1998-08-12August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
OOYL26
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 12, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: David P. Bowerman, Charlotte y. Humphris, Forrest R. Marshall,
Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins and Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Marshall.
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 Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1 through 5.7, to defer Item 5.9
and to accept Items 5.8 and 5.10 as information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Item 5.1. Authorization to destroy paid tax tickets in accordance with
the Library of Virginia's Retention and Disposition Schedules.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Library of Virginia's Record
Retention and Disposition Schedules require that paid tax tickets be retained
by the locality for a period of five years after audit. At that time, after
approval by the department head, the designated records manager for the
locality and the governing body, tax tickets can be destroyed.
Staff approval has been received to destroy approximately 40 cubic feet
of distribution records, which include paid tax receipts, for the period of
July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992. Staff requests authorization from the
Board to dispose of the records as indicated above.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the destruction of paid
tax receipts for the period of July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992.
Item 5.2. Appropriation: Adult Education Mini Grant, $1,350.00 (Form
#97068).
It was noted in the staff's report that Albemarle County Adult Education
has received a grant in the amount of $1,350.00 from JAUNT to provide short-
term classes for 18 welfare recipients. The grant will be used to prepare
them to pass the Virginia Driver's License'written examination. There will be
three sessions between May 25 and August 1, 1998.
At its meeting on June 22, 1998, the School Board approved an
appropriation for the Adult Education Mini Grant. Staff recommends approval
of the appropriation as detailed on form #97068.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of
Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98
NUMBER: 97068
FUND: GRANTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADULT EDUCATION MINI GRANT
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGOR¥
1311663348132100
1311663348210000
1311663348601300
DESCRIPTIO~N
TEACHER SALARIES
FICA
ED/REC SUPPLIES
TOTAL
REVENUE
2311633020330019
DESCRIPTIO___N
ADULT EDUC MINI GRANT
TOTAL
000127
AMOUNT
$970.00
80.00
300.00
$1,350.00
AMOUNT
$1.350.00
$1,350.00
Item 5.3. Appropriation: Education, $500.00 (Form #98006).
It was noted in the staff's report that Yancey Elementary School has
received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from the B. F. Yancey PTA. This
donation is to be used to support its summer program. At its meeting on July
13, 1998, the School Board approved the appropriation and staff recommends
that the Board approve the appropriation detailed on Appropriation Form
#98006.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution
of Appropriation.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98
NUMBER: 98006
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CONTRIBUTION FROM YANCEY PTA
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1221361190601300
ED/REC SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$500.O0
$500.00
REVENUE ~
2200018100181109 DONATIONS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$500.00
$500.00
Item 5.4. Appropriation: Federal and State Drug-Seized Assets,
$58,480.03 (Form #98008).
It was noted in the staff's report that periodically the County receives
revenues for assets seized in Federal and State drug enforcement actions. The
proceeds are utilized for additional law enforcement activities. This request
is for approval of the receipts and expenditures for the period July 1, 1998,
through June 30, 1999, and the Fund Balance from prior years. Staff
recommends approval of Appropriation Form #98008.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution
of Appropriation.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98
NUMBER: 98008
FUND: DRUG ASSETS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND FEDERAL AND
STATE DRUG-SEIZED ASSETS
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1123539000580902
1123639000580905
FEDERAL
STATE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$47,133.67
11,346.36
$58,480.03
REVENU~
2123551000510100
2123651000510100
DESCIP~
FEDERAL
STATE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$47,133.67
11.346.36
$58,480.03
(Page 3) ~
Item 5.5. Appropriation: Dry Hydrant Grant, $1,000.00 (Form #98009).
It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Department of
Forestry has awarded a demonstration grant to fund one dry hydrant at the
Seven Pines/Spring Hill Farm on Route 712 (Coles Rolling Road). There is no
local match. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #98009.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution
of Appropriation.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98
NUMBER: 98009
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FORESTRY GRANT FOR DRY HYDRANTS
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1151032040601315
DESCRIPTION
SAFETY EQUIP/SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
REVENUE
2151024000240230
DESCRIPTION
FORESTRY GRANT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
SI,000.00
$1,000.00
Item 5.6. Appropriation: Crime Analysis Unit Grant 99-C9169,
$36,808.00 (Form #98010).
It was noted in the staff's report that the Department of Criminal
Justice Services has approved a grant to establish a crime analysis unit
providing multi-agency services. Funding is requested for a crime analyst,
crime analysis software and computer equipment. This position will collect
data and assess criminal justice needs for the County of Albemarle, City of
Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. This is the third year of a
three-year grant.
The $27,606.00 grant and a $9,202.00 local match will fund the crime
analyst. The local match is funded by $3,067.33 each by the City of
Charlottesville and the University of Virginia and $3,067.34 by the County of
Albemarle. The County match of $3,067.34 is funded from current operations in
the Police Department. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form
#98010.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution
of Appropriation.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99
NUMBER: 98010
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE CRIME ANALYSIS GRANT
(99-C9169)
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTIO__~
11520294~1110000
1152029411210000
1152029411221000
1152029411232000
1152029411241000
1152029411550400
1152029411800700
AMOUNT
WAGES $29,430.00
FICA 2,252.00
VRS 3,417.00
DENTAL INSURANCE 53.00
LIFE INSURANCE 103.00
TRAVEL-EDUCATION 1,000.00
ADP EQUIPMENT .553.00
TOTAL $36,808.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2152019000190207 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
2152019000190219 UVA
2152033000330405 CRIME ANALYSIS GRANT
2152051000512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$3,067.33
3,067.33
27,606.00
3,067.34
$36,808.00
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
ooomz
Item No. 5.7. Resolution to deny claim against the County asserted by
Matthew Archer.
The following resolution drafted by the County Attorney was adopted by
the recorded vote set out above:
RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM
ASSERTED BY MATTHEW ARCHER
WHEREAS, Matthew Archer, by counsel, has asserted a $42,000.00 claim
against the County of Albemarle arising from alleged misconduct of the
Albemarle County Police Department in October of 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors finds that the claim is not
supported by the facts or by law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, denies the claim of Matthew Archer for alleged
damages in the amount of $42,000.00.
Item 5.8. Report of the Long-Range Planning Committee dated July 27,
1998, was received for information.
Item 5.9. Comparison of FY 1998-2003 and FY 1999-2004 Final Allocations
for Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems - Albemarle County Projects.
By the above recorded vote, Item 5.9 was deferred until September 2,
1998, for discussion on the regular agenda.
Item 5.10. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority for May 26, 1998, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-97-41. U.S. Cellular - Red Hill (Signs #76, 77 &
78). To construct 200' telecom tower w/associated support fac on portion of
319 acs zoned RA. Located on N sd of Rt 708 (Red Hill Rd) approx 1 mi E of Rt
29 (Monocan Trail Rd). Tax Map 88, Parcels 18 & 1SA. Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 27 and August 3, 1998.)
(Note: This item had been on the agenda and deferred many times since
1997.) Letter was received from Edward R. Slaughter, Jr., dated August 4,
1998, in which he requested that SP-97-41 be withdrawn from consideration. He
stated that Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., the owner of the property for
which the special use permit was sought has stated its intention not to allow
the construction of a cellular tower on its property. No action is needed by
the Board on this request.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-18. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62). To
locate 5 soccer fields, an approx 2000 sq ft storage bldg & 216 parking spaces
on approx 72 ac zoned RA. Located on S sd of Polo Grounds Rd (Rt 643) approx
1.1 ml E of Rt 29. Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 & 22C. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on July 27 and August 3, 1998.)
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to defer
SP-98-18 until September 9, 1998, because the Planning Commission has not yet
acted on the petition. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-22. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62) . To
locate 5 soccer fields, an approx 2000 sq ft storage bldg & 216 parking spaces
on approx 72 acs zoned RA. Loc on S sd of Polo Grounds Rd (Rt 643) 1.1 mi E
of Rt 29. (Permit in accord with Sec 30.3.5.2.2(3) or the Zoning Ordinance
due to activity in the flood plain of the Rivanna River.) Tax Map 46, parcels
22 & 22C. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 27 and
August 3, 1998.)
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
000130
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to defer SP-
98-22 until September 9, 1998, because the Planning Commission has not yet
acted on the petition. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service
area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to
Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 & 22C only, for the soccer fields proposed by SP-98-18
and SP-98-22. Property located on the south side of Rt 643, Polo Grounds Rd,
approx 1.1 miles east of Rt 29. Property bordered on the north by Rt 643 and
on the south by the Rivanna River. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July
27 and August 3, 1998.)
