installation
associated with the pole and equipment building, 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 of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall
not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A
special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the
pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole 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;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A fence surrounding the
lease area is not a requirement of this approval; however, should a fence be installed, the materials
and height shall be restricted as follows:
·
the fence shall be constructed with barbed wire to match the existing fence adjacent to the
subject lease area; and
11.Around the perimeter of the lease area, inside the fence to avoid damage from grazing animals, a
landscaping buffer utilizing a variety of plant materials, with a majority of the materials consisting of
evergreen materials, shall be installed by the applicant. A landscape plan shall be submitted for
approval by the Director of Planning or designee prior to issuance of building permits.
___________
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-00-041. Triton PCS CVR 349H (Herring) (Signs #87&88). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow construct of 58’ tall wooden telecom pole, in accord w/§ 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ord. Znd RA & EC. TM 53, P 6, contains 83.417 acs. Loc off Green Hill Lane approx 1/2 ml NW of
the I-64 W overpass of New Town Rd (Rt 690). (This property is not located in a designated growth area).
White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28 and September 4, 2000.)
Ms. McDowell stated that Triton PCS has proposed to construct a 63 foot high wooden monopole
communication facility, and it is located adjacent to the ALLTEL tower relating to SP-00-030 that this Board
has just approved. She has already passed around photographs of the triple balloon test, and she then
showed the Board a photograph of the base of the existing CFW tower. This proposed tower will be located
just off the overlook of I-64. The CFW tower is the one in the previous balloon test that was nearly invisible.
She said staff has recommended approval, and the Planning Commission has recommended that the
tower not exceed seven feet above the top of the tallest tree within 50 feet of the facility. The
Commissioners made this recommendation for consistency.
There were no questions for Ms. McDowell from Board members.
Ms. Valerie Long, with McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe, informed the Board that she was
representing the applicant, Triton PCS. She was present for the balloon test which is shown in the pictures
Ms. McDowell distributed. She brought some additional pictures, but they are very similar, because they
were taken at the same time. She mentioned that one picture was taken before two of the balloons were
flown to show just how the proposed Triton tower would appear, and then the other two balloons were flown
to look at the issue of whether it would be a good idea to have collocation on the ALLTEL site. The
applicant agrees with staff that it is less of a visibility impact to have three shorter facilities at the tree top
level than to have two facilities with one of them taller. The applicant is agreeable to all of the conditions
that were revised this evening. However, permitting the tower to be seven feet above the tallest tree is
slightly taller than the request, because the applicant did not know the Planning Commission was going to
be looking for consistency with the 50 foot radius as opposed to the 25 foot radius. She said, though, the
signal will travel much better with the tower being seven feet above the tallest tree within 50 feet, which
would be consistent with the other towers.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she is confused about the height of the tower. She wondered if the
seven feet will be in addition to the 63 feet requested. Ms. Long replied that the tower was proposed to be
63 feet tall, and the seven feet is in addition to the request.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for SP-00-041. No one was present to speak, so Mr. Martin
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
closed the public hearing.
Next, Mr. Perkins moved for approval of SP-00-041, Triton PCS CVR 349H (Herring), with the ten
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above
the top of the tallest tree within fifty (50) feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as
the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the
grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2.The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The pole shall be a natural wooden pole and dark brown in color;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be
dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached
plan entitled “Triton PCS/Newton Site;”
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not
to exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f.AN RF Isolator, if required for the functioning of the facility, shall be located below the top
of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1);
g.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as
identified in condition number one (1);
h.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in
feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level;
i.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in
condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as follows:
a.The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled “Triton
PCS/Newton Site”;
b.The proposed facility shall be located not more than twenty-five (25) feet from the existing
access road;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled “Triton PCS/Newton
Site”;
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole;
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, 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 installation
associated with the pole and equipment building, 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 of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall
not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A
special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the
pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply; and
10. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted.
____________
(At this time, the Board took up Agenda Item No. 6. SP-00-017. CV-R-318 Mt. Jefferson)
Mr. Benish pointed out that revised conditions under the new concept for SP-00-017 are not
available for the Board at this time. He noted that the staff had time to develop the revised conditions for all
of the other applications that went to the Planning Commission. However, the conditions for this particular
application are worded in the old style. He added that if the Board has concerns about that but is otherwise
comfortable with the conditions as outlined, they can be put in a form to be approved as a Consent Agenda
item. There is value in discussing this matter tonight, since agreement from VDoT is needed in order to trim
one of the trees in the VDoT right-of-way. He next passed around a picture of the Triton PCS Mt. Jefferson
site.
