Loading...
1998-09-16000247 September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 16, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 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. Public. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Item No. 5.1. Resolution to deny SP-98-03 - 360 Communications (Dudley Mountain). By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO DENY SP 98-03 WHEREAS, 360 Communications Company (hereinafter ~360 Communi- cations") is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide cellular telephone service in Albemarle County and is an established provider of such service in the County; and WHEREAS, 360 Communications filed an application for a special use permit (~SP-98-03") which would authorize it to erect a wireless telecommunications facility in Albemarle County on that property identified as Tax Map 89, Parcel 18, which is located on the west side of Route 706 (Dudley Mountain Road) approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) (the "property"); and WHEREAS, the property is an approximately one hundred (100) acre parcel zoned Rural Areas ("RA"); the RA zoning district regulations authorize telecommunications towers and related faci- lities by special use permit; and WHEREAS, if approved, SP 98-03 would have authorized 360 Communications to erect and maintain a 100 foot self-supporting lattice tower (the ~tower") and related facilities to provide improved cellular telephone service in southern Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on SP 98-03 on June 2, 1998, whereafter it made its recommendation to the Board; and WHEREAS, the Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on SP 98-03 on August 12, 1998, at which time oral and written evidence was presented. September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~4~ (Page 2) NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby denies 360 Communications's application for SP 98-03 for the reasons set forth below: 1. The proposed tower would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed tower would be located at an elevation of approximately 1550 feet above sea level (Record, 5) at or near the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain. (Record, 6, 53, 82) The tower would extend 40 to 50 feet above the tree canopy. (Record, 6, 53, 82) The Dudley Mountain area where the tower would be located is entirely wooded (Record, 6, 82, 93), and in an area that is sparsely populated. (Record, 37) Because of its proposed location and elevation, the proposed tower would be in the Mountain Resource Area identified in the Open Space Plan, which is part of the Comprehen- sive Plan (Record, 5) and would be subject to the Mountain Section of the Natural Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan adopted August 5, 1998. The Open Space Plan states that "Mountains are a major open space system recommended for protection in the Rural and Growth Areas." (Record, 5) 360 Communications did not submit information which compared the impacts caused by siting the tower in the Mountain Resource Area to those caused by siting the tower outside of the mountain resource area. (Record, 5) Siting a tower such as the one proposed in this case in the Mountain Resource Area will permanently alter the quality of the mountain resource and, therefore, approval of SP 98-03 would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Record, 6) The Mountain Section states in part: "Mountains may be said to define much of the character of Albemarle County. . Mountains are a source of concern when inappropriate development creates unwanted impacts to environmental and aesthetic resources and public safety." (Record, 67) In discussing scenic resources and their economic impact, the plan states: A number of highly visible structures constructed recently have occasioned public concern about the continued scenic quality of the mountain landscape. Public expression of concern suggests that the scenic quality of the mountains is important to County resi- dents. An issue that is of importance to visual impact is the horizon. In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area. (Record, 71) Because the proposed tower would be located at an elevation of approximately 1550 feet above sea level (Record, 5) at or near the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain (Record, 6, 53, 82), and would extend 40 to 50 feet above the tree canopy, it will modify the visual character of the area. (Record, 6, 53, 82) The proposed project will also require the disturbance of 600 linear feet on critical slopes to improve the access road to the tower site (Record, 42); some of the slopes disturbed by the project are as steep as 40 percent. (Record, 65) The Mountain Section states in part: "Concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountain areas due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas." (Record, 68) The following design guidelines recommended in the Mountain Section are also relevant to this proposed project: (1) "Locating . structures to make them unobtrusive in the landscape"; (2)"Do not build structures taller than the natural tree canopy"; (3) "Do not locate . structures where they will be 'skylighted' against the horizon"; and (4) ~Do not alter the continuity of the ridge- line." (Record, 74) The proposed tower is contrary to each of the above guidelines. September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 2. The findings required for the approval of SP 98-03 cannot be made. a. The proposed tower will be a substantial detriment to adjacent property. The tower was proposed to be located only 40 feet from the nearest property line, even though it would have been 100 feet tall and extended 40 to 50 feet above the tree canopy. (Record, 6, 35, 82) The Planning Commission denied 360 Communications request for a setback waiver. (Record, 61) Although the lease area for the proposed tower and related facilities was moved (Record 1-2), the proximity of the tower to the nearest property line did not change. The closest property adjacent to the tower is Arrowhead Farm (Record, 26, 57) which is in a conservation easement. (Record, 6, 26, 35, 36, 57) The proposed project will also require the disturbance of 600 linear feet on critical slopes to improve the access road to the tower site (Record, 42); some of the slopes disturbed by the project are as steep as 40 percent. (Record, 55) The owner of Eagle Crest Christmas Tree Farm stated that any erosion on the property would come down on his property and on the Wood's property on the other side. (Record, 42) b. The proposed tower will change the character of the district, which is rural. The proposed tower would be located at an elevation of approximately 1550 feet above sea level (Record, 5) at or near the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain. (Record, 6, 53, 82) The tower would extend 40 to 50 feet above the tree canopy. (Record, 6, 53, 82) The Dudley Mountain area where the tower would be located is entirely wooded (Record, 6, 82, 93) in an area that is sparsely populated. (Record, 37) There are no tower facilities in the vicinity of the proposed tower site. (Record, 17) Dudley Mountain was described by citizens as a beautiful mountain (Record, 44A), which is the "most visually prominent peak in Albemarle County, save Carter's Mountain," and ~'the gateway to the City from the south". (Record, 47) Since the adoption of the Open Space Plan in 1992, no towers have been approved within the Mountain Resource Area except within the existing tower farm on Carter's Mountain, and on Piney Mountain, which had two other towers. (Record, 7) The proposed tower would change the character of the district to the extent that it permits development in the Mountain Resource Area. (Record, 7) As provided by the Mountain Section of the Natural Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed tower would also change the character of the district because it would be a serious modificaticn of the Dudley Mountain ridgeline. (See, Record, 71) c. The proposed tower and related facilities are inconsis- tent with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed tower and related facilities may facilitate providing improved wireless communication service, which would be consistent with the purpose set forth in section 1.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed tower and related facilities are inconsistent with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states that one intent of the Zoning Ordinance is "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." Section 1.6 states in part that: ~develop- ment is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historical resources." The project, particularly the tower, does not contribute to an attractive community because of the proposed tower's visual impact on the entrance corridor and the surrounding area. (Record, 8) Citizens described Dudley Mountain as "unspoiled" (Record, 26), "pristine" (Record, 25, 28, 32), a "majestic natural resource" September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000250 (Record, 32), and one of the few undeveloped sections of land its size near Charlottesville (Record, 34). Citizens also stated that the proposed tower would destroy the beauty of Dudley Mountain (Record 30, 57), and objected to the construction of the proposed tower and related facilities because they are a commercial use. (Record, 26) Finally, citizens also stated that the proposed access road would be over an existing horse path that is too steep for horses to maneuver, and that construction of the access road would leave a permanent scar on the mountain. (Record, 57) A petition signed by 40 persons in opposition to the proposed tower was submitted. (Record, 65) For all of the above reasons, and the reasons stated elsewhere in this decision, the proposed tower and the related facilities are inconsistent with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The applicable provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have been considered, and the denial of SP 98-03 is in compliance with the requirements of the Act. a. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance unreasonably discriminates against providers of functionally equivalent wireless telecommunications services. The final report of the wireless telecommunications task force concluded that cellular service and personal communications service (~PCS") are functionally equivalent. The Zoning Ordinance does not discriminate between the two wireless telecommunications services. See, for example, section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which authorizes, among other uses in the Rural Areas (~RA") zoning district, ~unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurte- nances." This language, which appears in the regulations for other zoning districts also, has been construed to include the facilities for both cellular service and PCS. Neither the decision of the Planning Commission, the staff report, nor the evidence presented by citizens indicated an intent to favor another wireless service provider over 360 Communications. Rather, the staff report was based upon an analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and its compliance with the requirements of section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The concerns of citizens rested on traditional land use concerns, including visual blight, erosion, and the proposed tower's proximity to the ridgeline and to an adjoining property line. (Record, 25-28, 30, 32-34, 43-46, 57) b. Neither the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, nor any other regulation or policy of the County prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunica- tions service in Albemarle County. The purpose of SP 98-03 was to authorize a tower with antenna in order to provide improved wireless telecommunications coverage for southern Albemarle County. (Record, 4, 35, 82) Neither the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, nor any other regulation or policy of the County establishes a ban or policy that has the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications service in Albemarle County. A wireless service provider is required to obtain a special use permit for the construction and use of wireless telecommunications facilities. Applications for special use permits are decided on a case-by-case basis, and in reviewing such applications, the Board considers the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the factors relevant to the approval of a special use permit set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since 1990, the Board has approved 18 applications for special use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities, and denied 4 (other than this application and the application for SP 97-27, the decision on which is pending). (Record, 76-77) There was no evidence presented at either of the public hearings that denial of 000251 September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) SP 98-03 would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in Albemarle County. c. 360 Communications' application for SP 98-03 was acted upon within a reasonable period of time. The application for SP 98-03 was submitted on January 26, 1998. The public hearing befOre the Planning Commission, originally scheduled to be held on April 21, 1998 (within the ninety day period provided by section 31.2.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance), was deferred to June 2, 1998 at 360 Communications' request. The Board's decision on SP 98-03 is well within the twelve month period to act on the application, as provided in section 15.2-2286(7) of the Code of Virginia. d. The decision to deny SP 98-03 was not based on health or environmental effects. 360 Communications stated that the tower and related facili- ties would satisfy FCC standards. (Record, 54) In addition, the staff report states: "In order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions." This requirement would have adequately protected the public health and safety. (Record, 8) 4. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. A dwelling exists on the property, and forestry activities could also be conducted on the property. (Record, 52) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision is based on the written record of the proceedings of 360 Communications' applicatic~ for SP 98-03, which record is identified as the ~Record of the Proceedings of the Application of 360 Communications Company for a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility" which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Hill. Item No. 5.2. Resolution to deny SP-98-27 CFW Wireless [CVll3] Red By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO DENY SP 98-27 WHEREAS, CFW Wireless (hereinafter ~CFW") is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide personal communication service ("PCS") in Albemarle County and is an established provider of such service in the County; and WHEREAS, CFW filed an application for a special use permit ("SP 98-27") which would authorize it to erect a wireless telecommu- nications facility in Albemarle County on that property identified as Tax Map 87, Parcel 25B, which is located on the southeast side of Route 29 South approximately one mile southwest of Route 708 (the ~property"); and WHEREAS, the property is a 2.071 acre parcel zoned Rural Areas (nRA") and Entrance Corridor; the RA zoning district regulations authorize telecommunications towers and related facilities by special use permit; the Entrance Corridor overlay district regula- tions impose additional requirements, including design standards and review, upon structures located in the Entrance Corridor; and WHEREAS, if approved, SP 98-27 would have authorized CFW to erect and maintain a 150 foot self-supporting monopole (the "tower") and related facilities to provide PCS service in southern Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on SP 98-27 on July 14, 1998, whereafter it made its recommendation to the Board; and September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 000252 WHEREAS, the Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on SP 98-27 on August 19, 1998, at which time oral and written evidence was presented. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby denies CFW's application for SP 98-27 for the reasons set forth below: 1. The proposed tower would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehen- sive Plan. (Record, 4) The Comprehensive Plan discourages uses not related to bona fide agriculture or forestry in areas designated Rural Areas. (Record, 4) The proposed wireless facilities are commercial in nature. The Open Space Plan, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, provides guidance for protecting identified resources of the County. (Record, 4) The resource identified with this application is the Entrance Corridor. (Record, 4) The proposed tower would be within the Entrance Corridor, only 60 feet from Route 29, and would be highly visible. (Record, 4) The intent of the Entrance Corridor overlay district is, in part: to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; [and] to ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources through architectural control of development (Zoning Ordinance §30.6.1) The proposed tower and related facilities would not protect and preserve the goals stated above and are therefore inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The impact of the proposed tower on the Entrance Corridor is significant due to its size. (Record, 5) The existing public utility poles and towers in the area were constructed prior to the adoption of the Entrance Corridor overlay district in 1990. (Record, 27-28) Therefore, the assertion that the impact is merely incremental to what already exists (Record, 29, 38) is not persua- sive. 2. The findings required for the approval of SP 98-27 cannot be made. a. The proposed tower will be a substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed tower is located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest dwelling. (Record, 5) Because of the design and height of the proposed tower, the location of all of the wireless facili- ties in an open area, the proposed tower and related facilities would be highly visible from adjacent dwellings and Route 29. (Record, 5) One of the adjacent property owners objected to the placement of the proposed tower in the Entrance Corridor, and suggested that CFW find a less obtrusive site. (Record, 31) He and other citizens stated that the proposed tower would adversely affect the value of adjacent properties. (Record, 27) b. The proposed tower will change the character of the district, which is rural. The location of the proposed tower is approximately 80 feet north of American Electric Power's 230 kilovolt transmission line and 100 feet north of Virginia Power's 500 kilovolt transmission line. (Record, 3) The proposed tower would be 30 feet taller than the highest public utility structure in the immediate vicinity. (Record, 3) Seventeen houses are located within 2,000 feet of the September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 000253 proposed tower. (Record, 4) There are no existing wireless telecom- munications facilities in the Red Hill area. (Record, 4) Although the area is not a pristine viewshed, the tower proposed at a height of 150 foot, or even at a height of 120 feet, alters the character of the Entrance Corridor overlay district. (Record, 1, 6) Despite the existing public utility facilities, one citizen described the Red Hill area as one that ~is a very beautiful area which should be preserved" and urged that wireless facilities Abe located so that the character of the community which the Comprehensive Plan is trying to preserve is maintained." (Record, 31) Citizens also stated that the size, location and visibility of the proposed tower would alter the character of the district, and requested that CFW consider alternative locations and strategies. (Record, 31) One citizen stated that the proposed tower would "be just another eyesore that residents must live with." (Record, 31) Another citizen stated the impact on the overall community would also be great because a small lake near the property is used as a community gathering site and there is no screening between the lake and the proposed tower location. (Record, 27) A representative of United States Cellular asserted that the 'viewshed on Route 29 is already degraded by the presence of the utility towers" and that the proposed tower ~would have minimal impact on a site where utility towers already disrupt the view." (Record, 37) The representative went on to state: Placing towers on developed land ensures that develop- ment is compatible with, and protective of, the scenic resources. Locating a tower to serve Route 29 at another location in the same area would create a much greater disruption to the viewshed and to the scenic and natural resources. (Record, 37) This argument is rejected because: (1) it ignores the special attention given by the County to any development in the Entrance Corridor; thus, even though the existing public utility facilities on and near the property predate the Entrance Corridor overlay district, their existence does not diminish the scrutiny that new development in the overlay district requires and deserves; and (2) it incorrectly assumes that the denial of the proposed tower means that the viewshed in another area of the county will be disrupted by the wireless facility constructed in its place; there is no evidence that a wireless facility must be constructed in such a way so as to disrupt any viewshed; CFW has demonstrated in the recent past that it can develop its wireless infrastructure in a way with little or no disruption of a viewshed. The representative also stated that locating the proposed tower on the property would preserve agricultural and forestal land by developing land that is already being used for utility infra- structure. (Record, 38-39) This argument incorrectly assumes that agricultural or forestal land will be sacrificed for the wireless facility constructed in its place. At the Planning Commission hearing, approximately fifteen people rose to show their opposition to SP 98-27, and citizens submitted a petition signed by almost 100 persons stating their opposition to SP 98-27. (Record, 31, 40-45) c. The proposed tower and related facilities are inconsis- tent with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed tower and related facilities may facilitate providing improved wireless communication service, which would be consistent with the purpose set forth in section 1.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed tower and related facilities are inconsistent with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states that one intent of the Zoning Ordinance is "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." Section 1.6 states in part that: ~develop- ment is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historical resources." The project, particularly the tower, does not contribute to an attractive community because of the proposed tower's visual impact on the Entrance Corridor and the surrounding area. (Record, 6) A representative of United States Cellular questioned why section 1.4.3's stated intent to create an attractive community should prevail over other provisions of section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordi- nance. Creating an attractive community is controlling in this case because the property is located in the Entrance Corridor overlay district. The denial of SP 98-27 does not prevent the service and economic goals of the Zoning Ordinance from being achieved; they are simply outweighed in this case by the other stated considerations. For all of the above reasons, and the reasons stated elsewhere in this decision, the proposed tower and the related facilities are inconsistent with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The applicable provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have been considered, and the denial of SP 98-27 is in compliance with the requirements of the Act. a. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance unreasonably discriminates against providers of functionally equivalent wireless telecommunications services. The final report of the wireless telecommunications task force concluded that cellular service and PCS are functionally equivalent. The Zoning Ordinance does not discriminate between the two wireless telecommunications services. See, for example, section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which authorizes, among other uses in the RA zoning district, ~unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances." This language, which appears in the regulations for other zoning districts also, has been construed to include the facilities for both cellular service and PCS. Neither the decision of the Planning Commission, the staff report, nor the evidence presented by citizens indicated an intent to favor another wireless service provider over CFW. Rather, the staff report was based upon an analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and its compliance with the requirements of section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The concerns of citizens rested on traditional land use concerns, including the proposed tower's size, the visual impacts of the proposed tower and related facilities, and the impact the proposed tower and related facilities would have on adjacent properties and the district. (Record, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34) b. Neither the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, nor any other regulation or policy of the County prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunica- tions service in Albemarle County. Neither the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, nor any other regulation or policy of the County establishes a ban or policy that has the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications service in Albemarle County. A wireless service provider is required to obtain a special use permit for the construction and use of wireless telecommunications facilities. Applications for special use permits are decided on a case-by-case basis, and in reviewing such applications, the Board considers the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the factors relevant to the approval of a special use permit set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since 1990, the Board has approved 18 applications for special use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities, and denied 4 (other than this application and the application for SP 98-03, the decision on which is pending). (Record, 49-50) There was no evidence presented at either of the public hearings that denial of SP 98-27 would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in Albemarle County. CFW did September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000255 not consider alternative locations (Record, 24), did not modify its application to reduce the height of the proposed tower to reduce the visual impacts (Record, 1), and did not consider utilizing a wooden pole with a whip antenna, as it has for several other approved special use permits. c. CFW's application for SP 98-27 was acted upon within a reasonable period of time. The application for SP 98-27 was submitted on May 18, 1998. The public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on July 14, 1998, within the ninety day period provided by section 31.2.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board's decision on SP 98-27 is well within the twelve month period to act on the application, as provided in section 15.2-2286(7) of the Code of Virginia. d. The decision to deny SP 98-27 was not based on health or environmental effects. The staff report states: ~In order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions." This requirement would have adequately protected the public health and safety. (Record, 7) 4. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. The property is currently used as a substation by American Electric Power. (Record, 3) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision is based on the written record of the proceedings of CFW's application for SP 98-27, which record is identified as the ~Record of the Proceedings of the Application of CFW Wireless for a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility" which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Education, $1,000 (Form %98025). At its meeting on August 10, 1998, the School Board approved an appro- priation of $1,000.00 for Meriwether Lewis School. The Junior League of Charlottesville donated $500.00 and Hunter E. Craig Co. donated $500.00 to Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. These donations will be used for the Character Counts Program at Meriwether Lewis. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $1,000.00 as detailed on appropriation %98025. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99 NUMBER 98025 FUlXID: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATIONS TO MERIWETHER LEWIS SCHOOL FOR CHARACTER COUNTS PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2206 61411 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT $1,000.00 TOTAL $1,000.00 REVENIJE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATIONS $1.000.00 TOTAL $1,000.00 Item No. 5.4. Draft statement for presentation at Virginia Coalition of High Growth Forum. September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) The Keating Commission is studying ways to address the demands of residential growth on localities and has solicited testimony from county officials for a public hearing to be held in Richmond on September 25. The Commission has also requested that localities send them specific demographic and growth information two weeks prior to the hearing. The attached material (on file) consists of a one page bulleted sheet containing demographic information, the costs and problems associated with growth, what the County has done to address growth and some suggestions on state assistance in dealing with growth. This will be sent to the Keating Commission today, Friday the 11th. The second attachment is a more narrative summary on some of the growth issues facing the County that will be used in conjunction with the statistical data for the presentation to the Commission. This is presented for the Board's information. The Board should review the information to help in determining the areas that Sally Thomas should emphasize at the September 25th hearing. Ms. Thomas reminded Board members that, unless they have further remarks to the Keating Commission, comments will be based on the bullets shown in the information. There were no comments from Board members. Item No. 5.5. Proclamation proclaiming September 17 - 23, 1998, as Constitution Week. Mr. Marshall stated that a few years ago Dan Jordan invited everyone who had held any of Thomas Jefferson's positions to speak at Monticello on the occasion of Gorbachev's visit. He said Chuck Robb represented the President, and the speakers continued down the line until it was Mr. Marshall's turn. He added that realizing Mr. Gorbachev was a communist, Mr. Marshall had no idea what he was going to say. However, he remembers one statement in which he noted how lucky Americans were to live in a free country, and he asked God to bless Thomas Jefferson and James Madison for the documents they wrote, as well as Abraham Lincoln for holding this country together and Martin Luther King for telling everybody what the words really meant. He stated that after the meeting was over, everybody asked him why he mentioned James Madison. He said he mentioned Mr. Madison because he wrote the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Marshall then read the following Proclamation: CONSTITUTION WEEK September 17 23, 1998 WHEREAS, our Founding Fathers, in order to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity, did ordain and establish a Constitution for the United States of America; and WHEREAS, it is of the greatest importance that all citizens fully understand the provisions and principles con- tained in the Constitution in order to effectively support, preserve and defend it against all enemies; and WHEREAS, the two hundred eleventh anniversary of the Signing of the Constitution provides an historic opportunity for all Americans to remember the achievements of the Framers of the Constitution and the rights, privi- leges, and responsibilities they afforded us in this unique document; and WHEREAS, the independence guaranteed to American citizens, whether by birth or naturalization, should be cele- brated by appropriate ceremonies and activities during Constitution Week, September 17 through 23, as desig- nated by proclamation of the President of the United States of America in accordance with Public Law 915; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of September 17 through September 23, 1998, as 000257 September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) CONSTITUTION WEEK in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and urge all citizens to reflect during that week on the many benefits of our Federal Constitution and the privi- leges and responsibilities of American citizenship. Signed and sealed this 16th day of September, 1998. Ms. Humphris thanked Mr. Marshall for reading the Proclamation. She thinks it is a very timely reminder. She noted that the Albemarle Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution has sent each Board member a pocket copy of the Constitution which also has the Declaration of Independence in it, as well as several essays. She distributed these to the Supervisors. Mr. Marshall stated that he is a 32nd Degree Mason, and one of the things the Masons do is to make people aware of this sort of thing. He is proud to be able to serve in his position as County Supervisor. He added, though, that he is really surprised a lot of people did not know that James Madison wrote the Constitution. Item No. 5.6. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for June 30, August 18, August 25 and September 1, 1998, was received for information. Item No. 5.7. Copy of letter dated September 2, 1998, to the Honorable Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court, from the Auditor of Public Accounts, indicating that an audit of the cash receipts and disbursements of the Clerk's office for the period July 1, 1996 through March 31, 1998 has been conducted, was received for information. Item No. 5.8. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting of July 9, 1998, was received for information. Item No. 5.9. 