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to defer the
request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service
Authority for sewer service for the proposed soccer field complex until
September 9, 1998, because the Planning Commission has not yet acted on the
petition. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-24. Mundie Trucking (Signs #43 & 44). To
establish Home Occupation-Class B for storage of dump trucks in existing
garage. Applicant proposes to store & perform routine maintenance on dump
trucks. Loc on 4.69 acs at 3061 Burnley Station Road just off Rt 641. Znd
RA. Tax Map 21, Parcel 23A. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on July 27 and August 3, 1998.)
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to defer SP-
98-24 until September 16, 1998, because the Planning Commission has not yet
acted on the petition. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-98-03. Lighting Ordinance. Public Hearing on
an ordinance to amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding a new Section 4.17,
OutdoOr Lighting, to require that certain outdoor luminaires (lighting
fixtures) be fully shielded. (Note: This public hearing was deferred from
August 5, 1998, but had also been readvertised in the Daily Progress on July
27 and August 3, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board held a public.hearing on ZTA-98-03 on June
10, 1998. The Board directed staff to prepare a proposal to assemble a task
force to address specific areas of concern and to propose revisions to the
ordinance within the framework of the original resolution of intent. The
revisions recommended by the Task Force were presented to, reviewed by and
approved by the Board at a work session on August 5. A public review/hearing
was scheduled for this date. Changes recommended by the Task Force are set
out in the staff's report (which is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the
Board) dated August 12, 1998.
Mr. Marshall said everybody is familiar with the compromise the business
community made on the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any
correspondence received from the public since the work session last week. Mr.
Cilimberg said "no."
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bob Watson said he appreciated the Board deferring action on this
ordinance a month or more ago. This let many members of CALAC be involved in
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000 3:1.
changes in the ordinance. Ail three organizations support the ordinance as
now written.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board went over the actual ordinance last week.
He would like to say that the two meetings held by members representing
individuals and groups who expressed opposing views on June 17, were
constructive. They were able to arrive at a consensus as to what was
appropriate and fair. What is before the Board tonight is a product of those
meetings.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to
Adopt an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by Adding a new Section
4.17, Outdoor Lighting, to require That Certain Outdoor Luminaires (Lighting
Fixtures) be Fully Shielded. The Board also requested a review of the waiver
provisions after 12 months to see if any changes in the ordinance are
warranted.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
(Note: On August 5, 1998, Chapter 20 was recodified as new Chapter 18.
The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 98-18(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article
II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of
the County of Albemarle is amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.12.6.4 Lighting.
Sec. 32.6.6 Untitled.
Sec. 32.7.8.2 Untitled.
By Adding:
Sec. 4.17.
Sec. 4.17.1.
Sec. 4.17.2.
Sec. 4.17.3.
Sec. 4.17.4.
Sec. 4.17.5.
Sec. 4.17.6.
Outdoor lighting.
Purpose.
Applicability.
Definitions.
Standard.
Modification, waiver or variation.
Exempt outdoor lighting and related
acts.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.6.4. Lighting.
Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall comply with the
requirements of section 4.17 of this chapter.
(Amended 6-14-89; Ord. 98218(1), 8-12-98)
Sec. 4.17. Outdoor lighting.
Outdoor lighting regulations are set forth in sections 4.17.1,
4.17.2, 4.17.3, 4.17.4, 4.17.5 and 4.17.6. These regulations
are in addition to the performance standard pertaining to glare
set forth in section 4.14.3 of this chapter.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
000 .:3;
Sec. 4.17.1. Purpose.
The purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations are to
protect dark skies, to protect the general welfare by
controlling the spillover of light onto adjacent properties, and
to protect the public safety by preventing glare from outdoor
luminaires. To effectuate these purposes, these regulations
regulate the direction of light emitted from certain luminaires,
and limit the intensity of light on certain adjacent properties,
as provided herein.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
Sec. 4.17.2. Applicability.
Except as provided in section 4.17.6, these outdoor lighting
regulations shall apply to each outdoor luminaire installed or
replaced after the date of adoption of these regulations which
is:
Located on property within a commercial or industrial
zoning district, or is associated with a use for which a
site plan is required by section 32.0, and is equipped
with a lamp which emits three thousand (3,000) or more
initial lumens; or
Located on property within a residential or the rural
areas zoning district and is associated with a use for
which a site plan is not required by section 32.0, and is
equipped with a high intensity discharge lamp, regardless
of its initial lumens.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
Sec. 4.17.3. Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the implementation and
enforcement of these outdoor lighting regulations:
Decorative luminaire with full cutoff optics. The term
"decorative luminaire with full cutoff optics" means an Outdoor
light fixture with manufacturer-provided or manufacturer-
installed full cut-off optics designed for aesthetic appeal.
This term shall not include, among others, a canopy or shoe box
luminaire.
Full cutoff luminaire. The term ~full cutoff luminaire" means
an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all
light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or
indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane.
High intensity discharge lamp. The term "high intensity
discharge lamp" means a mercury vapor, metal halide, or high
pressure sodium lamp, and for purposes of this section 4.17, a
low pressure sodium lamp.
Initial lumens. The term ~initial lumens" means the lumens
emitted from a lamp, as specified by the manufacturer of the
lamp.
Lamp. The term "lamp" means the component of a luminaire that
produces light. A lamp is also commonly referred to as a bulb.
Lumen. The term "lumen" means a standard unit of measurement of
luminous flux.
Luminaire. The term ~luminaire" means a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the components
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the
lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. A
luminaire is also commonly referred to as a fixture.
Outdoor luminaire. The term "outdoor luminaire" means a
luminaire which is permanently installed outdoors including, but
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
not limited to, devices used to illuminate any Site, structure,
or sign, except that it does not include an internally
illuminated sign.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
Sec. 4.17.4. Standards.
The following standards shall apply to each outdoor luminaire:
Except as provided in section 4.17.6, each outdoor
luminaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations
shall be a full cutoff luminaire or a decorative luminaire
with full cutoff optics.
For each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor
lighting regulations pursuant to section 4.17.2.a,
whether a lamp emits three thousand (3,000) or more
initial lumens shall be determined from the
information provided by the manufacturer of the lamp
including, but not limited to, information on the
lamp or on the lamp's packaging materials.
For each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor
lighting regulations pursuant to section 4.17.2.a,
the following rated lamp wattages shall be deemed to
emit three thousand (3,000) or more initial lumens
unless the zoning administrator determines, based
upon information provided by a lamp manufacturer,
that the rated wattage of a lamp emits either more
or less than the three thousand (3,000) initial
lumens:
Incandescent lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or
more watts.
bo
Quartz halogen lamp: one hundred sixty (160)
or more watts.
Fluorescent lamp: thirty-five (35) or more
watts.
do
Mercury vapor lamp: Seventy-five (75) or more
watts.
e. Metal halide lamp: forty (40) or more watts.
High pressure sodium lamp: forty-five (45) or
more watts.
g. Low pressure sodium lamp: twenty-five (25) or
more watts.
If a luminaire is equipped with more than one lamp,
the lumens of the lamp with the highest initial
lumens shall determine the lumens emitted.
b0
The spillover of lightin9 from parking area luminaires
onto public roads and property in residential or rural
areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half (~) foot
candle.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
Sec. 4.17.5. Modification, waiver or variation.
A modification, waiver or variation from the standard set forth
in section 4.17.4 may be granted by the commission, as provided
herein:
The commission may modify, waive or vary the standard set
forth in section 4.17.4 in a particular case, and the
commission may impose conditions on such a modification,
waiver or variation which it deems appropriate to further
the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations, in
either of the following circumstances:
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000134
Upon finding that strict application of the standard
would not forward the purposes of this chapter or
otherwise serve the public interest, or that
alternatives proposed by the owner would satisfy the
purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at
least to an equivalent degree.
Upon finding that an outdoor luminaire, or system of
outdoor luminaires, required for a baseball,
softball, football or soccer field cannot reasonably
comply with the standard and provide sufficient
illumination of the field for its safe use, as
determined by recommended practices adopted by the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
for that type of field and activity or other
evidence if a recommended practice is not
applicable.
Prior to considering a request to modify, waive or vary,
five (5) days' written notice shall be provided to the
owner, owner's agent or occupant of each abutting lot or
parcel and each parcel immediately across the street or
road from the lot or parcel which is the subject of the
request. The written notice shall identify the nature of
the request and the date and time the commission will
consider the request.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
Sec. 4.17.6. Exempt outdoor lighting and related acts.