Mr. Stephen Waller, Senior Planner, summarized the application for SP-00-017. He noted that this
proposal is to construct a personal wireless service facility with a wooden monopole above tree height. The
original request was for a total pole height of 115 feet, but this request was made in consideration of some
of the trees outside of the 25 foot radius that the applicant felt would interfere with the signal. He said at the
first Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners voted to defer the request pending further
information to be provided by the applicant. The first item on which the deferral was based was a request
for a variance by the BZA to allow a pole height of 115 feet which is actually 15 feet higher than the
limitation stated in the Zoning Ordinance. The BZA granted the variance on July 18, 2000. The applicant
has provided information for heights above sea level for all the trees within the 25 foot radius as well as
some of the trees that may cause some difficulty outside of this radius. He noted that this information is
included in the Executive Summary which is an addendum to the original staff report. Most requests are
now done in line with the wireless facility policy, and the applicants are voluntarily attempting to comply with
the guidelines set forth in this policy. He said staff members recommended approval based on their
observations as far as the visibility impact of the balloon test. He noted, though, if this facility is approved, it
would fall under the Tier III plan. This means it would require a full review and would take into
consideration some of the aspects of the site such as the trees that are not within the 25 foot radius, as well
as the taller height.
Ms. Thomas inquired as to the height of the balloon test. Mr. Waller replied that it was flown at the
requested height of 115 feet, and the Planning Commission actually amended the Conditions of Approval to
allow the tower to be five feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet. The one tree that brought the applicant
concern was a poplar located in the VDoT right-of-way. He said if this request is approved, a condition
would have to be added that VDoT’s approval is required to trim the top of the tree.
Ms. Valerie Long, with McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe, represented the applicant. She
remarked that the original request was for a 115 foot tower, but the tree surveyors had some problems
figuring out the trees’ heights. At the direction of the Planning Commission, the surveyors went back to the
property and surveyed the height of every single tree within 50 feet of the proposed facility. She noted that
they were told to provide base elevations as well because there is a slight difference in elevation within the
50 foot radius. The tallest tree within 25 feet is a 99 foot tall tree, and there is a 113 foot tree that is 49 feet
away. She then pointed out the location of the trees on a drawing. There is a two foot difference in the
ground elevation, and the Planning Commission seemed to prefer for the applicant to factor in height based
on the difference in ground elevation. This is the reason two heights for the same tree were given at 111
feet and 113 feet. She said, though, based on the actual base elevation, the tree is 113 feet tall. The
applicant was trying to have some flexibility with the height regulation because the 113 foot tree is right in
the path of the desired coverage objectives which is to get the signal above, over and beyond this tree. She
realizes it is a different request from the normal 25 foot radius. The Planning Commission came up with an
interesting idea to limit the height to five feet over the tallest tree within 25 feet and directed the applicant to
work with VDoT to seek approval to limb the top of the tree just over the property line in the VDoT right-of-
way. This was addressed by the Planning Commission two weeks ago, but the language was not worked
out while the applicant was there that evening, and the discussion indicated that the language would be
developed prior to this Board meeting. She commented that she did not get a list of any of the conditions
until a few days ago, and they were not clear to her, and she has been trying to get them worked out with
staff. She called VDoT to inquire about its policies and how it would receive such a request. VDoT
representatives were very resistant at first, and informed her that County officials would never let VDoT trim
a tree in its right-of-way for a cell tower. She remarked that she explained the background of the request to
Jim Kesterson at VDoT, and he said the applicant would have to seek approval of a permit from VDoT to
limb the tree, but authorization from the County was needed first. She told him she hoped to have the site
approved this evening, and if that is the case, most likely there would be a condition of approval which
would be clear evidence to VDoT that County officials had given such authorization. She stated that VDoT
could always contact staff for confirmation. She then suggested that a condition be developed allowing the
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
tower to be ten feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet conditioned upon the applicant getting approval
from VDoT to limb the poplar tree within the VDoT right-of-way equal to the tallest tree within the 25 feet
radius.