1998 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroad and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies, as prepared by the Department of Taxation, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-98-24. Mundie Trucking (Signs #43&44). Public hearing on a request to establish a Home Occupation Class B for storage of dump trucks in an existing garage. Applicant proposes to store & perform routine maintenance on dump trucks. Znd RA. Property located on 4.69 acs at 3061 Burnley Station Road, just off Rt 641. TM21, P23A, Rivanna Dist. (This area is not located in a designated development area [Rural Area 2].) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report for SP-98-24, Mundie Trucking, which is a request to establish a Home Occupation Class B for the storage of dump trucks in an existing garage. He said trucks will be washed, and they will receive general maintenance on the site. The site is located just off of State Route 641, Burnley Station Road. The applicant's house and garage are both located approximately 0.2 miles from Route 641 and cannot be seen from that road. He noted that this application is intended to alleviate the zoning violation and bring the property into conformance with the County Ordinance, and he discussed the favorable and unfavorable factors to the request. He pointed out that the staff, as well as the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3:2, at its meeting on August 11, 1998, has recommended denial of the special use permit. However, conditions of approval have been provided, should the Supervisors decide they want to approve it. He then went over these condi- tions. Mr. Bowerman referred to one of the negative factors the staff had identified relating to the number and size of the five dump trucks currently operating from the property. He then noted Number Three of the recommended conditions which states that ~not more than three trucks could be parked on the property". He wondered if this means that only three of the five trucks operating from the property currently could be parked there. Mr. Cilimberg concurred that this is the suggested condition. 7 September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 000; 55 Mr. Bowerman asked where the other two trucks would be stored. Mr. Cilimberg said he would have to defer to the applicant for the answer to that question. Ms. Thomas wondered if the modifications that were in front of the Planning Commission would also need consideration by this Board. Mr. Cilimberg responded that at the Planning Commission meeting there was a proposal for modifications which was actually acted upon. He said one of them had to do with the modification of setback which'the Commission did not approve. The other was a modification to allow an increase in the size of the accessory structure, which was also denied. Mr. Martin asked if this means these modifications are not now before this Board. Mr. Davis replied that the Ordinance is ambiguous on this point, and there is not a provision for the modifications to be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. However, it would be within this Board's jurisdiction in acting on this request to be able to grant the modifications, if they approve the special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Condition Number Eight addressed both the setback from the rear property line, as well as the size of the accessory structure. He stated that the number of employees is not subject to modification. Mr. Martin inquired if a Class B Home Occupation Permit allows for five trucks, or is three the limit. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this Board could approve whatever number of trucks it thought was suitable. Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, explained that the Ordinance does not specify a certain number. However, it requires that the outside appearance of the premises be such that there is not visible evidence of the conduct of the home occupation. She said, typically for a Class A permit, two vehicles have been allowed, but she believes more than two vehicles have been allowed in some Class B situations. Sometimes there is a garage that can be used for parking. Mr. Cilimberg noted that one consideration in the past has been the number of employees not only coming in from off site, but also residing on the premises where the vehicles would be utilized. Ms. Thomas pointed out that if there can only be two employees, it would be difficult to have five working trucks. There were no further questions from Board members, so Mr. Marshall asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Richard Carter, representing the applicant, said there are a couple of things that make this application different from others. He noted that it was the feeling at the Planning Commission meeting that this applicant had been in violation since 1990, and he knew it, but he was not going to do anything about it. Mr. Carter said this is not the situation. He then reported that in 1990 when the first application was presented, the site was at a different location on the main road, although it was nearby. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Mundie, subsequently have built their home where it is today. He noted that some of the Supervisors have been there, and some of them have not. He next passed around a photograph of the Mundie home, which was built on property the Mundies acquired from Mrs. Mundie's parents. He commented that in 1990, Mr. Mundie built a garage. When he got the building permit, he stated the purpose was to build a shop and garage, and when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued later, it was for that purpose. Mr. Carter added that in 1990 he had three trucks, and in 1992 they decreased to two. He then referred to Ms. McCulley's remarks that typically with Class A permits the owner would have been allowed two trucks. Mr. Carter stated that in 1994, Mr. Mundie bought a third truck, and at that time there was the choice of parking the truck at his mother's house which is on the main road. He remarked that Mr. Mundie's brother lives with their mother, and he works for the company. The Mundies thought it was better for the neighborhood not to have the truck parked there, and to have it back in the woods where it could not be seen. He stated that they did it this way, which was probably a mistake. He is not trying to say the Mundies did not do anything wrong, because they did, and probably should have known better. He went on to say subsequent to that, Mr. Mundie was going to sell one of the trucks. However, September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 000;859 he bought another truck and he didn't sell the first truck. Next, he bought another truck, and all of a sudden he had five trucks. He noted that some- times people get busy and don't do what they should, but he does not think there was any evil intent on the Mundies' part. Mr. Mundie did not think he was above the Zoning Ordinance, nor that he didn't care what the County people thought, nor that he was going to do whatever he wanted to do. Mr. Carter reported that these are hard working people who have been in this business for a long time. He said Mr. Mundie's father and mother founded the business in 1973. His mother still lives on Route 641, and his father died in 1980. Mr. Mundie took over the business, and his brother works in the business with him, and lives at home with his mother. The Mundies live on property that belonged to Mrs. Mundie's parents, and they are good people with other relatives who live in the area. He recalled one of the Commissioners making a great statement when it was mentioned that this business changes the character of the area. The Commissioner emphasized that this business has been in the area since 1973, and it is the subdivisions and growth that have changed the character of the area. The Commissioner said, if anything, Mr. Mundie helped the character of the area when the trucks were taken off the road and moved back into the woods where no one could see them. Mr. Carter then mentioned a case in Richmond years ago relating to a race track where car races were held. He said subdivisions started to be built around the race track, and the people who lived in the subdivisions complained about the race track. He stated that they went to court and asked that the race cars be eliminated because they were disturbing the neighbors. He commented that the Supreme Court pointed out that the race track was there first. He is not trying to set this case as a legal precedent, but it is an argument. He explained that Mundie Trucking has been in this area before many of the objections, and it is even doing a better job than it was originally. He next referred to the aerial photos which show the complete privacy of the operation. He said neither the trucks, house nor the garage can be seen unless a person comes down the private driveway about a quarter of a mile through the woods or gets in an airplane and flies over the site. He added that this does not make it right or within the Ordinance. However, it makes sense that this is the best place for this business. He mentioned the staff's comments about how clean and well-kept the premises are which the pictures verify. This is Mr. and Mrs. Mundie's home, and it is not a contractor's storage building. Regarding safety concerns, Mr. Carter remarked that if Mr. Mundie's petition is denied, and this is determined to be a Class A business, there will be two trucks parked at the house. As long as his brother works for him and lives at his mother's house on Route 641, the third truck will be parked there. The trucks are still going to leave every day, and they are going to take a left and go about a quarter of a mile until they get to Route 29. He remarked that, while some people have said the trucks are safety hazards, many people have said the drivers are courteous, and they have stopped and let them go past. He reported that people have said how good the Mundies are and how they plow their driveways when it snows without any compensation. He said this location makes sense. He then mentioned the Mundies' alternatives. They can buy some light industrial property, but they cannot afford to do this in Albemarle County, because the price is prohibitive. He added that this is the working class. He recalled last year the Mundies paid $2,000 in real estate taxes, as well as $860 on two lots they own beside their property. Since 1990, to run this small business in tags, licenses, permits and road taxes, they have paid $115,507.03. He said this young couple has pumped a lot of money into the economy, and they have drivers who can make more money than they do. He repeated that this is the working class, and these are the people in Albemarle County who need help. He stated that ~this should not be a County as some of his friends have said where the rich man dances while the poor man pays the band. This should be a County where the working class is recognized and is rewarded when something is done right. If there is a notch in the Zoning Ordinance Mr. Mundie can fit into, then he should be allowed to do it, and everyone should help him. Mr. Carter went on to say the Board has three choices. The Supervisors can deny this request as the Planning Commission did on a three to two vote. The minutes don't show it, but the vote could have been the other way very easily. Me stated that if this happens, Mr. Mundie will be forced to keep two trucks at his home, and his brother will park another truck on Route 641. He September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) .~ 000260 said Mr. Mundie won't be able to use the garage for which he got a building permit, and he reiterated that Mr. Mundie told County representatives what the garage would be used for, and he did not hide anything. However, he wasn't allowed to use the garage except to park his car. Mr. Carter next referred to the setback and the 1,500 square foot maximum. He informed Board members that the garage could be partitioned, and a wall could be built down the center of it. He said a stripe could be drawn on the floor for business on one side and pleasure on the other. He stated, though, that this doesn't make much sense. He noted that Mr. Mundie does not do any heavy repair work there. The only thing he does is routine mainte- nance, such as changing the oil, etc. He stated that if the Board goes in this direction, these people will probably be out of business or close to it. He added that another alternative could be that the Supervisors approve the application, and the applicant could come and go as he pleases. He said, though, he does not think the Supervisors will do this, and he does not think they should. He went on to say another alternative is the compromise that was outlined in the staff report, which would put a maximum on the number of trucks allowed. The applicant would be willing to accept such a compromise, but Mr. Carter asked that the condition regarding the hours of operation not be included. He pointed out that these people go to work early. He added that some of the trucks leave at 5:00 a.m. in the morning and come back at 7:00 p.m. He said when the trucks leave, they go up to the road and take a left. He emphasized that they don't make a right turn where there is more population. He added that there are a lot of trucks traveling up and down Route 641, and some of the complaints about the number of trucks are because of trucks owned by other people. He then suggested that a compromise could be reached because he believes these are good people and the type of people who need to be helped. He noted that Mr. and Mrs. Mundie are also present to answer questions. Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Carter is saying that the original applica- tion for five trucks is unreasonable. Mr. Carter stated that if the Board would allow Mr. Mundie to have five trucks, he would take them, although he is not sure he could. There are some disgruntled neighbors, and perhaps the applicant needs to mend some bridges. He added that the applicant needs to show these neighbors that they are wrong. Maybe sometime in the future the applicant may come back and ask for some type of modification. Mr. Bowerman commented that he has gathered, from Mr. Carter's remarks, that there are ten vehicle trips per day by these five trucks on Route 641. Mr. Carter answered affirmatively. Ms. Thomas said she did not hear the reply. She stated that there are five trucks, and she asked if four trucks go in and out each day. Mr. Mundie answered that mostly there are four trucks going in and out each day, although some days there are five. There were no further questions from Board members, so Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. Mr. Roy Chapman commented that he lives across the road from Mr. Mundie, and has been a resident in that area for the last 25 years. He said when the trucks go in and out, they don't make as much noise as vehicles on Route 29. He hardly ever meets any trucks on the road, but there is plenty of room, anyway. There is no problem, whatsoever. He added that the Mundies are good neighbors, and they don't bother anybody. Unless he sees the trucks, he does not even know they are on the road. This is the way the Mundies make their living, and at least they are not living on welfare. He wished the Mundies the best of luck. Mr. James Glass stated that he is the Mundies' neighbor. The Planning Commission gave these people permission to build the garage in 1990. He has lived in this neighborhood for 34 years, and he has found the Mundies to be fine people, and they will do anything they can for their neighbors. The trucks are not bothersome, and the only reason some people are complaining is because they can't ride their horses. The Mundies are decent, hard working people, and he is glad he is associated with them. Ms. Bonnie Drumm stated that she had planned not to speak tonight, but her son, Richard Drumm encouraged her to speak for him. The Mundies are fine people who plow the snow for their neighbors, and she likes them. However, she does not think the trucking operation and the garage are suitable for this area, because it increases the pollution of air, water and noise. She noted September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 0002 . that the trucks go by her house at 6:00 a.m. and wake her up. She does not know if they turn right or left when they come out of their driveway, although Mr. Carter said they turned left. She emphasized that if they turn right, they pass by her house, and there are some big dump trucks that come by her house at 6:00 a.m. and perhaps even earlier than that. She noted that the trucks come by her house during the day, too, at 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. She cannot prevent the trucks from using this road, but she does not think a garage operation is suitable for that area. Ms. Stacy Walker informed the Board members that she lives directly across the street from the Mundies. She does not have a problem with the Mundies, but she does have a problem with their trucking company. The big problem is that they have been out of compliance for years, not that they had an evil intent, but they knew the regulations. She thinks this should be taken into consideration. She then mentioned the garage operation. She said just last night she was sitting on her porch when she heard a power wrench, and this is not what she wanted in a rural setting. She also remarked that after the Planning Commission meeting, when she and others were in the elevator, either the senior Mr. Mundie