The following outdoor lighting and related acts shall be exempt
from the requirements of these outdoor lighting regulations:
Lighting which is not subject to this chapter by state or
Federal law.
Construction, agricultural, emergency or holiday
decorative lighting, provided that the lighting is
temporary, and is discontinued within seven (7) days upon
completion of the project or holiday for which the
lighting was provided.
Co
Lighting of the United States of America or Commonwealth
of Virginia flags and other non-commercial flags
expressing constitutionally protected speech.
Security lighting controlled by sensors which provides
illumination for fifteen (15) minutes or less.
eo
The replacement of an inoperable lamp or component which
is in a luminaire that was installed prior to the date of
adoption of section 4.17.
The replacement of a failed or damaged luminaire which is
one of a matching group serving a common purpose.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 32.6.6(j) . Untitled.
Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and
location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of
outdoor luminaire.
(Ord. 98-18(1) , 8-12-98)
Sec. 32.7.8.2. Untitled.
Outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of section
4.17 of this chapter.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-98-03. 360 Communications (Dudley Mountain
Site) (Signs #67 & 68) . Public Hearing ~on a request to construct telecom
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night M~ting)
(Page 10)
000135
tower on approx 100 ac znd RA. Located on W sd of Dudley Mountain Rd (Rt 706)
approx 1.5 mi SW of Old Lynchburg Rd (Rt 631). Tax Map 89, Parcel 18. Samuel
Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 27 and August 3,
1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal is to construct a 100-foot self-
supporting lattice tower to provide improved cellular phone coverage for
southern Albemarle County. Currently, service for central and southern
Albemarle is provided by facilities on Heards Mountain and a tower on 1-64 at
Camp Holiday Trails. This tower would be located near the ridge of Dudley
Mountain which runs north-south and is entirely wooded. The trees would
provide excellent screening of the equipment at the base of the tower.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposed tower is at an elevation of
approximately 1550 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the tower is
approximately 3000 feet distant. This will not only require clearing for the
tower, but also for access and the provision of electrical service. The
access road to the tower would cross areas of critical slopes, some of which
have been estimated to be at 40 percent, so construction would require
disturbance of critical slopes for construction. That was considered by staff
when reviewing the application for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in a Rural Areas District as well
as a Mountain Resource Area.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant provided tonight a slight modification
in terms of access to the site. Access was off of the subject property, but
they have brought the access back onto their property. It would require
clearing for that new access.
The requested area is identified in the Open Space Plan as a Mountain
Resource Area. With the Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted last week, the
area is now identified in that plan as well at the 800-foot contour. Staff
has not been able to determine if relocating the tower outside of the resource
area would have a greater impact than allowing development within that area
because that would require submission of detailed siting information by the
applicant. The location of a tower in the Mountain Resource area will
permanently alter the quality of the resource and is inconsistent with the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan for that reason.
Mr. Cilimberg said the tower would be located approximately 40 feet from
the nearest property line and does not comply with the setback requirements of
the ordinance. The top of the tower would be approximately 40 to 50 feet
above the tree line. This tower would offer opportunities for collocation in
an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation
options. He understands another provider has discussed the possibility of
collocation at this location. Reducing the height of the tower would impact
the 360 Communications network, but that impact is not known at this time.
The tower would be visible from dwellings on both sides of Dudley Mountain,
from Route 29 South, and from Route 706. The visibility of the tower from
residential property is considered a detriment by adjacent residents. One
letter of objection was received stating that the tower is adjacent to
property which has been placed in a conservation easement.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was staff's opinion that although the tower would
change the appearance of the area, it would not change the character of the
Rural Area district itself. There would be limited traffic volume and create
no impact on any property for by-right uses. The request would change the
character of the Mountain Resource area which is largely undeveloped. This
facility would increase availability and convenience for users of wireless
telephone technology in the area. The proposal may not contribute to an
attractive community because of the potential visual impact on the Entrance
Corridor and mountain area. .
Mr. Cilimberg said it was staff's opinion that the impact on the
Mountain Resource Area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff did
not recommend approval of the request. The Planning Commission, on June 2,
1998, voted unanimously to recommend denial of SP-98-03, noting the height of
the tower, the slope of the access road, and the potential for others to
desire to locate towers in this location.
Mr. Cilimberg said in the event the Board chose to deny the application,
a consensus regarding the basis for any denial will be needed along with
instructions for staff to return a written decision for the Board's
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page
000136
consideration and action, in order to comply with the provisions of the
Telecommunications Act.
Mr. Cilimberg said a new sketch was submitted shortly before the
Planning Commission meeting concerning location of the tower. The staff did
not have a chance to fully review that sketch before that meeting. Referral
back to the Commission at this time is not necessary as the changes do not
materially affect the findings and recommendations of the Commission.
However, should the Board choose to approve this application, Condition 3(A)
of the conditions recommended in the staff's report must be amended to reflect
the revised plan (sketch). The new condition would read: ~The tower shall be
located as shown on the attached plan entitled 360 Communications Dudley
Mountain and initialed WDF 7/14/98."
Mr. Marshall asked about the statement concerning denial of the
application and the Telecommunications Act. Mr. Davis said any denial has to
be based on a written record. In order for staff to prepare that written
record, the Board would need to defer action so a package could be prepared
for the Board to fully consider before taking action. Mr. Cilimberg said
staff does not believe denial would be inconsistent with the
Telecommunications Act, if the Board chose to do so.
At this point, Mr. Marshall invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. Dick Gibson was present to represent the applicants. He said there
were a number of representatives of the Company present also. They will
divide up the presentation as to individual areas of responsibility. He said
the height of the tower is set at 100 feet because that is essentially the
minimum height necessary to enable the company to provide the coverage. There
has to be 40 feet of clearance above the tops of trees in order to propagate
the signal to get effective coverage. The height of the tower is a compromise
between the company's needs and the public's desire not to see towers. The
company believes it has reduced the height of the tower to the lowest height
possible in order to achieve its goal of providing cellular service, and to be
consistent with the public's interest.
Mr. Gibson said he had some photographs to show what the visual effect
will be. The tower is a lattice type. Most agree that type of tower is the
least visible because of all the air space between the steel supports. The
other alternative is a monopole type tower which is a solid structure. The
company is indifferent to the type of tower. The tower would be a neutral
gray color and unlighted. The lease area is large enough to accommodate other
users to be consistent with the County's desire for collocation of other
telecommunication carriers.
Mr. Gibson said that initially, 360 had proposed one, 150-foot tower
which they thought would be tall enough to accommodate several users on one
tower in a smaller lease area. Staff suggested lowering the tower to the
lowest height possible and have a larger lease area. The larger lease area
would accommodate other towers above the users of the same short height.
There would be enough ground space for three short towers for three users.
Another user has already committed to go on this facility if it is approved
(U.S. Cellular has been trying to locate in that area for some time). There
is a need for improved cellular coverage in this area, and a tower is the only
way to provide for that need.
Mr. Gibson mentioned aerial photos which had been distributed to the
Board with their materials for tonight's meeting. These photos show the
situation well. They show a significant amount of tree cover. It is a
sparsely populated area. He said there was a balloon test and a photo
simulation done. These tests illustrate the degree of visibility better than
he can explain it. The Company commissioned a balloon test at 150 feet first,
and then after the decision was made to reduce the height of the tower to 100
feet, they commissioned a second balloon test. A professional photographer
took pictures of the balloon from many different vantage points and did
different calculations. After doing that, the photographer superimposed the
tower as it would be seen after it is installed. He said the effort was to
minimize the visual impact of this tower as much as possible. It would be
Impossible to further reduce the visual impact of the tower and still be able
to provide the necessary coverage.
Mr. Gibson said 360 considered alternative solutions and information on
that was also furnished to the Board in its packet. One solution suggested by
the Planning Commission to another carrier was to do a series of wooden poles
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
000137
along the side of the road. He said the company studied that and determined
that was not a feasible solution. It would take 24 poles to provide the same
coverage that one 100-foot tower on the top of Dudley Mountain would provide.
With 24 poles, 24 separate sites would be needed, 24 separate leases, 24
separate cleared areas, 24 separate runs. That is just for one carrier, so if
the other carriers are going to have the same level of coverage, multiply that
by three and that makes 72, 60-foot wooden pole towers that would be needed by
the three carriers to provide the same coverage. 360 is proposing three,
100-foot towers on the top of a mountain to provide the same coverage that the
72 utility poles scattered around the base of the mountain would provide.