Ms. Thomas referred to the site close to Rosemont when one of the residents said no certified
arborist would cut off the top of a tree. She asked a couple of arborists, and it is against their professional
standards to lop off the top of a tree. She said Ms. Long used the word “limb” and she thinks it is a better
word. She stated that when she made the proposal for Rosemont residents, they talked in terms of
“trimming” the tree. She recalled that the Planning Commission was surprised when she informed them
that arborists would not cut off the top of a tree. She said, though, if the applicant uses the word “trim” it
may present a smaller area for the radio waves, but it may not block them completely.
Ms. Long informed the Board that the balloon test was done at 115 feet. She has not seen copies
of the pictures the staff distributed, but she also has pictures of the test. She mentioned that even at 115
feet the balloon was nearly invisible heading north, although there is a point of visibility looking south. There
are two sets of pictures that are very similar. One relates to actual photographs of the balloon test, and the
other is a photo simulation with a shot of the original balloon test photo in the corner. She pointed out that
these were taken from two different vantage points along the Route 29 Bypass. The one with the white
band in the bottom corner was looking north where the balloon can barely be seen in the trees. The
second picture has a red pickup truck in view, and it was taken from the northbound lane looking south.
This was the only place where the CFW site was really visible. This is not the direction in which people
would be looking if they are traveling north, and if they are traveling south, they would be much closer to it.
She has been told there used to be a tree in front of the CFW tower that screened it very well, but it fell
down. She stated that even now, without the tree present, she has a hard time locating the tower.
Ms. Thomas remarked that the CFW tower should be visible in these pictures. Ms. Long answered
that the pictures were taken early in the morning when the sunshine was very bright. One of her concerns
about the photograph is that it looks as though the Triton balloon is floating much higher than the CFW
tower. She apologized for it not being a very good picture. She next passed around another picture which
was taken from the same vantage point, but it was taken a few moments later. She believes the CFW
Intelos antennas can be seen in this photograph better for comparison purposes.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for SP-00-017 and asked if anyone would like to
speak to this issue. No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said the Board is handicapped by not having a new set of conditions, particularly since
there is a statement with the information indicating that the conditions will be modified before the Board of
Supervisors meeting. She emphasized that this hasn’t been done.
Mr. Martin reminded Ms. Thomas about the idea of having the revised conditions as a Consent
Agenda item.
Mr. Benish stated that if the Board is in general agreement with the intent of the conditions, they will
be put into a format for Consent Agenda approval. He said other than obtaining VDoT approval of the
trimming of the tree, that is the only modification of the conditions.
Ms. Martin mentioned that the Board also needs to discuss the request for the height of the tower to
be ten feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet.
Mr. Davis remarked that the Board needs to discuss the extent of the trimming of the tree in the
VDoT right-of-way.
Mr. Martin noted that the County’s condition relates to a 25 foot radius. He said as far as the 50
feet radius is concerned, it is the applicant’s problem. The Board’s responsibility is only to set the height
above the tree line.
Ms. Thomas stated that if the County officials want to have any control over how the applicant trims
the tree, then a condition is necessary for trees within a 50 foot radius as opposed to remaining with the 25
foot radius. Mr. Davis said it appears to him VDoT representatives have indicated that they will look to this
Board to give them the parameters of what they might approve. He added that if the Board members want
to influence how VDoT might react to the request, this appears to be their opportunity to do so. Mr. Martin
commented that the Board could add language to a condition as far as trimming the tree. Ms. Thomas
concurred. She then referred to the request for the tower to be ten feet taller than the tree tops. The
balloon was flown at 115 feet which is 16 feet above the tallest tree within the 25 feet radius. She stated
that it looks tall to her, but she would be happy to have other Board members react to this matter. She
mentioned that the CFW tower cannot be seen, but this one is significantly higher. She said, though, Ms.
Long has pointed out that no one will probably ever be standing in the precise location to get such a view of
the Triton tower. SThe Planning Commission looked at all of this, and indicated that the tower should be
104 feet tall. She added that 110 feet should get the job done and it shouldn’t be protruding so far above
the trees. This height is ten feet above the tallest tree within the 25 foot radius. She noted that permission
to trim a tree within the 50 foot radius could also be given. She said 110 feet above the tallest tree will be
allowing for exactly the same height above the tree tops that the Board has been approving with the other
applications this evening.