or Mr. McDaniel, gave them a verbal threat. She said she wasn't happy with this, either. Ms. Linda Mancini stated that she has a feeling the reference to riding horses was aimed at her. She rides horses, but she does not ride them anywhere near the Mundies. She noted that just about everything she has to say has been written in a letter. She explained, though, that she is repre- senting the Bacons who have owned the property adjacent to the Mundies since 1978. Aside from the compliance, these trucks take up more than half the road. She explained that this is a small country road which doesn't even have a centerline. Vehicles have to get off on the shoulder when they meet any of these trucks. The Mundies are great people, and she doesn't have a problem with them, and she doesn't even know them all personally. However, the rural nature and residential nature of this area has to be considered, and it is not the place for a trucking operation. She added that the Bacons now live in Statesboro, Georgia, but they own the adjoining property, and they are very unhappy with the situation. She also noted that the Bacons have sent a letter to this effect. She then promised never to ride her horse on the Mundies' property. She mentioned the threat that was given to her and her husband, but she said they know where it is coming from, and it would not intimidate her. Ms. Debbie Snow stated that she is sister to the Mundies. She pointed out that the first speaker who said she lives across from the Mundies actually lives across from a vacant lot. The trucks never pass her house nor any of the houses belonging to the other people who have complained. She commented that the only houses the trucks pass are the Durrer's, as well as the people who live across from them. She referred to a comment she had once heard from a lady who said her children could not play in their yard because of the trucks. She explained that her house cannot even be seen from the Mundies' driveway. Mr. Jinks McDaniel, Debbie Mundie's father, said the Mundies work hard to maintain the trucks and to provide good service, and it is their liveli- hood. He is 76 years old, and he recalled that the first hard surfaced road in Greene County was Route 33. He said Route 29 was built in 1933, and scoop pans were used to excavate the dirt. He noted that there was no way of hauling the stone, and if it had not been for dump trucks, there would probably still be a lot of dirt roads left in Albemarle County. He has owned a truck, himself, and he knows it is hard work, and trucks are hard to maintain. The owners don't make very much money, and he thinks anybody in this business needs praise, and it needs to be looked at as a good business. It is a clean business and one that will pay in the end. He hopes the Board members will see that it would be good if the Mundies can continue to have their trucks and maintain them and be able to accommodate the people who need gravel and asphalt. The Mundies have worked hard at it, and they are con- cerned as far as keeping their trucks clean. The trucks are kept in good shape so they can stop safely, etc., when it is really necessary. He hopes the Board can work out something that will allow the Mundies to carry on their business. Ms. Olgone McDaniel, Debbie Mundie's mother, stated that she gave Debbie and Dan their property years ago. They have worked hard, and she does not see why their business bothers anybody because all the land around the property in question is surrounded by family members. It doesn't bother the family, and she does not understand why it bothers some of the neighbors. She referred to the comment one of the neighbors made about the trucks going by her house, and September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 000262 she disagreed. The trucks go to the left to Route 29 early in the mornings and late at night. She also mentioned that she does not understand how Dan Mundie was able to get a permit for this business in the beginning, unless he had gotten it on the advice of County people. She said he has spent a lot of time and money, and he would not have done this in the first place, if he had not been told to do it. She remarked that the Mundies pay a lot of taxes, they work hard, and they do a lot of favors for the community and the church. They are a good working couple, and she hopes the Board members will continue to let them have their trucks. Ms. Louise Shifflett stated that she has lived on Route 641 for 27 years. She said Mr. Chapman is her neighbor, as well as the McDaniels and the Mundies, and her children grew up with their boys. She added that they are hard working people. She walks on Route 641, and the drivers will stop for her. She drives her car, and they have never run her off the road. She stated that she is very proud they are her neighbors. Ms. Kathleen Dahlstrom spoke on behalf of the Mundies. When she first met Debbie Mundie, Debbie invited her to her home, and she had no idea the trucking company was there, because she never saw any of the trucks. The Mundies' property has a park-like atmosphere, and she thinks a lot of people on Route 641 could benefit from trying to make their places look as nice as theirs. She has never met such courteous drivers, and she is always conscious of the name on the side of the trucks. This is more than she can say about some of the people who drive regular cars on this particular road. She mentioned that her daughter, who is 11 years old, plays with the Mundie children, and she has never had a problem with any injuries, and she has never been afraid of her child getting hurt at their house due to the trucks. She then referred to Juandiego Wade, Senior Planner, who she said probably knows her very well, since she would contact him every time she would talk to someone in the neighborhood. She heard everything from the fact that some- one's son had gotten a driver's permit and the mother didn't want the trucks on the road, to environmental problems, to decreasing property values. She said, as far as she is concerned, every single complaint is bogus because the trucks cannot be seen from the road, the property is beautiful, and the property is not very far from Route 29, so there is no issue of them driving on the road. She drives a big van, and anytime she has met any of these trucks, the drivers have been very courteous. They stop and let her go by, and she has never had a problem. She has lived on this road for six years, and never once has she had a problem with any of the Mundie trucks, which is more than she can say about some people who live there and drive small cars. Ms. Melinda Hope informed the Board members that her husband, Terry Hope, wrote one of the letters in favor of the Mundies. She said he cannot be present because he is currently in London, but she wanted to add her support to the Mundies. She and her husband first met the family when they moved to Albemarle County 14 years ago. They knew Dan's parents at that point, and have known and heard of Dan, as he has married, had his children and started his business. She commented that she does not think a finer example of a small businessman working very hard in this community can be found. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin noted that there are eight conditions in the original staff recommendation. He then wondered how the applicant would react to a condition limiting the number of trips the trucks make, such as 12 trips, as well as a condition that would force the trucks to always turn left. These two condi- tions appear to be compatible with the current situation. Mr. Bowerman stated that he assumes by the number of trips generated, that Mr. Martin is referring to a permit for five trucks. Mr. Martin an- swered, "no." He informed Mr. Bowerman that he is referring to three trucks. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin is also talking about the recommendations in front of this Board. Mr. Martin stated that he was just asking a question concerning these two additions. He went to the Mundie property, and out of all the places he has seen where it would be possible to have a Class B license, he thinks this would be it. It really is out of sight, and there is only one mailbox between Route 29 and this particular property where the trucks travel. He also recalled that the person who lives there spoke in favor of the proposal. He understands some of the people who signed the original petition opposing this were really opposed to something that wasn't 0002G3 September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) being proposed. He explained that some people were under the impression the garage was being expanded and being built closer to the road. Mr. Bowerman noted that he had considered the same two conditions as Mr. Martin. He said one of his concerns is whether the nature of the business could change if it was transferred in the future. However, the special use permit will go with the properties and not the Mundies. He also considered the fact that the property is a quarter of a mile from Route 29, there can be a limited number of trips per day, and although it is a use which is generally inconsistent with the rural area, this particular location can make it distinct because of its location to Route 29. There are certain things that could be enforceable in the future, if the ownership changed. These things might be difficult for the Zoning Office to administer, but they would be there, and they would be enforceable. He referred to the two conditions Mr. Martin mentioned, such as the number of trips and the left turns. Mr. Bowerman reiterated that the scale of the operation would not change, if the ownership changed, because the permit doesn't go with the Mundies. He was thinking of ownership beyond the Mundies, and he was also thinking about the specific location and the short distance to a major primary highway. He noted that there are characteristics of this particular application which set it apart from other Class B occupation permits this Board has considered which have serious difficulties associated with them so that if applied County-wide, they could be detrimental. He was trying to consider this matter in a way that he could distinguish it because of particular circumstances, including the way it exists now, and to be able to avoid problems in the future. He stated that this application will need to be distinguished from other applica- tions in the future, so special use permits can be denied with sound judgment while at the same time other requests can be looked on favorably when they are similar in nature, but the circumstances are different. Mr. Martin recalled that six to eight months ago he brought up the fact that in light of the expense of Light Industrial parks in Albemarle County, criteria needs to be examined to allow vehicles such as this to park in the rural area under very limited types of situations. When he mentioned this matter before, the Board never pursued it, but he still thinks it is a good idea. He stated that this situation would have been one of the times he would have been in favor of using such criteria, if it had been available. Mr. Bowerman commented that he is trying not to be arbitrary. He is trying to look at the facts of the issue and deal with the fact also that ownership can change. Ms. Thomas wondered which portion of this application relates to the special use permit and which portion relates to the home occupation. She asked if it is a special use permit for a home occupation. Mr. Davis replied that the special use permit is for a Class B Home Occupation which requires the use of an accessory structure outside the main structure. He explained that the other items before this Board are the ones which are referenced in Condition A. He said if there is a motion to approve this application, he would suggest that it be treated as a separate action of the Board. The Board could then act on the setback waiver and the square footage waiver rather than send it back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas remarked that previously she had not understood how someone could get a building permit for a structure that was too close to the property line. When she asked this question, though, she was told that because it was a home occupation structure, it had to meet the same setbacks as the main building. Whereas when it was just a garage, it was then in an appropriate location. She stated that since the Mundies own the property next to this building, they could handle the problem themselves by changing their property line or making the two lots into one, rather than this Board making a change to this provision. Mr. Martin noted that one of the Commissioners had mentioned the same thing at the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Thomas remarked that the Supervisors are faced with the difference between a family business and a home occupation. She said she thinks this is a very outstanding family business whose participants had the feeling that success tucked away was an unequivo- cally good thing. However, they had agreed to a home occupation which is something quite different from a family business. She stated, though, that she believes this is a location that could handle a Class B Home Occupation. She said she noticed that the Zoning Code directs that someone who goes into a home occupation must indicate with a signature that they understand the rules and regulations associated with this category. She added that if this is a September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 000264 new provision, she thinks it will be important to this situation. She reiterated that this isn't the same as saying a family business can thrive and multiply and fill all available space. She has always supported home occupa- tions, and she thinks this location can be classified as Class B. However, she worries about the future, because the situation will have to be self and neighbor policed, and it cannot grow. If the business prospers and grows, then the trucks will have to be put someplace else. Mr. Martin next mentioned the hours of operation. He said it seems to him that trucks leaving at 5:00 a.m. would be better than trucks leaving at 7:00 a.m., which is when school buses are traveling the roads, as well as people driving to work. The same thing is true with the 6:00 a.m. time. Ms. Thomas agreed. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Martin is suggesting that Condition Number One be deleted or that the recommended hours of operation be changed. Ms. Thomas said it was explained to her that sometimes these men have a job in Richmond which requires them to travel a long distance before the job begins. She added that it is this type of circumstance that requires them to leave early in the morning. Mr. Bowerman commented that he has no problem with deleting this condition. Mr. Marshall concurred. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to deal with the number of trucks, as well as the direction they take. Ms. Humphris remarked that she had plenty of thoughts before she came to the meeting. She was very discouraged when she read the staff report because she thinks'the County personnel bend over backward to be fair to its citizens. She understands the Mundies are a fine hard working family, but this Board is dealing with the County Zoning Ordinance and its fair and firm application. She remarked that something has gone very much awry here, and it makes her feel bad. She can reluctantly support this application, because she believes it is a good business, and home occupations are encouraged. She referred to Ms. Thomas' comments about this business being a home occupation and not a family business in the rural area. She then mentioned Condition Number One about the hours of operation. It seems to her there should be some hours when the neighbors would know the trucks were not going to interfere. Mr. Martin remarked that if he was going to impose hours, the time would not be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 4:30 p.m. in the afternoon to a certain time. He reiterated that he thinks it would be better for the trucks to come back around 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. Ms. Humphris inquired if anyone else has any thoughts on the hours of operation. She said she does not feel it should be unrestricted. Mr. Marshall said one of the neighbors indicated that he hears more noise from Route 29 than from the trucking operation. He wondered if this means a restriction should be put on when people can travel on Route 29. The condi- tion doesn't make sense to him, and he would like to strike it. Ms. Thomas noted that she understands the thought behind not having the trucks traveling the road when the school buses are picking up children. She said, though, it is such a short distance to Route 29. She commented that the Mundies' driveway is the third one from Route 29, so as long as there is a left turn provision, she would be willing to not limit the hours. Ms. Humphris asked if Mr. Martin's motion would include the left turn provision, as well as another condition relating to the number of trips. Mr. Martin stated that he had suggested 12 trips per day. Mr. Bowerman said the number of trips is what triggered his question about the number of trucks. Mr. Martin commented that he suggested 12 trips because there are five trucks, four of which usually make trips, and there is one which makes a trip every couple of weeks. This limits the business from getting larger. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Martin if he is still referring to only three trucks being parked on the property. Mr. Bowerman said this is the same question he is asking. He stated that the Mundies can basically do that now. Mr. Davis pointed out that if there are only three trucks, but 12 vehicle trips per day are allowed, they will be able to come and go more times per day. Mr. Bowerman stated that he was interested in the thinking of the other Board members about whether the number of trucks should be limited to three or five. He asked if only three trucks are allowed, what happens to the other two trucks in existence. He wondered if they would be taken away to some of the other workers' houses who are in locations not as suitable as this. September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Tucker mentioned that it is going to be difficult to enforce the number of trips per day, if there is no provision for the numbers of trucks. He said it would be easier for the Zoning Department to enforce the number of trucks. He stated that if the Board feels there has to be a provision regarding the number of trips per day, it can be done, but it will be very hard to enforce. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he wants to make sure there is a mechanism incorporated in the permit to deal with circumstances that cannot be envi- sioned today. Mr. Martin inquired if Mr. Bowerman would support changing the number of trucks shown in Condition Number Three to four or five. Mr. Bowerman responded that the information currently before this Board is the operation that is in place now. Mr. Marshall asked if there are three garages on the property. Ms. Thomas replied that there are two bays in one garage. Mr. Bowerman stated that there are four trucks and a trailer. He said this Board can either accept this situation because of the reasons already mentioned or the situation can stay as it is with one truck parked at one house and two at the other. He emphasized that he does not see the rationale in this situation, when the use can be accepted as it exists, with the number of trucks and trips being limited, as well as including a provision regarding the turning movements. Mr. Martin wondered if Mr. Bowerman is suggesting that two of the five be parked in the garage. Mr. Perkins stated that he cannot see parking the trucks in the garage at night, because it is a hassle that is not necessary. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He said it would be different if the trucks were visible from the road. Ms. Humphris asked Ms. McCulley to address this matter from the Zoning Ordinance point of view. Ms. Humphris referred to Home Occupation B regula- tions, and she said she thought the trucks had to be enclosed. Ms. McCulley responded that the ordinance does not make such a specification. She said it is a matter of this Board's judgment as to what is necessary to maintain the rural and residential character of the area. She mentioned that sometimes there are environmental considerations, and there have been requirements that relate to performing certain activities in a building such as oil changes, etc. Ms. Thomas inquired if this area is in an RA district. Ms. McCulley answered affirmatively. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the RA district is the only district where trucks can be parked. Ms. McCulley stated that trucks with home occupations are allowed in every zoning district. Mr. Perkins asked if there are any limits on the number of trucks for a Class B Home Occupation. Ms. McCulley replied that there are no limits as long as the Supervisors are comfortable with the fact that the primary residential character of the area is being maintained. Mr. Marshall remarked that each special use permit is considered on its own merit, and he referred to Mr. Bowerman's comments about setting a future precedent. Mr. Marshall said if another permit should come before this Board, the Supervisors would consider its location and visibility to the road, etc. He reiterated that each special use permit involves looking at a specific site and the situation on the specific site. He said he does not see how this particular situation will set a precedent when the Supervisors are dealing with one specific site. At this time, Mr. Martin moved approval of SP-98-24, subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, except for the deletion of Condition Number One, and modification of Condition Number Three so that not more than five trucks can be parked on the property, as well as the addition of two conditions relating to the left turn provision and the number of vehicle trips. Mr. Davis suggested that the language should state that, ~All truck vehicle trips shall exit the property by way of a left turn in the direction of Route 29." The other condition should indicate that, ~Truck vehicle trips to and from the property shall not exceed 12 trips per day." Mr. Marshall indicated that he did not like the provision regarding the limitation on the number of truck vehicle trips. He noted that Mr. Mundie has September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) O002GG five trucks. Ms. Thomas pointed out, though, that Mr. Mundie only has two employees. Mr. Marshall noted that there are two employees residing on the premises. He said it doesn't mean they can't drive somewhere else. Mr. Cilimberg and Ms. Thomas stated that, other than family members, there can only be two employees. Ms. Thomas went on to say she likes the limitation, from the neighbors' point of view, and it is not changing the Mundies current operation. She agreed with Mr. Bowerman that this permit goes with the land and not with the Mundies, so for the future, she thinks restrictions need to be placed on the permit now. Mr. Martin remarked that this restriction is not just for the future. He stated that it is also for the Mundies, because at whatever point they need to make a lot more trips, then they will need to be moving into another area and out of the rural area. Mr. Marshall pointed out that when the truck leaves in the morning, it cannot come back, except for any other reason except to be stored. Ms. Thomas noted that even if there is trouble with one truck, and it has to be brought back, the Mundies would still be within their limit. Ms. Humphris referred to Condition Number Three and asked if this condition needs to be defined that the five trucks include the equipment mover. She said it may appear to some people that five dump trucks are ailowed, as well as the equipment mover. Mr. Martin answered that the equipment mover is a truck. However, he does not think the individual trucks should be named because the Mundies may get rid of the loader and get another dump truck. He was looking for a way to identify the number of trucks, such as five Class 8 trucks. Mr. Davis stated that the applicant will have to provide a description of the trucks, because he does not know what types of trucks they have in mind for this operation. Mr. Bowerman asked for an explanation of the equipment truck. Mr. Martin replied that it is a big truck with a long bed. Mr. Bowerman inquired if a loader could be put on the equipment truck. Mr. Martin responded that a loader, as well as heavy duty equipment can be put on it, but not a dump truck. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is a loader located at the house. Mr. Martin answered that there is a tractor there. Mr. Perkins explained that it is a farm tractor with a front end loader. He stated that there is also a chipper located there. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the condition should stipulate four dump trucks and an equipment carrier. Mr. Perkins explained that heavy duty trucks are called Class 8 trucks, depending on the gross weight. He said if there were three pickups at the house, they would not count in the number. Mr. Martin then stated that he accepts all of the modifications to his motion. Next, Mr. Bowerman mentioned the issue of the property line waiver. Ms. Thomas said the applicants can deal with this issue, themselves. Mr. Davis called attention to the second part of Condition Number Eight, which relates to the minimum square footage allowed for a home occupa- tion. He said without a waiver, the accessory building would be limited to 1,500 square feet. He stated that the garage is 2,600 square feet, and the applicant wants to include all of it for this use. He said unless the use of the building is limited to just 1,500 square feet, a waiver will be needed, which can be granted by this Board, but it should be a separate action. Mr. Martin stated that when he read about this in the Planning Commis- sion minutes, he had no idea what it meant, although he understands the concept. Mr. Davis said the concept is the scale of that use. Ms. Humphris referred to Mr. Bowerman's rationale for this application as far as this being a good family business, but she said she cannot see supporting a waiver from the 1,500 square feet. She asked how this could be done in such a way that it would not set a precedent. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason or circumstance to make such an allowance. Ms. Thomas stated that it just occurred to her that if the stipulation relating to parking the trucks in the garage is removed, the structure would be limited to 1,500 square feet of use for this business. September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 000267 Mr. Bowerman referred to Mr. Carter's remarks about drawing a line down the middle of the floor in the garage and having one side for personal affairs, and the other side for the home occupation. Mr. Bowerman stated, though, that he never got any indication as to whether the 2,600 feet was necessary for the operation or if 1,500 feet were adequate. He said he would ask the applicant to respond to this question. Mr. Carter stated that it would take 2,600 square feet to accommodate two of the Class 8 trucks. Mr. Cilimberg concurred that two of the applicant's trucks will not go into 1,500 square feet of space. The staff had recommended that the trucks be kept in the garage because of the visibility issue. Mr. Bowerman clarified Mr. Martin's motion by saying that the motion does not include Condition Number One but it does include all of the modifica- tions the Board members made, as well as the two additional conditions. He noted that Condition Number Eight would be a separate item. Mr. Bowerman then seconded the motion. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) No more than two (2) employees other than members of the family residing on the premises, may be involved in the operation of the business at this location at any given time; 2. Not more than five (5) Class A trucks parked on the property; 3 o No repairs of equipment shall be permitted other than routine operational maintenance such as, but not limited to, oil and tire changes; 4. VDoT approval of the entrance; 5. No outside storage of equipment related to business; 6 o Maintenance of the current tree buffer .1 mile from Route 641 (see Attachments D and E [not provided to the Clerk] or equivalent for as long the Home Occupation is in operation; 7o Ail truck vehicle trips shall exit the property by way of a left-turn in the direction of Route 29; and Truck vehicle trips to and from the property shall not exceed twelve (12) trips per day. Next, Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the applicant can deal with the setback, but the waiver can be granted by this Board, if it is anticipated that two trucks will be kept inside the garage. At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion to grant a waiver, under SP-98- 24, to permit up to 2,600 square feet of the garage structure to be used for Home Occupation Class B. Ms. Humphris asked if justification for the waiver needs to be added to this motion. Mr. Perkins suggested that the wording of the motion should indicate that the existing structure can be used for the home occupation. Mr. Marshall pointed out that he thought the location of the waiver should be included. Mr. Martin agreed that his motion would indicate that the existing structure could be used for the home occupation, but there could be no enlargements in the future. Mr. Davis suggested that the Board members could cite that this would lessen the visual impact of the home occupation on this property. Mr. Martin concurred to Mr. Davis' suggestion as being a part of his motion. He stated that it will also keep the trucks from being parked at other locations. September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 000268 Mr. Martin then restated his motion to grant a waiver on the building square footage to allow 2,600 square feet, which is the size of the existing building with no enlargement in the future, to lessen the visible impact of the home occupation on this property. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-35. Pantops Texaco (Signs #35&36). Public hearing on a request to establish drive-thru window on 0.9 acs. Loc in NW corner of inter of Rt 250 (Richmond Rd) & Rt 20 (Stony Point Rd). Znd HC & EC. TM78, P4. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg reported that SP-98-35 is actually to allow a reapproval of a prior granted special use permit which also went as far as a preliminary site plan approval. He said both the original special use permit and the site plan expired, and the applicant is back to request essentially the same thing again for the drive-thru facility at the corner of Routes 20 and 250. He stated that there are four conditions representing the current situation, and they are basically the same as were with the original SP-95-32. He said this request has been recommended for approval by both staff and the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 25, 1998. There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board members. Mr. Marshall asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Paul Sisk, representing Tiger Fuel Company, requested that the Board reapprove the application as it was approved three years ago. He noted that the Commission approved it several weeks ago on a unanimous vote. At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve of SP-98-35 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted; Access to Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required; 3 o Provision of a raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane from the travel lanes; and 4 o Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "Pantops Texaco" dated 7/27/98 (copy on file), except as the plan shall be amended to address the above conditions and the recommenda- tions of the Site Review Committee. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-21. CFW Wireless (CV100) Rio Road (Sign %73). Public hearing on a request to construct personal wireless telecom facility on approx 1.4 acs. Loc on N sd of Fashion Square Mall approx 0.3 mls E of Rt 29 (Seminole Trail) & is the location of existing tower. Znd CO. TM61, P129C. Rio Dist. (This site is recommended for Regional Service use in Neighborhood 2.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that the proposal involving SP-98-21 is to place additional antenna on the existing tower located adjacent to Fashion Square September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 000269 Mall which will be for CFW Wireless and Triton Communications. The existing tower is nonconforming and requires approval of a special use permit'in order for additional use to be made of the tower. He noted the favorable factors relating to the request and called attention particularly to the fact that approval of this request allows for collocation on an existing tower and may alleviate the need for the construction of a new facility elsewhere. He added that the staff, as well as the Planning Commission, recommends approval of the special use permit with five conditions. The fifth condition was added by the Planning Commission members and they made a couple of modifications in Conditions One and Two. He stated that the fifth condition was to make sure that the antenna added were only for personal wireless service providers. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the tower currently appears to have a cellular phone triangular base with panels on it approximately 200 feet up, and she wondered if this Board approves these types of things. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Board approves such things now. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board of Supervisors did not approve these things in the past. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he cannot recite the history of any ordinance changes that may have changed how cellular and other communications have been viewed over the last few years. There are a wide variety of antenna on the tower that were established during the nonconforming status, but any new antenna now requires special use permit review. There were no further questions from Board members. Mr. Marshall asked the applicant for comments. Mr. George Cummings, representing Triton, PCS, one of the applicants, informed the Board that Triton and CFW are working together on this project, even though they are competitors. He said this location will eliminate the need for construction of two other towers, so he hopes the Board of Supervi- sors will approve this permit. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is the first site. Mr. Cummings replied that it is the first site for Triton. Ms. Thomas wondered if Mr. Cummings is planning on developing an entire network of cellular phones. Mr. Cummings replied affirmatively. His company is building a network stretching from Richmond to Charlottesville to Roanoke to Lynchburg and as far north as Fredericksburg. He stated that it is a part of AT&T's overall PCS network. Mr. Marshall commented that he liked some of the things he heard during an earlier conversation with Mr. Cummings when he told him the appearance of the existing towers will be changed so they will look better. Mr. Dick Shearer, Site Acquisition and Construction Manager for CFW Wireless, said CFW is the other applicant for this special use permit. He cannot add anything to what has already been said, but he would appreciate the Board's consideration of this matter. Ms. Thomas inquired if there is a picture or sketch of how the tower will appear. Mr. Shearer replied that CFW will have six more antenna at the 183 foot level. Ms. Thomas asked if this involves one or two platforms. Mr. Shearer answered that it will involve one platform. He said Triton will have its own antenna 20 feet from the CFW antenna. Ms. Thomas said this must mean that there will be two new triangular platforms and both plan on having panels and not whip antenna. She then asked if whip antenna could have been used instead. Mr. Shearer answered, "no." Mr. Bowerman inquired as to who owns the tower. Mr. Shearer replied that Sprint owns the tower. Mr. Bowerman next asked if Sprint is the company that took over Centel. He said he was wondering if there was another over- arching company as far as the tower is concerned. Mr. Shearer answered that CFW is leasing from Sprint, and his company deals with Sprint from North Carolina. Mr. Bowerman asked if perhaps Alltel has facilities on the Sprint tower. Mr. Shearer said he cannot say. There were no further questions for the applicant, so Mr. Marshall opened t~e public hearing. No/Qne came forward to speak, so Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. MS~. HUmphris cOmmented that this is such an unattractive tower already. She trie? to visualize what it would look like with six antenna at 183 feet, September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) with each of them six feet, three inches tall and nine feet, four inches wide. She noted that there will be another six antenna that will be six feet in size between 193 and 200 feet. She referred to the conflict between trying to collocate and making the tower uglier than it already is or adding more towers. She does not know the answer. Mr. Bowerman stated that he does not even notice when new equipment is added, and he is unsure of the steps the applicant went through to get the tower to this present situation. At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-98-21, subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. Tower shall not be increased in height; 2. Additional antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: so Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower; Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color which matches the tower; and Additional satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohib- ited. Additional antennas may be installed without amending this special use permit, provided that all necessary building permits are obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise comply with these conditions; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; The tower shall he disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunicatiors purposes is discontinued; and Ail antennae added to the tower shall be used for personal wireless service providers. (The next two agenda items were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-36. North Garden Fire Co (Sign #54). Public hearing on a request to fill in flood plain of South Branch Creek (tributary to North Fork Hardware River) to allow 3-bay addition of approx 2,500 sq ft on a 39,00 sq ft pcl. Loc on S sd of Rt 692 (Plank Rd), across from Crossroads Country Store & adjacent to North Garden Post Office. Znd VR. TM99, P5D. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1998.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-40. North Garden Fire Co. (Sign #54). Public hearing on a request to allow conforming use of fire station. Loc on S sd of Rt 692 (Plank Road) across from Crossroads Country Store & adjacent to North Garden Post Office. Znd VR. TM99, P5D. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1998.) September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) O00ZT Mr. Cilimberg explained that this request is for construction of a 2,500 square foot addition to the existing fire station in North Garden and to allow for fill to be located in the 100 year flood plain of the South Branch Creek, which is a tributary to the North Fork Hardware River. SP-98-36 allows fill in the flood plain of South Branch Creek. The Engineering Department has reviewed this request and has revealed no substantial detriments to life, property and public cost for flood control. The Engineering Department has found that the fill is minor, because the fill is occurring in an area that is already impervious, and the total fill material will only be 1,200 cubic feet. He noted that a complete flood plain analysis will be required as well as an Erosion Control Plan, and pollution of water resources will be reviewed by the Water Resources Manager. The staff and Planning Commission have recommended approval to allow for grading within the flood plain, and there were four conditions recommended. Mr. Cilimberg next discussed SP-98-40 which relates to the use itself. He said it has existed as a nonconforming use, and the staff has identified a number of items favorable, one which allows for expansion of the existing facility consistent with the use that has been there. It would also be consistent with the Community Facilities Plan recommendations for additional bay space at this fire station. He said staff has recommended approval, as well as the Planning Commission, subject to certain conditions. He noted, though, that the Planning Commission did not recommend Condition Number One regarding fund raising activities to be held only in enclosed buildings. The Commission members agreed with the staff's Condition Numbers Two, Three and Four, and they added the ARB's issuance of a Certifi- cate of Appropriateness to Condition One. He added that Condition Number Five is attempting to address adequate sewage disposal. Since that meeting, the Supervisors have been provided a subsequent update of this last condition which reflects the Commission's attempts and its likely agreements to connect to the Crossroads Store Package Treatment Plant for sewage disposal. He then read the amended Condition Number Five which stated that, "Issuance of a building permit is contingent upon Health Depart- ment approval of primary and secondary drain fields or other adequate sewage disposal." He said a second sentence will stipulate that, ~Should the Health Department grant approval to allow for connection to the Sewage Treatment Facility, the County Attorney approval of agreements and proof of recordation to allow for the connection must also be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit." He explained that this clarifies how the process will occur. There were no questions for staff from Board members. Mr. Marshall asked the applicant for comments. Mr. George Stevens, with the North Garden Fire Company, stated that this project has been in the planning stages for quite a while. The staff and Commission have both recommended approval, and he hopes the Supervisors will also vote favorably. The improvements will certainly enhance the fire coverage in the area, as well as protect the vehicles and apparatus currently parked in the parking lot. He also mentioned the problem of having to scrape ice in the winter time when the vehicles are parked outside. The fire company representatives will comply with the recommendations, and they will work with the staff as far as the flood plain is concerned. The firm of Roudabush and Gale has been employed for this purpose. He also noted that everything has been taken care of between the fire company and the Crossroads Store in regard to the sewage agreement. The main goal of the fire company is to get approval tonight and to start construction as soon after that as possible. There were no questions for Mr. Stevens from Board members, so Mr. Marshall opened the public hearings to discuss SP-98-36 and SP-98-40. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Marshall closed the public hearings on both of the special use permits. Mr. Marshall stated that the Board members would first discuss SP-98-36. Ms. Thomas thanked the North Garden Fire Department for responding to the Landfill fire. She said this fire department has been in operation for more than 17 years and provides great service to the community. She next noted that the issue of fill is not something that is done very easily in the flood plain, so she would like to read into the record the reason this fill is something she will support. She said it is a very small area in comparison to September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) 0002:7Z the channel cross section of the South Branch, and it covers only 1,200 cubic feet. She stated that it does not significantly affect flood plain limit, and a complete flood plain analysis will be required as a condition of the final site plan. She then moved approval of SP-98-36 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; 2 o Water quality measures shall be provided subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager; 3 o The final site plan should reflect any changes to the flood plain and floodway limits, and the applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the correspondence demonstrating FEMAapproval of the revised flood plain; and In an effort to minimize environmental degradation, no soil shall be removed from the South Branch Creek flood plain to compensate for any fill. Ms. Thomas then discussed SP-98-40 dealing with conforming the use. She called attention to the fact that Condition Number Five was changed to allow the connection to the Crossroads Store Sewage Treatment System, if it is ever necessary. She said this seems to her to be a very nice way to work out a problem among neighbors, and she appreciates this situation. She next offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-98-40 subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and Condition Number Five, as amended. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Noise generated from subordinate uses and/or fund-raising activities shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line; 2 o No subordinate uses and/or fundraising activities shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; 3 o The expansion of the fire department is limited to 2,500 gross square feet; Architectural Review Board Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness; and Issuance of a building permit ms contingent upon Health Department approval of primary and secondary drainfields or other adequate sewage disposal. Should the Health Department grant approval to allow for connection to the sewage treatment facility, County Attorney approval of agreements and proof of recordation to allow for connection must also be obtained, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-98-37. Ivy Investment Ltd Partnership (Sign #88). Public hearing on a request to establish golf course on approx 250 acs. Loc on S sd of Rt 637 Dick Woods Rd) opposite Ivy Landfill. Znd R3t. TM73, September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) P27G. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1998.) Mr Cilimberg summarized the staff report dealing with SP-98-37, which is a proposal to construct an 18 hole golf course with a driving range on property located south of the Ivy Landfill. He referred to some items he had arranged for the Board members to see which represented some information provided by the applicant as well as an analysis showing where critical slopes exist on the property. He mentioned that one board shows a layout as the applicant currently sees the facility. The layout has been modified since the Planning Commission meeting to represent and try to address some of the concerns raised at the Commission meeting regarding the impact of the facility on the Helvin property. He noted that this is not a site plan, and it has not been engineered to the extent that the staff can comment on particular site plan elements. He said it simply represents a modification of the layout. He next mentioned the favorable factors, as well as the unfavorable ones. He pointed out also that Mr. Helvin, the owner of the property completely surrounded by the golf course has objected to the impact he feels will occur to his property. The staff and Planning Commission have recommended approval of this request with eleven conditions, although the staff originally had ten. He noted that the eleventh condition requires that some discretion be exercised in review of the site plan to provide for setbacks and buffers from the Helvin property and to make requirements beyond those normally allowed by the site plan provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, if necessary. Ms. Humphris asked if anything has been said about the potential for lighting at the driving range. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he does not think there will be any lighting, but the applicant can speak to this point. There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members, so Mr. Marshall asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Mark Watson said he is the golf course architect retained by the Fosters for the proposed golf club. He noted that he has also retained the servzces of Brian Smith, a local professional engineer, to assist with the work on the course. He stated that the Fosters are committed to two specific issues. One is to bring affordable golfing to the citizens of Albemarle, and the second is to do the work in as ecologically sensitive manner as possible. He added that as it has been the dream of the Fosters to build a golf course for many years, it has been his dream, as a golf course architect and an ecologist, to prove that a golf course can be built in a much better way. He pointed out that the people involved with this golf course are adhering to a set of principles that were developed in 1995 and endorsed in 1996 by a combined group of prominent golf and environmental organizations at a conference in Pinehurst. He said a set of principles was set forth, as well as guidelines, for siting, planning, zoning, construction, maintenance and operation of golf courses in the United States. He stated that this relates to new construction as well as for existing golf courses and renovation projects. He feels very strongly about this, and he was involved in the endorsing conference. He said this is a starting point, although the next thing to be done is to apply to a special program called the Signature Program which is run by Audubon International. He noted that only 54 courses are presently involved with the program and there are certain minimum require- ments, one of which is a maximum amount of turf area of 90 acres. He pointed out that his facility will only have 85 acres of cultivated turf. He said staff will be sent here from Kentucky to assist the golf course representa- tives in the entire planning, design and development process, and the progress will continue to be monitored over the years to ensure compliance with the Signature Program. He said a Certificate of Sustainability will be received from Audubon, and it will basically put the golf course on the map and make it a viable economical endeavor. He then referred to two major issues that he feels sure will be raised during the Board members' questions. One is the issue of water quality. He explained that this issue will be involved with Audubon, as well as complying with certain principles, and representatives of Audubon will assist in the development process to ensure water quality on the golf course. He added that a wide range of processes will be used to ensure that, such as intact screen buffers throughout the golf course, as well as using high tech methods of injection of fertilization through the irrigation system similar to the Glenmore course. He noted that many studies have been done, and two of the most important ones are the slope and soil studies. The golf course has been re-routed several times to ensure minimum disruption to the ground plain, minimum crossings of streams and ravines, and to tread as gently on the site September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) 000274 as possible. It will save money, and it will save the integrity of the site as well. He believes the site is a very special one, and it has tremendou~ character, although it is a challenging site on which to design a golf course. However, a good routing plan has been developed. He then referred to the critical slope preservation issue. He noted that the top 450 feet of the site have voluntarily been excluded above the 900 foot contour line which equates to approximately 62 acres of the 330 acres of land. He stated that this leaves 268 acres which is a much larger number of acreage than is normally used for a golf