Mr. Gibson said Mr. Robert Denny is a consulting electronics engineer
who consults to the telecommunications industry in general, and he will speak
tonight. His report has been furnished to the Board in its packet. Mr. Denny
verified the accuracy of $60's scatter plots which are submitted to support
360's need for this site. He will exhibit the difference between the
~before" and ~after" in terms of coverage if this tower were to be approved.
Mr. Denny has concluded that the Fitzgerald site is the best possible site to
provide the intended coverage. There would be no improvement if the site were
moved elsewhere in the area, either in terms of coverage, or in terms of
visibility. It is his opinion that if the tower is not located on the top of
Dudley Mountain, at least six, 100-foot towers would be required to provide
the same coverage. There would be the same problem if six towers half way up
the mountain were located around the mountain to provide the same coverage.
There would have to be separate access to each one and separate utilities to
each one.
Mr. Gibson said this site has access now on an existing logging road
that goes to the top of that mountain. Part of that access road will need to
be put back on Mr. Fitzgerald's property because the existing logging road
does go onto the neighbor's property.
Mr. Gibson said Mr. Denny's report addresses the fact that if the short
poles were used it would take 24 poles to replace this one tower. On the
access road issue, Mr. Derek Johnson of Timmons, is present to speak. He has
studied the situation and will say that Timmons can engineer a road going up
the side of the mountain that will meet the criteria County staff recommended
in its report. There is the existing logging road that goes most of the way
up the mountain, but it will need to be improved in some areas. In order to
have the minimum amount of disturbance, 360 will airlift the equipment
building in by helicopter. They have done this in other instances. That is
the component that requires the largest vehicle to carry it, so they will
airlift the building in so they do not have to improve the road to a level
where it would accommodate a truck. The use of the road will be minimal once
the facility is constructed, maybe two vehicle trips per month.
Mr. Gibson said he had furnished to the Board members copies of recent
tower applications which have been approved, and he brought along a photo
board to show those towers, all of which are considerably more visible than
the one requested tonight. The view from the one on Piney Mountain from the
adjoining roads can be compared to the balloon tests, etc., which he presented
tonight. The distance is greater from the road to the Dudley Mountain site
than from the road to the Piney Mountain site. The Dudley Mountain tower
protrudes above the tree line significantly less than the one at Piney
Mountain. He then handed the photos to the Board.
Mr. Gibson said 360 requests the Board's approval this evening not only
of the use permit, but also of a waiver of the site plan requirements and the
reduction in setback, all as set forth in the staff's report. They feel this
is the best possible site in the area. It is unusual to find a site on top of
a mountain that is served by an existing road. The coverage potential is
excellent. The ability to reduce the number of towers in the County is
important because there is the possibility of locating at least three carriers
and perhaps more on this site. The gentlemen from U. S. Cellular said they
would be willing to go on this tower and sacrifice coverage if it satisfied
the County's desires for collocation. Mr. Gibson requested permission to
address any new concerns that are brought up by the citizens. He then
introduced Mr. Gary Ross.
Mr. Ross said he is the RF Engineer for 360 Communications in this
area. He will give an overview of how this site was chosen. The coverage
objective for the Dudley Mountain site is to cover U. S. Route 29 as well as
Routes 706, 631 and 712 on both the eastern and western sides of Dudley
Mountain. Because 360 wants to obtain optimal coverage in the area, the base
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
000 1.35
elevation of the site as well as the tower height are important because of
terrain and foliage in the area. Clearing trees by 40 feet is necessary
because they do not have just one line of trees, but a dense forest all the
way down to the road and on both sides. Included in the Board's packet are
some scatter plots which indicate the current coverage hole, as well as the
coverage that would be obtained from this mountain site. Mr. Ross said that
at the County's request, 360 looked at various alternatives to lessen the
impact on the area. One alternative was to have 60-foot towers used along the
roads to approximate the same coverage. Because of the dense foliage in the
area, at about 60 feet from the tree line, the signal will attenuate quickly.
It will not work, as per se, free space loss. The height above the trees is
imperative. Based on their modeling software, in order to obtain the same
coverage area, there would be a need for 20 to 24, 60-foot poles. This is
modeling software that is used throughout the industry, and is an
approximation only. That is why the location on the top of the mountain is
optimal. He said that Mr. Denny will talk about the other option, that is the
six, 100-foot towers. He said that when you get 40 feet above the trees, the
number of towers decreases because the signal will propagate further.
Mr. Bob Denny said he is a consulting engineer in the field of
telecommunications. He will speak about the studies he did in conjunction
with 360 to verify that they were picking the most appropriate site in the
vicinity to achieve their objective. He uses modeling software which is
somewhat different from that used by 360. He also visited the area to
personally see what the area looked like. He did an analysis and reached the
same conclusion that 360 presents in their scatter plots that the Fitzgerald
property is the best site to achieve the objective. He prepared some figures
for the Board to look at which are simpler than the scatter plots which the
industry uses (the report was included in the Board's packet tonight).
Included is a terrain profile for a section through Dudley Mountain looking to
the north. The Mountain looms above Routes 29, 706, 631 and other areas in
the vicinity. Route 29 is about 500 feet above mean sea level and rises up to
650 feet above mean sea level. On the top of the mountain there is an overall
elevation at the base of the proposed tower of 1580 feet. The difference of
over 1000 feet in height enables 360 to construct a single site that will
serve a large geographic area.
Mr. Denny said he tried to identify a couple of other sites in the
vicinity that might be viable and compare them to the site that was selected.
Engineers in his office looked independently at the site area, and all
selected a site somewhere on the top of Dudley Mountain. They were then asked
to pick a second and a third site. They prepared shadow studies which he
explained to the Board. He said that while Dudley Mountain is far from
perfect, it allows unobstructed service to the areas that lie east and west of
the mountain where the major roads come through.
Mr. Denny showed another figure of an assumed site further south near
Red Hill. He picked the site because it is at a relatively high elevation and
there was another use of the land which indicated a tower would be appropriate
on the site. He said that tower would only provide service to the area to the
west of the mountain leaving a large area to the east with no service. That
means that additional sites would need to be placed on the east side of the
mountain to provide service. He picked another site further to the north on
Gibson Mountain which would be a good site to serve only Route 29. But then,
Dudley Mountain serves as an obstruction and would block out the eastern side.
Basically, this gives an idea in a schematic way of why Dudley Mountain is
such a good area. Based on these and other studies, his firm concurs that the
need for the site exists and that the Dudley Mountain site is a good site.
Mr. Denny said Mr. Gibson had touched on three points which he would
like to mention again. This is the best site. This is an unique site. In
the entire vicinity in which a site could be located, this is the best site.
It has unique characteristics that provide service to the largest geographic
area with the fewest number of towers and the shortest of possible towers. If
the tower is not located on the top of Dudley Mountain, there would need to be
additional sites on both the east and the west sides of the mountain to fill
in the areas that could be served by a single tower. If tower height is
limited to 100 feet above ground level, it could take as many as six, 100-foot
towers located at other sites off of the mountain to provide comparable
coverage. They also looked at the theory which was advanced to use a number
of small poles along the side of the road to provide service. There would be
a lot of poles. It would be difficult to tell if the poles would Work until
they were put up. Wooden poles are a terrible maintenance problem for
supporting towers and are not particularly nice to look at. They don't give
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
adequate Fresnel zone clearance, so from each one there would be just a small
amount of coverage. There would be a complex system with poor clearance from
the antennae to the area being served, and poor service back from the hand
held telephone that people like to use. Other vegetative materials in the
area would cause clutter losses. These are some of the things that detract
from the multiple pole theory.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that is regardless of whether it is analog or
digital. Mr. Denny said "yes." Basically, analog and digital can happen in
any kind of wireless telephone service. In some of the higher tech digital
services, it would be more of a problem because the digital signals are so
weak. At the Dudley Mountain site, different tower heights were studied. It
was the conclusion that a 100-foot tower would be the minimum height that
could be used to achieve the objective. The antennae has to be far enough
above the trees so that as the signal goes down into the valley it clears the
tops of the trees. People on their telephones on the ground can then also get
a clear line of sight back up to the top of the hill where the receiving
antennas are located. It is a particular problem for the hand-held telephones
because they operate at six-tenths of a watt of power and they have
inefficient antennae systems. It is important that the base station site
itself has as good an antennae system as it can have. A single tree between a
phone and a cellular receiving antennae can reduce the cellular signal level
by four to eight times. That is an overly simplified estimate. The effect
that trees have, especially when the sap is up and the leaves are on the
trees, is very detrimental. That is why the antennae needs to be up above to
give clearance of the trees and the Fresnel zone clearance so the signal does
not hit the ground before it gets where it is wanted. If the signal goes into
the ground, it will not go where it needs to go.