Mr. Davis remarked that since the Planning staff has not prepared the conditions in the format
which is now being recommended to the Board, the Supervisors could reach a consensus on the height
issue which would go into the standard Condition Number One. He said standard Condition Number Five
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
would reflect a requirement for an arborist to approve a plan for trimming any trees within the 50 foot radius.
This will solve the two issues, and the other conditions would be conformed within the standard conditions
as the Board members have seen tonight. This could be on the Consent Agenda for approval at
Wednesday’s meeting.
Ms. Thomas next recommended approval of SP-00-017 with the 13 conditions set forth by the
Planning Commission and with modification to Condition Number One that no portion of the tower shall
extend more than 10 feet above the highest part of the tallest tree within 25 feet, as well as a rewording of
Condition Number Five requiring an arborist to approve a plan for trimming any trees within a 50 foot radius.
Mr. Martin said this will be the consensus of the Board, unless someone disagrees. All Board
members indicated concurrence.
Mr. Perkins inquired if antennas are 110 feet tall, and they are receiving a signal or sending out a
signal, would the tree in the VDoT right-of-way be a site killer. He said it seems as though the signal has to
also go through the other trees depending on where the user is located. Ms. Long answered that it is not a
site killer, but it has a significant detrimental effect on the propagation of the signals. She noted that an RF
engineer is also present, and he is more qualified to speak about this issue. Trees farther away are also
definitely a problem, but the trees closer to the tower have the most significant impact. She mentioned that
even if the tower is ten feet above the tallest trees within 25 feet, if there are trees 50, 75 or 100 feet away
that are taller than the antennas, it makes a really big difference. She said with this situation the tower
would work well in the immediate area, but the service would go down significantly farther away. Mr.
Perkins commented that the close trees would have more impact on the people who are driving close by
the tower than someone who is farther up the road.
Ms. Long asked for clarification of the Board’s final decision. Mr. Martin responded that the height
of the tower can be ten feet above the tallest tree within a 25 foot radius as opposed to five feet. Mr. Davis
told Ms. Long that Condition Number Five would have language requiring a certified arborist to approve a
plan for trimming any tree within a 50 foot radius of the tower.
Ms. Long indicated that a certified arborist has been working at the site already, and she hopes to
have his report ready by tomorrow. She thanked the Board for its assistance.
Mr. Tucker remarked that the staff will modify the conditions and have the item on the Consent
Agenda for September 20, 2000.
____________
(Note: The next two items were heard together:)
Agenda Item No. 14. Addition to Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District. PUBLIC HEARING
on an ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 3, Agricultural & Forestal Districts, §3-207,
to add 38.499 acs in one parcel to the Batesville A/F Dist. TM 85, P 3. Loc approx 1/4 ml NW of Rt 635, 1.5
mls SW of Rt 635 intersec w/ Rt 692 in Batesville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28 and
September 4, 2000.)
____________
Agenda Item No. 15. Addition to Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District. PUBLIC HEARING on
an ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 3, Agricultural & Forestal Districts, §3-220, to
add 8.85 acs in two parcels to the Kinloch A/F Dist. TM 65, Ps 95 & 95A. Loc on SE sd of Rt 231, approx
1.3 mls NE of the Rt 600/Rt 231 intersec in Cismont. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28 and
September 4, 2000.)
Mr. Martin indicated that these items were self-explanatory. Since Board members had no
comments, Mr. Martin opened the public hearings for additions to the Batesville and Kinloch A/F Districts.
No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearings for both of these districts.
Mr. Davis pointed out that one ordinance has been prepared which will approve both Batesville and
Kinloch Districts.
Ms. Thomas moved approval of adding 38.499 acres in one parcel to the Batesville A/F District
located approximately one-quarter of a mile northwest of Route 635 and 1.5 miles southwest of the Route
635 intersection with Route 692 in Batesville; and adding 8.85 acres in two parcels to the Kinloch A/F
District, located on the southeast side of Route 231 approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the Routes
600/231 intersection in Cismont. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(The adopted Ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 00-3(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE,
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts
of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3-207, Batesville
Agricultural and Forestal District, and Section 3-220, Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows:
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 70, parcel 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 24B, 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A,
27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85, parcels 3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax
map 85A, parcel 1. This district, created on May 2, 1990 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed
on April 19, 2000, shall next be reviewed prior to May 2, 2010.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00)
Sec. 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 65, parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89, 90, 91, 91A, 92, 93, 93A, 93A1, 94,
94A, 95, 95A, 100, 121; tax map 66, parcels 2, 3A, 3C, 32, 32D, 32E, 34 (Albemarle part only), 34B.