course. He said golf courses are usually on about 160 or 170 acres. He added that this number of acreage will allow for significant habitat, corridors and blocks, nature buffers, and it will be a very different type of golf course than most people have ever seen. He remarked that the golf course will be closed for one day a week during the school year from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to permit school groups to go there for environmental education. He commented that the Environmental Education Center has been contacted in Charlottesville to get help in creating an environmental programming for the site. He said a map will be labeled with the areas of interest as well as special areas on the site in an attempt to get as many people as possible through the site during the times the golf course is closed. He pointed out that turf species testing will also be done, and a portion of the driving range will be set up to test new turf grasses to ensure that the turf being used on the course will always be the one using the least amount of water, and the least amount of pesticides, herbicides and fertilization. An inspection was done recently of the course, and it is felt that a low water use cool season grass would probably be best. He said Virginia is a tough area in the transition zone for grass, and there are cool season grasses that grow here, and this is their southern limit, and there are warm season grasses that grow here, and this is their northern limit. He stated that unfortunately the weather does not cooperate each year, but the site actually has a northwest exposure and some severe changes in topography, so there will probably be a significant amount of shade at times especially during the fall and spring. He does not think a warm season grass would survive over the long term. He commented that creative native plant nurseries will be put in several portions of the site, but the site also has a signi- ficant amount of invasive alien species which are problem plants that basically have changed the ecology of the site. The plan is to 'selectively change back to the native species so the site will be enhanced. He stated that he wants to leave the site in better condition than when he came. Next, Mr. Watson talked about providing a public venue, and he said the Fosters are interested in promoting junior golf. He noted that over the past 20 to 25 years, many golf courses have moved toward a "carts only" mentality. He explained that the way many people used to get into golf was by caddying. He said people would show up at a golf course, work and then get a free game, but unfortunately those days are gone. He added that it is hoped special programs can be created for juniors, and he pointed out that the Fosters have approached several high schools and offered the golf course as the schools' home venue for team matches. Special clinics are planned, as well as a different pricing structure for juniors who don't happen to be on the teams. He remarked that another issue relates to women's golf and senior golf. He commented that golf courses have historically been designed for strong males, but this doesn't work anymore, because the fastest growing populations in golf are women and senior golfers. In order to accommodate these groups, there needs to be a greater number of tees, and the golf course will be routed in a way that it is not always trying to use the power game. This will be a thinking golf course to create a little bit more parity between high and low handicap golfers. He added that work will also be done with the junior golfers. He then referred to the transportation issue. He has done several calculations of the number of vehicle trips associated with this site, and they keep coming in lower than VDoT's estimates. He thinks this is probably because VDoT is using the acreage times a certain multiplier to get vehicle trips. He explained that on the busiest day for the golf course, there will be approximately 400 vehicle trips per day which would probably be on a summer weekend during a tournament situation. This is probably 30 vehicle trips per hour during the summer. He next mentioned Mr. Helvin's concern over how his property had been impacted with the golf course's routing plan which was submitted during the Planning Commission meeting. He must have misinterpreted Mr. Helvin's intentions during the time he was doing the routing plan, because he never September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) 000 75 meant to infringe on his privacy during routing. In accordance with Mr. Helvin's comments, Mr. Watson has re-routed the golf course to pull it back off his property lines. The closest green to Mr. Helvin's property line now is 210 feet, which is the 18th green. He pointed out that the industry standard for golf course architecture is about 160 feet, so this is 50 feet beyond that. He mentioned that there will probably be some issues with which to deal during the site plan review process, as far as location of car paths, putting greens, etc. They will probably be closer to Mr. Helvin's property line, but he thinks these issues can be dealt with, if careful design is used so his privacy is ensured. He then referred to the issue of the need for public golf in Albemarle County. The National Health Foundation, which is the largest research organization in golf, estimates that one 18 hole public golf course is required for every 30,000 people. At this point, there are two public golf courses within the area, and they are Meadowcreek, which is in the City and Birdwood which just became a public golf course about three weeks ago. He remarked that Pounding Brook will be priced midway between the two. He said Meadowcreek is approximately $25 per round of golf and Birdwood is now at $55. He said Pounding Brook will probably be in the high 30s or low 40s. He stated that club memberships will be available and this will obviously change the price structure and lower the per round costs. He noted that the Pen Park golf course name was changed to Meadowcreek when it was raised to an 18 hole golf course. Ms. Thomas mentioned the question of lighting at the driving range. Mr. Watson replied that there will be no lights nor a public address system. Ms. Thomas next asked if the driving range is toward or away from the Helvin property. Mr. Watson answered that the driving range is away from the Helvins to the north toward the corner of the property. Ms. Thomas remarked that she has another concern about traffic, and it involves drunk driving. She said she did some research, and as a County, the Supervisors' hands are tied more than she had suspected as far as what could be required. She noted that the ABC Board has the control. She wondered if a policy has been developed on how to handle coolers and beer that is brought onto the property. She mentioned that Birdwood doesn't allow any alcoholic beverages in coolers, and the starter actually checks the coolers. She said if someone has made the mistake of bringing in alcohol, the starter will pull it out and hold it until the person leaves. Mr. Watson answered that this sounds as though it is a good idea. He believes the Fosters want to have a snack bar and will probably apply for a beer permit. Because of this, he would expect the sales would probably be within the snack bar area. He stated that coolers will probably be discouraged since it would reduce sales in the snack bar. Ms. Thomas emphasized that the ABC Board will not allow alcoholic beverages to be brought in. There were no further questions for Mr. Watson, so Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Hall remarked that he lives about one mile from the proposed golf course and he, as well as other residents in the area, have some concerns about the course. His first concern relates to the consumption of alcohol, which Ms. Thomas just addressed. He is not an avid golfer, but he has played enough to know that many of the carts on the golf course have coolers of beer in them. He also referred to the fact that the plan is to sell alcohol at the clubhouse where many golfers go to have a couple of drinks after they have completed their round. He added that Route 637, with its curves and the speed limit of 55 miles per hour, plus alcohol are a bad combination. He said no matter how tightly alcohol is controlled, it cannot be eliminated. He went on to say he is particularly sensitive because he has two very small children. Secondly, his concern relates to the change of the rural character of the area. He noted that currently the area has mostly large farms and homes on very large tracts of land. He commented that while the developers of the land are not proposing any residential development, it will bring increased development in the neighboring land. The golf course along with the increased development in the neighboring land will make this much more of a suburban area than a rural area. He also fears the owners of the golf course will be returning to this Board to request permission to exercise their development rights, and then not only will there be a golf course, but there will also be 15 or 20 additional homes. He added that most new golf course developments include residential development, so it surprises him that the owners can be profitable without it. September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) 000276 He next recalled reading in the newspaper recently that most residents near the proposed golf course were in favor of it. He emphasized that he is not sure who the reporters spoke to, but it is quite the opposite from what he believes to be true. He stated that because of personal time constraints, he has not been able to get to all the residents in that area, but he has been to a dozen of the twenty homes within a mile of the golf course. Of the twelve homes he visited, ten of them were definitely opposed to the golf course. He then presented to the Board a list of 15 signatures of people who are all within a mile of the golf course, and he requested the Board to reject the special use permit. However, if they feel compelled to approve the course, then he asked that additional restrictions be imposed. He asked that the consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages not be allowed at the golf course. Secondly, he thinks the management should be accountable for ensuring no alcohol is consumed on the golf course. He also requested the Supervisors to require that the entire 330 acres of property be put under a conservation easement so the owners can't come back to this Board at any time in the future to ask for additional development. Mr. Jim Helvin stated that he and his wife live in the parcel in the middle of the proposed golf course property. He had stated his concerns at the September 1, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, but he is going to do it again for the Board of Supervisors. He commented that in early spring, Mr. Foster came to him and his wife to talk about purchasing their home. They told Mr. Foster they had no intentions of selling their house at the present time. He explained that he and his wife have lived there for 30 years, they reared their two children there, and his mother, who is 82 years old, lives in her own cottage on the place. It would be too disruptive for his mother, and he told Mr. Foster that perhaps several years in the future they might be in a selling position, but they were definitely not at this time. At that time, he was not in favor of the golf course, but neither was he in opposition to it. He was basically neutral, because he felt worse things could happen around his property. He recalled that about a week before the Planning Commission meeting, the Fosters had the Helvins over to look at the plans. He added that after looking at the plans, the Fosters continued discussing purchasing the Helvin's place. It was evident to them, by the nature of the plans and the continued efforts to purchase their place, that they were being forced into selling. The plans totally compromised any privacy his family has since the driving range is close to their northern boundary. At that time there were two tees and two greens very near their line, and Mr. Foster indicated the clubhouse would be put between the two greens that are closest to their house. He commented that the road coming to the clubhouse would come in front and encircle their property line. He recalled that there was also a maintenance facility in the parking lot for 175 vehicles which, he understood from the Planning Commission meeting, was designed for the property in front of his house. He said about a quarter of the property was submerged in a pond at that time, but this has been removed since then. He and his wife felt they only had two choices, which were to sell and relocate, or try to fight the proposal. He added that they contacted their attorney, Mr. Bain, and went to the Planning office and looked through files. They found that in the appli- cation permit their intentions were incorrectly stated. The application permit stated that the Helvins were negotiating the selling price of the property. However, they had never talked about this. The base of his position is still the same. First, they do not plan to sell. They are opposed to the special permit, and the ensuing activities would compromise the privacy of their home and the rural nature of the area. Mr. David Booth stated that he lives approximately one-half mile from the proposed golf course, and it is his personal opinion that the golf course proposal is very good for the Ivy Valley and its neighbors. It is a very open and a very green facility, and he likes this, because it is better than the situation the neighbors have been dealing with in the past. He stated that his neighborhood is very well connected by E-mail, and he has put out several messages about the golf course, and everyone agrees with the golf course being there. He has gotten no indication that anyone would not like the golf course. He mentioned that normally when golf courses are discussed, there are withering attacks about the impacts on the environment, water, land use and traffic. He does not see any Of these complaints coming from the Ivy neighbors with whom he has spoken, and he noted that he is going to deliver a letter to the Supervisors tonight from a neighbor in that area supporting the Holf course. He thinks Mr. Foster should be commended on his foresiHht and courage to take on such a risky venture across from the Ivy Landfill. He added that people do such thinHs because they get addicted to the beauty of the area. He said it is a very beautiful area, and he wouldn't have bouHht September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~7 (Page 31) property there, if it was not beautiful. He went on to say the golf course, with its openness and greenness, would only enhance the beauty. He then mentioned the Board of Supervisors' concerns about the golf course. The Supervisors might be concerned about the environmental impact, but the architect has stated that the applicant has gone overboard about being environmentally sensitive with the design of the site. They might be concerned about the water issues, but he suggested that they can't be concerned about such issues, as long as the Ivy Landfill continues to discharge trash and leachate at the front entrance of the Ivy Landfill which will eventually wash onto the proposed golf course area. As far as traffic is concerned, the neighbors basically say it is better to be behind a car with ten golfers than an uncovered trash truck that is leaking leachate. He next referred to land use, and he said the golf course is open and green, and the neighbors are delighted. The neighbors are worried, though, about Mr. Helvin's concerns, and he hopes the Board members can reasonably resolve them. He suggested, if this special use permit is allowed, that. the creative thoughts start again in order to work out a solution. There are such things as private easements, and a pond might even enhance Mr. Helvin's property. He added that since Mr. Helvin wants to remain there, he would have to assume that even he likes the idea of a golf course to some extent. Mr. Booth stated that he certainly wouldn't mind living on a golf 'course, but there are certain things that need to occur. He said, for instance, 50 feet from a barn is different from a public tee at the back door. He mentioned the fact that Mr. Tucker is a golfer, and he showed him and the Board members an article in the Smithsonian magazine relating to the amount of revenue such a facility will generate. He would appreciate it if the Supervisors will help make this golf course happen. Mr. Ed Bain spoke on behalf of Mr. Helvin. The Board has already heard Mr. Helvin speak, but he would like to address some of the basic issues. He mentioned that this is a special permit, and there has to be a finding that the project is not substantially detrimental to adjacent property. Mr. Helvin was being very honest when he said at first he wasn't for or against the golf course, because he knew the development rights would allow twenty lots to be put there in that acreage. Mr. Bain added, though, that this activity will cause a lot more traffic. He pointed out that it is almost half again as much traffic on a weekend where it is projected there will be 1,000 trips a day along with the traffic already on this particular road. There is no question this is significant, but the staff did not require that Route 637 north of 