Mr. Denny said there was concern expressed about compliance with Federal
guidelines for human expose to radio frequency energy. The proposal was
studied, and as with most other sites of this type, the ground level exposure
for people going through the area would be hundreds to thousands times less
than the maximum permissible exposure allowed under FCC rules. There is no
risk of expose approaching the maximum permissible. He then offered to answer
questions.
Ms. Thomas said she recently learned about a new technology called
~combiner" which allows collocation in the sense that signals from the panels
can be separated for the different phone companies. She asked if this is
something that is available now. Mr. Denny said combiners have been around
since World War II. They have been a part of cellular technology since the
beginning. There will be combiners used since there is more than one
transmitter. There is more than one receiver, but there are only a few
antennae on the tower. When you look at a cell site, you may see multiple
antennae on that tower depending on how it is configured. Downstairs in the
shelter there are many times that number. There are a number of receivers and
transmitters there also. The way those large number of transmitters and
receivers are hooked up to a relatively small number of antennas is through
the use of combiners. He is not that familiar with the actual equipment
proposed for use at this site, but there is a limit to the number of combiners
that can be used. A fair number of combiners are already used for their own
purposes, so it may not be possible for them to multiplex additional users
into the same antennae. It may be possible to put more antennae on the tower
and accommodate users that way.
Mr. Derek Johnson said he is with Timmons and is a consulting engineer
for the site work. They propose to utilize the existing road and make
improvements to be able to get near the top of the mountain. They will
construct the new road approximately 800 feet parallel to the slope over to
where the actual lease area begins and where the tower and the control
building are to be constructed. On that existing road there is approximately
600 feet which is on slopes greater than 25 percent that will need attention.
The existing road can be improved to provide access for construction and for
the two trips per month that are intended for maintenance and to check on the
site. The site tower and building will be helicoptered in for placement.
Construction of the road is really for construction access and then for the
all-terrain access twice a month. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Marshall asked if all of this takes place on the Fitzgerald
property. Mr. Johnson said that is correct. The new site plan that was
submitted, and to which Mr. Cilimberg alluded, has that new road about 800
feet on the Fitzgerald property. That portion is not an existing road at this
time.
August 12, 1998 Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
000140
Ms. Humphris said there is a statement in the staff's report reading:
~Staff typically recommends conditions of approval which are designed to limit
the amount of activity required for the installation of access/electricity."
Then the report lists four conditions. She asked what has changed since the
staff report was written. Then there is another statement which reads: "The
applicant's engineer has provided information which indicates that these
conditions cannot be met. Staff opinion is that without conditions such as
those above, the impact caused by access to this site will be such that the
visual character of the area will be changed." Mr. Johnson said that initial
report was based on the Mountain Protection Plan. County staff said this site
needed to meet the standards in that plan. The four conditions are the
conditions the existing road would need to meet if the Board grants approval.
A road meeting the requirements can be designed. They did a survey and
started preliminary engineering on the sites. They have hard numbers on what
the slopes are. At the time the initial report was put together, it was a
guess.
Ms. Thomas said the Board does not have the most recent report because
in the booklet furnished by the applicant, the Board has the January 28 letter
listed as Attachment E. Mr. Gibson said it was a mistake that the old report
was included in the Board's materials. Basically there was a change made to
allow for the same types of flexibility for the access road that were allowed
for the site. That was an oversight in the initial staff report. 360 could
not comply with those conditions until that change was made. Mr. Gibson said
Mr. Johnson studied it and reported to him that with that change, he would be
able to design a road that would satisfy the requirements. Mr. Gibson said he
included that statement in the letter, but mistakenly included the old report
in the packet. He said there really is not a new report, but Mr. Johnson did
report to him that having made that change he would retract his previous
statement, and now would be able to state that they would be able to engineer
and construct a road that would comply to the staff recommendations.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Gibson to describe the change again. Mr. Johnson
said the initial indication from the staff was that the Mountain Protection
Plan needed to be met for this access. Some of the verbiage refers to having
roads at 16 percent as far as the slope is concerned. The letter he wrote,
which is noted as Attachment E, refers to that. Mr. Gibson said there are
conditions in the staff's report and No. 2 contains a proviso reading:
~...unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures
acceptable to the County Engineer are employed." He said that same verbiage
was added to paragraph 3 which was not there initially. Once that verbiage
was added to Paragraph 3 what it says is: ~The access road above the 800-foot
elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or
flatter" and then ~unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization
measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed" was added, It was
that addition that enabled him to be able to engineer the road that would
satisfy the guidelines.
Mr. Chris Burns, General Manager for 360 Communications in the Greater
Charlottesville area, spoke next. He said he would give the Board an idea of
how they got to this point in time. Part of his responsibility is to manage
their customer service, as well as the sales operations, in Charlottesville.
The Customer Service Center handles approximately 16,000 incoming customer
calls each month. Those calls are about billing, phone usage and complaints
about the level of servicing. They try to quantify the level of coverage in
given areas, keep track of that and then give that information to their
engineers so they can decide where to provide service next. In particular,
the area south of 1-64 on Route 29 has been for a year or so one of the
highest areas for customer complaints. They receive about 20 calls a week
about that area asking for better, or adequate, coverage in that area. Today
they are not providing even passable coverage. Trying to satisfy the requests
of the customers to provide adequate coverage in that area is what brought
about this request tonight. He said that ends the presentation by the
applicant.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing.
Mr. Stephen Thornton, owner of Eagle Crest Christmas Tree Farm directly
east of the property in question, spoke first. He said he was not notified of
the revised plan. He thought 360 had withdrawn their plan. It was only when
a neighbor called that he knew this request was still active. Two months ago,
he came to the Planning Commission meeting. He has the right to build above
the 700-foot elevation on his property (which is about two-thirds of it) on
the one hand, and 360 Communications is trying to build a tower within 100
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
000:1.4:5.
feet of his property on the other hand. He finds that ironic. He said this
tower would directly overlook his property. Looking from the Fitzgerald
property, it goes out on a spit right along the ridge, and his property is to
the right of that. Any erosion on that property will come down his property
and the Wood's property on the other side, not on the Fitzgerald Property. He
has never been able to log but about 1200 feet on his property because it is
too steep. He had loggers look at it and say there is no way they would work
on the property. There are some logging roads on his property and the
adjacent property that are badly eroded. He has never seen the road
mentioned, but on his property where it is the same steepness, there is no way
to build a road. Dudley Mountain is the tallest mountain around
Charlottesville. One must go all the way to Southern Albemarle and the Blue
Ridge Mountains to find taller mountains. It is taller than the Southwest
Mountains. It is 100 feet taller than Carter's Mountain. It is one of the
most beautiful mountains in the area, but is generally not recognized because
it runs toward Charlottesville. It is a beautiful area and the reason they
bought the Eagle Crest Christmas Tree Farm about 15 years ago.
Mr. Thornton said normally he does not like to give his qualifications,
but the Board has heard a lot of expert opinions tonight. He is a Professor
of Physics at the University of Virginia. He has been there 30 years, and he
knows something about communications. Ne knows about electromagnetic waves.
He knows about wave lengths and frequencies. He questions a lot of the things
he has heard tonight. For example: this is completely outmoded technology.
As he speaks right now, the Iridium system has 35 satellites up in space.
They are to start with a true ~Dick Tracy" system within a month or two.
Anybody in the world will be able to have a portable communication system and
talk to anybody else in the world. He said that most people will not be able
to buy this system for a few years because of its costs. It is hard to
imagine what technology will be in 10 years. He thinks this system is not
needed anymore. It is old technology. He has a cellular phone and uses it at
his farm. He has never had any problem with it. It works fine. He has
ridden along Routes 706 and 631 and never had any problems. He said that
electromagnetic signals do not need 40-foot clearance. Electromagnetic
signals, even the high frequencies and short wave lengths, do go through
leaves. He does not believe a leaf will block a signal by a factor of eight.
The statement that a 40-foot clearance is needed to go down in the valley is
ridiculous. It is right below the valley where the signals are the strongest.
He has heard a lot of inconsistent statements tonight. He sees no evidence
that this tower is needed. He said that 40 feet out of a 1600-foot mountain
makes little difference. He can hardly believe that going 40 feet more above
the tree line is going to matter when there is a mountain 1600 feet tall.