This district, created on September 3, 1986 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on October 12,
1994, shall next be reviewed prior to October 12, 2004.
(11-17-93; 10-12- 94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(f); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00)
____________
Agenda Item No. 16. Approval of Minutes: march 1, April 12, July 5 and August 9, 2000.
Mr. Martin reported that he read the minutes of July 5, 2000, Pages 1 through 22, and found them
to be correct.
Ms. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the Board of Supervisors
minutes of July 5, 2000, Pages 1 through 22, as read.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
____________
September 13, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Ms. Humphris mentioned an editorial in the Rockbridge News Gazette entitled,
Courageous County
. The article refers to Rockbridge County’s Board of
Suit Will Force Answers to Phone Tower Questions
Supervisors demonstrating great courage by filing suit against VDoT because of its proposed towers
located on VDoT’s rights-of-way, but which are not going through the local control.
___________
Next, Ms. Humphris said she noticed recently that the Charlottesville Business Journal’s masthead
indicates that the journal also covers Greene, Madison, Orange and Culpeper, and the lead story relates to
the best places to work in Charlottesville and lists Charlottesville’s ten largest employers. She added that
among them are Comdial, Litton Sperry Marine, State Farm Insurance, etc., and the number of full-time
employees is shown for Charlottesville. She finds it very strange that Albemarle County is not included in
the business journal where all the businesses are located. She emphasized that the County Office Building
is located in the middle of Charlottesville, and it is one of the biggest employers in the area, but it was not
even listed.
Mr. Martin said he understands Ms. Humphris’ puzzlement about the Journal, but people refer to
Charlottesville when they are really talking about Albemarle County.
__________
Mr. Perkins mentioned the Crozet parking situation that was discussed a few months ago, and he
wondered if the staff has an update on this item. Mr. Davis stated that he would be happy to talk to Mr.
Perkins about this issue.
Mr. Benish remarked that there is a Zoning Text Amendment team which is working on a number of
changes to the Zoning Ordinance, and one of the things being researched fairly extensively is parking. He
indicated that some of the changes to be recommended could be beneficial to Crozet specifically. He said
parking requirements are being studied, and there is also a request to modify parking requirements that the
Planning Commission made. One of the issues the team is examining involves calculating parallel parking
on public streets. The team is actively reviewing parking issues, but he cannot say where the team is in the
review at this time. He will ask Mr. Cilimberg to report this information to Mr. Perkins.
__________
Mr. Benish then apologized for the condition of the materials given to the Board this week. It has
been a particularly bad meeting, and the staff will try to work on making things better.
Ms. Humphris suggested that since the Board members are having to deal with different heights of
trees, and sea level distances, it would be helpful if they were provided with a simple matrix for each
situation.
Mr. Benish said this is a good point, and the staff will try to provide a matrix when these types of
issues are before the Board. The staff will focus on the conditions and get them in the proper form for the
Consent Agenda. He also mentioned that the staff members will also be working on the staff report
formats to try to make them easier to understand.
Mr. Tucker stated that he hopes the policy will be adopted soon, and these matters will not be
coming to this Board.
Ms. Thomas remarked that the Planning Commission is going to have to consider these
applications more carefully than it is doing now. The Commissioners know these applications are coming
to this Board now, and they know the Supervisors are going to scrutinize them. If they are going to
scrutinize them, they will need all of the things the Supervisors are requesting.
Ms. Humphris said she regards such applications as a real challenge.
Mr. Benish commented that right up to the day of the Planning Commission meeting, the applicants
were making changes to the applications, and the staff was reviewing them. He has asked the staff not to
let this happen. He said when additional information comes in late, the applications should be pulled from
the material for the meeting, and denial recommended until the information is complete. He stated that
once things get off track, it is difficult to get back to an efficient review.
____________
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. At 9:44 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
Initials