Mr. David Van Roijen said he gave a lot of suggestions at the Planning
Commission meeting on this subject. This is a rural area and nobody promised
anyone perfect coverage and 100 percent capacity. That is what 360 is asking
for when they say a 100-foot tower would be the minimum to achieve the
objective. Whose objective? It is 360 and other providers who want to make
the most money with the cheapest tower, the fastest way. He congratulates the
Board for having hired a consultant who can tell whether these people are
telling the truth. There was a petition which was signed and handed to the
Planning Commission. He has 40 neighbors on his side of the mountain who did
not want the tower, who have other suggestions, and who are willing to work
with the cellular companies to find locations. He realizes this is probably
their ideal, Cadillac of a tower location, but the neighbors in the area don't
want it. He does not think they have to have it to be able to have cellular
communications.
Mr. van Roijen then handed to the Board copies of the petitions.
Likewise, it has been said that if one has a more powerful hand held unit,
there is not as much trouble. They don't tell the public this when they give
them the phones. Why not say, we are sorry, we don't have a lot of coverage
in this area, and we can sell you a more powerful phone and with a better
battery, etc. That seems to be a better alternative than putting up the
towers everywhere. The more important thing is, these people are saying they
want this one tower, but can this Board promise his neighborhood that this is
the only tower or will there be six other applicants come in for towers.
Then, within two years, will they say they need more capacity, so need to add
more towers, etc.? He said he and his neighbors want to know when the Board
approves a tower in their area, that this is what it is going to be and that
is it. They do not want to be tortured. He has been to these meetings many
times in the last couple of years. Why not get the County's consultant on
board and get him to tell the Board what it really needs to know. He asked
that the Board deny this application.
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
O00JL42
An unidentified young lady said she had lived at the foot of Dudley
Mountain all her life, which is not a long period of time. Almost every day
she sits on her back patio and looks at the beautiful mountain. As she sits
there, she feels lucky to be able to live at the foot of this wonderful site.
She wants to be able to do.this and continue thinking how wonderful and
beautiful the mountain is. If a tower is put up there, these thoughts will be
ruined. Every time she hikes up the mountain, this hideous tower will be
there to get her. She is the only thing she wants sitting on the top of
Dudley Mountain or one of the other neighbors who love it and don't want it
damaged. The only thing she wants to change on Dudley Mountain is the color
of the leaves on the trees during the Fall. She does not want to say ~I lived
near a lovely mountain until when I was 12 years old they put an ugly tower on
top and then later more followed, and they dug huge trenches on the side."
She said that nobody else who lives near the mountain wants to say this
either. Please, don't ruin Dudley Mountain.
Mr. Jim Macllnerny said he recently finished a house in full view of the
tower. He is definitely opposed to a tower in his neighborhood. He also
works for the Xerox Corporation and he has a cellular phone they provided for
him. He has been up and down Route 29, up and down Dudley Mountain Road, and
he has had absolutely no problem with coverage. To destroy the beauty of the
mountain would be abominable. There is one Carter's Mountain in the County,
why do we need two?
Mr. Jess Dorman said he has property directly across from where 360
wants to build these towers. He agrees with the gentlemen who said this is a
heck of a steep mountain. He thinks the photograph they showed of the aerial
photos is very deceiving in that it is taken going away from the mountain. It
will take a heck of a road with a lot of retaining walls and he worries that
the road will be worse than the tower. It is the steepest, roughest mountain
that he knows of in the area outside of the Shenandoah Park. It will create a
big scar on the side of the mountain. The picture of the photo simulation is
interesting, but he does not see a tower anywhere in it. He finds it hard to
believe that this is what he will be looking at. When he drives along 1-64,
he sees Carter's Mountain with 10+ towers on it. He said the applicant has a
lot of nerve to bring in a picture such as the one shown tonight, and say this
is what it will look like across from his property. He doesn't "buy it~ and
hopes the Board will not either. Albemarle County is one of the most
beautiful counties in one of the most beautiful states in the Union, and he
thinks it needs to be preserved. He hopes the Board will turn down the
application.
Ms. MaryAnne Rodeheaver who lives on Dudley Mountain Road spoke next.
She said she has a two-acre plot. At the back of her two acres, when you look
up at Dudley Mountain, only a panorama of mountain and trees is seen. When
she looked at the photos today, she realized that a professional photographer
can take a position so the photo will show what they want it to show. For
example, in the picture where they drew in the tower, there is a tree in the
foreground so you only see a part of the top of Dudley Mountain and the tower
is next to the tree that is right in front of you. They don't show the full
span of an open mountain with the tower sticking up on the top. She also
noticed that the pictures taken of the balloon test were taken on a foggy day
and that may be why the balloon is not as visible. She said that at the last
hearing on this request, there was a comment made that the number one cause of
accidents in automobiles today is cellular phones and phones in cars. She
heard of a bumper sticker recently that said ~Hang Up Your Phone and
Concentrate on Your Driving." She does not think it is needed. She thinks
all need to reassess what is being done in this country in terms of the beauty
of nature and the countryside. When you get in your car to take a ride, you
don't have to do your business on the phone at the same time.
Ms. Helen Gallion-Austin said she lives near Dudley Mountain on Route 29
South. She is representing her family and also William and Poppy Furrow? who
are her neighbors nearby. They oppose this tower and all the slew of towers.
It seems that the southern mountains are under attack. She agrees with an
earlier speaker that being able to talk clearly on a cheap little phone is not
a high value. She values the mountains more. Everything she has read
indicates that technology is coming shortly so none of these towers will be
necessary. She asked that the countryside not be trashed for something that
will be thrown away in 10 years.
Mr. Jay Closure said he has been a resident of Albemarle County in this
general area for 56 years. He owns adjacent property across from Dudley
Mountain where this tower is proposed to be located. He is at 750 feet
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
000 143
elevation on an adjacent ridge that runs parallel with Dudley Mountain. He
looks straight at it. It is in his backyard. He is in opposition to it. He
has concerns about erosion for the neighbors who live in the general area. He
hopes the Board is opposed and said he would like to keep Dudley Mountain like
it is.
Mr. T. K. Woods said he is from the other side of the mountain at
Arrowhead. He is the guy, with his cousin, who has put all of their property
in a conservation easement just so this sort of thing would not happen. They
own the property which is adjacent to the pad that 360 wants to put up. The
old pad was 40 feet instead of the 100 feet they needed, and he does not know
where this pad falls in relation to his property. He is offended for all the
reasons cited. His feelings are for the people on the other side. This
mountain trail that they are calling an existing road, most of it is on a 40
degree slope. They can build a road, but if they have to conform to County
requirements, they will leave a scar on the whole side of Dudley Mountain that
will never go away. It will create tremendous erosion problems and it
probably will create erosion on his side as well.
Mr. Woods said the applicant has picked a site which is to his best
advantage. He has probably found the only willing lessor on Dudley Mountain.
That lessor is an absentee landlord, and he is in it for the money he will get
out of the lease. The applicant wants it because it is the least expensive
way to provide a service and get money in his pocket. Mr. Woods said the
applicant does not make money on the telephones. He sells the service and
gives a telephone for 99 cents that will not work well. Everybody has said
that if one buys a better telephone, they will get better coverage. It was a
slick presentation. He feels the people who took simulated photos of Forest
Lakes, of Piney Mountain, and of Keswick, did not show the tower that exists
there now. Simulated photos don't do that. He entreated the Board to give
consideration to the neighborhood and to Dudley Mountain which is a resource
for all of Albemarle County. Once a decision is made to desecrate that
resource, it will not come back. Once these people get a foothold on that
mountain, it will look like Carter's Mountain.
Mr. Ollie Fitzgerald said he has been a building contractor in
Charlottesville for over 40 years and is the owner of nearly 100 acres in
question. One big question has been the right-of-way to the site. It is an
existing old roadbed, and he has been to the top in a vehicle. He does not
know why it is such a big issue for somebody to get up there. Right now a few
trees have grown up in the road because nobody has been all the way to the top
for seven or eight years. He was two-thirds of the way up to the top of the
mountain a couple of months ago in a pickup truck. He thinks that only some
work is needed on the roadbed there now to get access to the top of the
mountain.
An unidentified gentlemen said he had a slide show presentation for the
Board. He said he does not want to tell the Board about cellular phones and
cellular towers and the eyesores that these towers create. The Board knows
much more than anybody in the room except the engineers about what is
involved. He does want to emphasis a couple of points that have not been
brought up. This whole application has had little or no publicity. It has
not even been in the Observer. It hasn't been on the radio. It hasn't been
on the TV. There have been no letters to the editor. The only people who
know about this are the adjoining landowners who were notified. He wrote a
letter to Bill Fritz and gave him the names of a dozen other people. Nobody
in the County knows about this thing. If this were publicized like it should
be, and people thought another tower would be put on another mountain, there
would be plenty of people present. He is also startled that there are no
proponents present tonight. The applicant said they get 15,000 calls per
month complaining about, or wanting service. Where are some of these people?
Two or three people tonight have said the service is adequate. He thinks the
users should be present shouting about their desires. One thing he thinks is
important is that this company, which is not even 360 anymore, it just merged
last month with Alltel which is the second largest telecommunications company
in the south. If they get this tower on this mountain, they will have the
competition beaten. The reach of this tower is not just for Albemarle County.
This tower will reach customers all up and down Route 29, nearly half way to
Lynchburg, and certainly as far as Culpeper. He then showed his slides to the
Board: Dudley Mountain taken from Redfields Subdivision; Dudley Mountain from
Route 29 South at the intersection of Red Hill School Road and Taylors Gap
Road; from Blandemar Farms Subdivision on Taylors Gap Road; from the North
Garden area - the lake on Fred Scott's farm; from the east side of the
mountain; and from Old Lynchburg Road. He said this is the gateway to the
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
000144
City from the south and that tower will be right in the middle. He thanked
the Board for hearing his presentation.
Mr. Gibson asked if the engineer could address the new technology. He
said that is the only new thing mentioned by the public.
Mr. Denny said he is not aware that Motorola's Iridium System is going
to replace telecommunications at anytime in the near future. When it is
initially deployed, it will be well beyond the fifteen cents a minute that
many cellular plans charge. It is brand new technology. It has not been
tested. The equipment is not available at this time. Companies would not be
investing, and the Federal government would not be trying to provide these
services if they were going to be replaced tomorrow by something else.
Companies have recently gone to an auction-based way of obtaining spectrum to
the United States for new services, and companies are paying millions of
dollars for access to these frequencies. He expects that within our
lifetimes, the phones of the future will use a combination of satellite and
terrestrial and fiber optics, depending on which is the least expensive. His
personal belief is that a lot of long-distance telephone calls will be routed
from satellite to satellite and around the globe. While the two-way telephone
aspect of Iridium is only a small part of it, ultimately that is the way long
distance will be handled. It solves a lot of problems by being able to bounce
signals around the globe without having to go up and down as many times as has
to be done today. That technology is not something that will be seen in the
immediate future, so it is not something the Board should consider as a reason
to suspect that this technology is going to be outmoded anytime soon.
Mr. Bowerman asked if four or more consortiums are not now in the
process of putting up satellite systems in addition to Motorola Lockheed and
that group. Mr. Denny said there are also people who want to put up blimps.
There are people who want to put up solar-powered airplanes. People are
deploying systems on vessels off the coast of countries that are essentially
landlocked. That does not mean it will come to fruition anytime soon. He has
been at meetings about Iridium for 15 years at the FCC.
Mr. Bowerman said he realizes it has taken a long time, but they are up
there now. Business Week and Scientific American have both looked at this
issue. The competition to get the satellites in operation seems to be great
among some major players because they recognize not only the cellular, but the
digital technology for computer information. He said it is a bit larger than
Mr. Denny is indicating. Mr. Denny said he cannot say whether it will be a
big thing generations from now. He did allude to the fact that it will be
used for handling other types of traffic. It is not going to be terribly
cost-effective in the near future for terrestrial phone calls.
Mr. Bowerman asked the length of the word "future." Mr. Denny said it
is 10 years. There is absolutely no question in his mind as a consulting
engineer who practices before the FCC every single day in Washington, D.C. (he
works with everyone in the wireless division, the mass media division, and all
the other departments and bureaus of the Commission), that the Iridium systems
are not going to displace terrestrial systems like cellular and PCS's anytime
soon. He astands by his guns" that ultimately it will be a hybrid kind of
environment where the call will be routed in the most sensible way. That is
happening now with cellular and a competing technology called PCS which takes
place in a frequency band which is about two and one-half times higher than
the cellular band. The latest generation phones are capable of handling PCS,
and some are also able to handle cellular. If you try to get into a PCS site
and you can't do it or there is none in that area, because PCS tends to be
clustered, it goes into the cellular system. There will be a need for so much
wireless capacity that the Iridium and other systems like it and terrestrial
systems like cellular and PCS will be needed to continue the telecommunica-
tions in this country. No one thing is going to provide adequate capacity. A
lot of capacity will be needed to go the mile from your house into the
telephone and cable companies.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible that the areas most difficult to
serve now topographically will be a hybrid of satellite and terrestrial
communications. Mr. Denny said it is conceivable it could be that way, but it
isn't realistic to have satellite communications in Albemarle County. It is
not that rural. He does not believe the citizens of Albemarle County will
want to pay $3.00 a minute to talk on a satellite cell phone.
Mr. Bowerman said the reason he is having this discussion is because 15
years ago no one would have believed that lap top computers would replace what
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
used to fill a major part of a room. He knows technology is going to change.
He knows there will be many improvements in the technical aspects. He is
suggesting that Mr. Denny is probably right about the hybrid system and that
people who are demanding service will have service which may be entirely
different than what is envisioned today. Mr. Denny said he still does not
think the terrestrial systems are going away. He said that it was said that
cable would replace terrestrial television, and it did not. These things are
cyclical in nature and satellite will not replace terrestrial communications.
If it were, companies like AT&T and Sprint and 360 Communications and dozens
of companies like them would not be so heavily invested in a technology that
was not going to last 30 years. Mr. Denny said he was asked for his opinion,
and that opinion is that Iridium-like systems will not take over the
terrestrial based wireless market anytime in the near future in such a way
that it should influence the Board's decision tonight on this petition. That
opinion is based on information he gets from attending meetings at the FCC.
It is not just his opinion from reading the media.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed
the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciates the detail of the information that was
provided to the Board. She thinks this is the most complete application in
detail that the Board has gotten from any applicant. The scatter plots was
wonderful for the purposes of showing the value of the tower. Unfortunately,
it also shows from how far away the tower can be seen. It makes the impact
this site will have on the visual character of the area all the stronger. She
thinks the Board should have learned from its mistakes. She was impressed
that the Board has made some mistakes when approving towers that can be seen
much farther than ever was anticipated. As to whether this is a permanent
technology or a temporary one, the Board was told by its Congressman (for whom
the Board can thank for the present legislation it is laboring under) that
this is a technology which will only be important for a few years. The Board
has talked about Albemarle's mountains a lot in the last few weeks. She said
they do not want to trash the beauty of the mountains, and that learn from the
mistakes of the past. She was interested in this being called a terrestrial
system. After the young lady spoke, she thought that this is too heavenly of
a location for a terrestrial system.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that what the Board should do this
evening, if the other members generally agree with the direction she is
taking, is that the Board should not move this evening for a denial, but
rather should ask the staff (based on the recommendation the Board received
from staff and from the Planning Commission that the proposal is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Mountain Resource Area, the
Open Space Plan, and is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the
Ordinance and some of its provisions because of the critical slopes issue),
for a written record for its consideration before taking a vote. She would
like to have the record updated in recognition of the passage of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment recently adopted regarding Mountain Protection.
She said the Board would be giving staff the consensus, but not the vote, that
it is not in favor of this tower or those land use related items. She said
legal counsel can guide her if those are not the correct words. Mr. Davis
said that is exactly what he would recommend. If the Board is inclined to
view this request unfavorably, staff does need to prepare a written record for
the Board's consideration. He would anticipate that would take about $0 days
and would include comments received at the public hearing tonight, as well as
comments at the Planning Commission meeting, and the staff report and other
information submitted by the applicant and others. Mr. Tucker asked if that
record could be ready by September 2. Mr. Davis said staff can try for that
date. It depends on how fast that record can be prepared.
Ms. Thomas said for the sake of the public, a vote for this motion
asking for a staff report is in essence is a vote against the erection of this
tower. What the Board must do is ask the staff for this additional written
guidance. He does not want people to leave the meeting confused.
Mr. Marshall said a consensus of the Board members is needed.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board can vote on the request that the staff
bring the Board a written report. If so, she moves what she said a few
minutes ago that the staff bring a written record for consideration.
Mr. Marshall said before doing that, he thinks there should be a
consensus from the Board members.
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
000146
Ms. Humphris said she will second the motion.
Mr. Marshall asked if comments could be taken around the table first.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes the Board just needs to take a regular vote.
But, before doing that, he would like to address Mr. Denny. Mr. Bowerman said
he appreciated the exchange of information that Mr. Denny shared with the
Board. He knows that there is investment in current technology and the a life
span of that technology has to be addressed before it is replaced. He knows
there are different opinions as to what the future will be. He was just
suggesting in his questions to Mr. Denny that there was the possibility that
the issue may be a bit broader than Mr. Denny had originally spoken to. He
did appreciate his responses and candor in talking to this Board.
Mr. Martin said he is from Southwest Virginia. He first came to
Charlottesville in 1972 to take a tour of the University of Virginia and to
interview for a Dupont Scholarship. When he rode into Charlottesville, he did
so traveling from Lynchburg along Route 29. To this day, he thinks that is
the most beautiful mountain he has ever seen. It was absolutely gorgeous and
he cannot see this Board allowing anything to mess up that mountain.
Ms. Humphris said that all summer long she has been hearing on her car
radio the "Virginia is for Lovers" theme song. It finally gets in your mind
about the beautiful beaches, the majestic mountains, and Virginia's storybook
history. Those are the three things that tourists are asked to come here and
spend their money to see. That is above and beyond the beauty that all have
loved all their lives. Just to trash one of these majestic mountains would be
a terrible thing to do. There has to be a better way, there always is.
Ms. Thomas invited the Board members to see the tower which is a
telephone pole outside of Bellair that one can see from the Route 250 Bypass.
She would challenge anyone to find it. She looked for it sharply, but she
sees it only about one-half of the time although she knows that in the winter
it will be a little more visible. She thinks that is an alternative that is
available.
At this point, Mr. Marshall requested that the roll be called. The
motion to defer action on SP-98-03 until September 2, 1998, to allow staff
time to prepare a written record based on the consensus of the Board to deny
the request, carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: April 3 and December 4, 1996;
February 5 and May 7, 1997; April 8, April 15, July 8 and July 15, 1998.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of May 7, 1997, and found them to be in
order with a couple of typographical errors.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of April 3, 1996, pages 1-27 and found
them to be in order.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of December 4, 1996, pages 20 (Item
#9) to the end and found them to be in order with some typographical errors.
Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of April 15 and July 15, 1998, and
found them to be in order with one typographical error in the July 15 minutes.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Ms. Thomas reported on her trip to Portland, Oregon, to attend NACO's
Annual Conference, at which she said the County paid only for her
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
000147
registration. One of the interesting things she learned is how much other
local governments pay for this sort of conference. She was asked if the press
got after her for attending and she said "no." Then she learned that it is
because these people get their per diem, hotel, airplane trip, and everything
paid for. She thinks the press should get after them.
Ms. Thomas said both at that meeting and the Local Government Officials'
Conference (LGOC) in Charlottesville, the year 2000 problem was made much of.
She knows there are people working on it, and the County will be in good
shape. It sounds like other counties will not be in good shape, and one of
the problems will be overseas. There are only four countries which are paying
any attention to this problem. When anyone is dealing with banks in other
countries, or suppliers, there will be problems. The estimate heard at LGOC
is that there are approximately 40 billion embedded chips and four percent of
these are going to malfunction in the year 2000. They don't know which four
percent.
Ms. Thomas said she got to see the kind of bags that composting will go
inside of at the Ivy Landfill, and photographs with residential houses right
next to these bags. It was reassuring, and a nice thing to actually see the
stuff and actually touch it.
Ms. Thomas said the sustainability issue that Mr. Bowerman has been
involved in was a major issue at the NACO conference. Lots of counties are
doing what this Planning District is doing. There are web sites, and groups
working on the same things the PDC is working on, but for the most part she
felt this area is ahead of most of them. She also was impressed that this
area does not have major problems in attacking sustainability, but rather it
is being done to value what the area has already. A lot of concern was
expressed about sprawl, and about different types of taxes that were or are
not available to local governments. There is a lot of concern about what the
Federal Government is doing as it goes through devolution and puts more
responsibilities down on local governments without a corresponding increase in
dollars.
Ms. Thomas said she went to a public safety training center in Clackamas
County, which is the county next door to Portland. It is a shooting range
that is built for the whole community, but during certain hours it will be
just for police officers. It will pay for itself because of the hours it is
open to the public, and yet it is on behalf of the community college and the
police officers. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is an indoor or outdoor facility.
Ms. Thomas said it is indoors. With their increasing population, there was a
decreasing amount of space where there could be an outdoor range. She said
there were lots of interesting speakers, and interesting stuff that went on.
She brought home about 40 pounds of information and she has shared some of
that and will share more as she reads through it.
Ms. Thomas said NACO has these conferences in Washington, D.C., once a
year and they are a lot cheaper to attend. She went to Portland because she
was already visiting on the West Coast. She finds these conferences very
valuable and she suggests it is something the Board might want to consider
taking part in more frequently than is done.
Mr. Marshall asked if any ways for cutting taxes were suggested, rather
than new ways to tax people. Ms. Thomas said the whole concept of
privatization was discussed in a number of sessions. It is not something that
generally is turning out as good as people had hoped. Welfare privatizing to
get jobs for people on welfare is a new idea that people are working on. The
judgment seemed to be that that was a bit ~iffy" at this time, although it is
an interesting idea. They keep looking for thi.ngs like that, but there were
no brilliant ideas.
Ms. Thomas said they did give the attendees something they claimed to be
worth $50,000, but she felt that if is too good to be true, it probably is.
The County will get a compact disc program to help with the GIS and help
access all the GIS related information available in a number of different
programs. She learned at LGOC it is probably at a scale of accuracy that is
not going to be very helpful, but it is pretty showy when you bring it up on
the screen. If something more accurate is needed, having already been given
this gift, you will ask that company if you can pay them lots of money to get
your particular program down to a greater degree of accuracy. She is not
suggesting she actually brought back something worth $50,000. That was the
story they were told.
000 .48
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Martin said there have been incentives built into the Zoning
Ordinance to increase densities. A couple of people have suggested to him
that the County should consider allowing someone with mountaintop and valley
land, or valley land or infill property, if they were willing to purchase
mountaintop land and put it into conservation easements, to use those
development rights in another area. He asks if a person who owns both types
of land and is willing to put something into a permanent easement, can the
County can give bonus density points just as is allowed when developer's do
certain things. Mr. Davis said the Rural Preservation Development section of
the Zoning Ordinance allow someone to cluster their development and put the
remainder of the property into an easement, it allows development of up to 20
lots in a cluster. It allows development of more than 20 lots with a special
use permit.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Davis' example is for one property owner. What Mr.
Martin is talking about is when there are two different property owners.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a person had land in an urban area zoned a certain
way, would it be possible to increase the density in the urban area, and as
and inducement to do this, preserve land in the rural area? To show that they
were serious about this, they would then put their eight division rights in a
perpetual easement as an added incentive.
Mr. Martin said this was suggested as a way of getting the marketplace
into possibly preserving the mountaintops. Mr. Marshall said he is not as
concerned about the marketplace as he is about the individual landowner. His
whole opposition to the Mountain Protection Ordinance has been the fact that
it is hurting "the little man" and not the developer. He does not give a darn
about the developer. He thinks they are gambling.
Mr. Martin said the Board has been talking about PDR's. There is a PDR
Committee, so the Board is talking about purchasing land. What this does is
the same thing, but the County would only be purchasing someone's land who
wants to sell it. It is the same kind of thing, but private interests would
be paying for it as opposed to the County using County taxpayers' money to do
it.
Mr. Marshall said he is not opposed to the idea. He asked how someone
who wanted to build one house for one child would be able to do that. Mr.
Martin said it was just an idea that seemed to him might be a possible way of
preserving the mountains without the County purchasing the property.
Mr. Perkins said the PDR Committee will make its report on September 2.
Mr. Marshall said the reason he will vote against the 360
Communications tower is because of the critical slopes and the amount of cuts
and the visibility from a long distance. That would take that mountain.
Mr. Bowerman said he was not prepared to make an appointment to the
Planning Commission tonight.
Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 9:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Humphris, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344A of
the Code of Virginia under subsection (3) to discuss the disposition of County
property desired for an access to private property.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session.
At 9:35 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
Board of ~ounty
August 12, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
000149
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the
motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered
in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.