1- 64 be improved because most of the traffic will come from Interstate 64. He added that the Board needs to first look at the fact that the golf course is substantially detrimental to adjacent property, and there is no one else affected to the degree Mr. Helvin is affected. He believes Mr. Foster's people are now serious about trying to accommodate Mr. Helvin's concerns. However, he recalled Mr. Watson saying at the Planning Commission meeting that all of the changes were made because they could only get 15 holes on the golf course, so they had to impact Mr. Helvin's property. He stated that now, all of a sudden, the project is 210 feet away from the property line. He thinks the applicant will make a good effort, if this special use permit is approved, but the situation really needs to be considered carefully. He mentioned that there is no independent study about this need, and although national totals were mentioned, there has not been a need mentioned here. He said Mr. Mullaney has not indicated anything in his comments that any independent study has been done as far as such a need existing, and Mr. Bain does not think it will improve the health, safety and welfare as the applicant has said. He stated that environmental principles will be used to the greatest extent possible, whatever that may be, and he applauds the applicant for this. He next mentioned that the Helvins live in a historic structure, which will need to be given some consideration, if the Supervisors consider approving this request. The Board members will have to take whatever protective action they think is appropriate, and if they approve this permit, they will need to consider adding conditions. He referred to Ms. Thomas' comments about public lighting, and he said even though the applicant has indicated there will be no loudspeakers, no public address system and no public lighting, such a condition is not included. He stated that perhaps this can be addressed at the site plan stage, but since this is a legislative act, it clearly can be addressed here. He then asked about the permanent monitoring, because even though it is a condition, he wondered how it will be enforced. He thinks the staff has tried to address this, but the way it will be implemented is very critical. September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) 0'002?8 Mr. Bain then referred to the final condition the Planning Commission added which allowed the Planning Department to give approval of minimum setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers, and similar improvements designed to address visual and noise impacts on Mr. Helvin's property. He suggested that this should be changed so this Board, or at least the Planning Commission, would have the final word as to the location and amenities that are going to be protective devices for the Helvin property. These conditions are extremely critical, and he and the Helvins' position is to ask the Board to turn down the special use permit. Mr. Ed Strange, a resident of Ivy, stated that he fully supports personal property rights and the Helvins' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. He noted that the Planning Commission members made it clear they intend to oversee the project, and he hopes they will do so. He thinks the Fosters are to be commended for their regard for the environment and for asking the neighbors their input prior to submission of this plan to the County. He pointed out that this is a quality golf course, and he stressed the word quality. The golf course will be a plus to the neighborhood, as well as the community at large. However, while he supports approval of the golf course, it must be done so as not to unduly impact the Helvins. He stated that it would be nice for this part of Ivy to be known for something other than a place where people can take their trash. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Ms. Thomas pointed out that nowhere in the staff report does it speak of the Helvins' house as being a historic structure, and she would not have known this, had she not gone to the Helvin property. She explained that their house is a very historic structure because it was probably built before the 19th century. She noted that it has the original kitchen or smokehouse, and it appeared on the Dick Woods Road Historic Structures Survey that the University of Virginia did some years ago. She stated that having the additional structure makes it particularly unusual in terms of its value. She said she is sorry this information wasn't in the staff report, because it is a significant point. She added that if the Board members approve this permit, she thinks something should be added to the Commission's last condition relating to approving landscaping and buffers, etc., about respecting the historical significance of the buildings on that Tax Map. She stated that the Helvins realize when there is just five acres in the midst of over 200 acres, they can't control the other acreage, but neither should this type of historical structure be allowed to be so impacted that it loses all of its liveability or significance. She referred to an earlier conversation with Jim Hall about the alcohol problem. She stated that the Supervisors' hands are tied on this issue by what seems to her to be a very strange portion of the ABC law which indicates that local government cannot add conditions to the ABC's conditions on this property. She asked Mr. Davis to clarify her statement. Mr. Davis explained that the State Code grants the Alcohol Beverage Control Board the ability to regulate the sale, use and dispensing of alcohol beverages. There is also a State Code section which specifically prohibits any county, city or town from adopting any ordinance or resolution which would further regulate the drinking, use or dispensing of alcohol beverages in the Commonwealth. He stated that local government has been pre-empted from regulating alcohol, and he assumes the idea behind this regulation is that the State wants to have a consistent regulation of alcohol throughout the Commonwealth and not have it subject to local whim. Mr. Bowerman asked how long this regulation has been in existence. Mr. Davis answered that it has been in existence a long time. Mr. Bowerman then mentioned that he thought this Board had, in the past, taken such action that made the control of alcohol use a portion of its conditions of approval. Mr. Davis stated that during the last five years, he can only recall one application where there was concern about allowing the drinking of alcohol that was being brought onto the premises, and that was the application involving Adventureland. He said with the concurrence of the applicant, the Board was assured through a condition, that people would not be allowed to remain on the premises who were drinking. He added that this was technically in violation of the statute, but it was done in the spirit of a cooperative understanding. He said before that time, he is unsure what happened with this issue. He had tried to do some research to see what the Board had done in the past, and he found another similar circumstance where September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) 000279 the applicant simply agreed not to pursue an ABC license for a billiards parlor. However, he emphasized that this is not something the Board could have required. Ms. Thomas next mentioned the issue of the conservation easement. The applicants have stated that they will be pursuing this easement, although they need to pursue it with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. The staff members have looked at the conditions that have been placed on the permit, and they think the combination of Numbers nine and ten are as firm as County officials can make them, and they are essentially as good as a conservation easement. She noted that these two conditions indicate that no grading or clearing or other land disturbing activity can be done above the 900 foot elevation and no residential development shall be permitted. As far as this development fostering other developments in the area, she suspects there are a lot of things that will foster development in that area, such as paving the rest of Dick Woods Road, which is going to be done in another year or so. She also said every progress made on the Landfill will make it a more attractive area. She remarked that it is already one of the best roads in the rural area in the County, because of the money the City spent on it when the City was running the Landfill. However, she would like to pin down the applicant more to the proposals they have made about the environmental issues as plans are made for the area. She said one way to do this is to provide that the Engineering Department has approval of an Environmental Resources Plan addressing the mssues listed in the August 24, 1998 memo from David Hirschman to Bill Fritz, which is Attachment D in the Board members' packets. She explained that this memo doesn't say anything the applicants have not already indicated they would be doing with their various plans, and the plans may have more stringent regulations than anything in this memo. It adds, though, an idea of a plan to link all of these things together. She is not proposing to remove any of the Engineering Department approvals, but she would like to add a condition that a plan would have to exist. Ms. Humphris called attention to the last paragraph of Page Two of Attachment D where it stated that the requirement to develop and implement the water quality plan should be a condition of approval to the special use permit. The word, "implement," caught her attention because Condition Number Seven requires Engineering Department approval of a water quality monitoring program, but it doesn't specifically say the Engineering Department has to implement it. She stated that she would strongly support Ms. Thomas' remarks to not only have a plan, but that the plan be implemented. She remarked that sometimes there is a problem when the conditions are not specific. Ms. Thomas asked if Condition Number Seven sufficiently brings out this point by referring back to the memo. Mr. Davis said there should be an additional sentence suggesting that the approved plan shall be implemented during construction and operation of the golf course. Ms. Humphris asked where this sentence should be placed. Mr. Davis answered that he believes Ms. Thomas is suggesting adding an additional condition which would require the Environmental Resources Plan that addresses the issues shown in the memo and then adding the language that the approved plan shall be implemented during construction and operation of the golf course. Mr. Marshall stated that he wants to support this project, but he has a couple of problems with it. He finds it very difficult to impact an indi- vidual property owner in such a way, and he is hoping Mr. Helvin can work something out with the Fosters. Mr. Marshall remarked that the other problem he has is the need for a golf course. He recalled that recently an individual offered to donate to Albemarle County the land to build a golf course, and he wondered what was the major reason for turning down this project. He said this person was going to donate land the County could sell for development around the golf course, and then these funds could be used to build the golf course. Ms. Thomas disagreed. The gentleman was going to develop around the golf course, himself, and he was going to give the County the land for the golf course. She stated that it was decided by the members of the Board of Supervisors, at that time, that they did not want to get into the business of building and managing a golf course. It would have been the County's work to develop the golf course that would have made his subdivision possible. Next, Ms. Thomas stated that she tried to ascertain the need for a golf course, by calling Birdwood and Meadowcreek golf courses and asking if there were times when people were being turned away. The answer is that there are only a few times when this happens. She added, though, that the people she 0'0028O September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 34) contacted seem to think there is a need for another golf course, and that the area can support it. She said even though they seldom turn away people because they are over filled, their assumption is that people know on a pretty day in the summer that it is going to be harder to find a place to play golf, so some of them don't try. Mr. Perkins commented that he does not think this is the Board's concern. He noted that people go to Swananoa, Wintergreen, Greene County and all of the different golf courses around the area. Ms. Humphris remarked that the Supervisors need to worry about what happens to the land if the project is not successful. Mr. Perkins answered that this Board cannot guarantee that the project won't fail. Ms. Humphris concurred that the Board members cannot guarantee such a thing, but they can think about it. Mr. Perkins stated that the success of the golf course depends on so many things such as the economy, etc. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Perkins to give him his thoughts on the matter. Mr. Perkins reiterated that the golf course's success is not this Board's concern. He gave an example of the bottled water business that was discussed by County officials a few years ago. He said it was up to the owner to find out if it was going to be a viable operation, and not the Supervisors. Mr. Marshall asked if there is a great enough need for the golf course to inconvenience Mr. Helvin in such a manner. Mr. Perkins said that is another matter. Mr. Martin stated that he shares Mr. Marshall's concerns, but he hopes the golf course representatives will try to work things out with Mr. Helvin as much as possible. He pointed out, too, that Mr. Helvin only owns five acres in this large tract of land. Mr. Martin went on to say his biggest concern has not been brought up tonight. He worries that once the golf course is in place, there will be more pressure to change things at the Landfill facility. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Martin to explain what he means by changing things at the Landfill. Mr. Martin said he is referring to the fact that he thinks there will be more pressure to close this facility. He noted that there was some very good rationale for keeping its current status, should the County have a future problem. He explained that there may be a time when there is no other system to turn to, for instance if BFI, or another company, increased its prices. He believes the development of the golf course is going to cause more people to ask that something more be done at the Landfill. He stated that people move into an existing situation, and then they want it changed, and he wondered if this applicant will become a proponent for the County changing its plans for the transfer station. Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Martin thinks the Ivy Landfill neighbors are in favor of the plan for this reason. Mr. Martin replied that he cannot answer this question. However, he is just saying it is a concern of his that the people who are here and the people who will be using the golf course will become opponents of what County officials view as a good plan for the Ivy Landfill. Ms. Thomas remarked that she thinks the more eyes and ears there are around the Landfill, the better it will be run and operated for everybody. She said she understands what Mr. Martin is saying, but if what is being proposed for the Landfill is not something that will be a good operation in the future, she does not think it should be approved, anyway. Mr. Martin agreed that the Board's plans should not be rigid, but there was good rationale for the decisions that were made. He said unless those things change, there is no reason to put up additional barriers. Ms. Humphris commented that if this request is approved, she would certainly want to add a condition relating to having no lights on the driving range and no public address system. She then referred to Condition Number 11 and suggested that instead of Planning Department approval in conjunction with site plan review, that the site plan should go back to the Planning Commis- sion, given the very special historical significance of Mr. Helvin's home. She said she would feel more comfortable if the Planning Commission would have a chance to examine the completed site plan. Ms. Thomas concurred. She said she is not totally happy about approving this application because she thinks it will change the character of the area. However, she thinks the Board is trying to get as many conditions on it as 000: 8 September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 35) possible to keep its impact to a minimum. She also thinks it is an area that will have its character changed soon anyway, one way or the other. Mr. Perkins called attention to Conditions Two and Five relating to the Engineering Department's approval of drought and disease tolerant turf materials and approval of turf management systems. He does not think the County Engineering Department has expertise in this field, and he would rather the applicant have the responsibility of getting someone with this type of expertise to report back to the Planning Commission or this Board about these two things. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Perkins can identify someone with this capability. Mr. Marshall suggested that Virginia Tech's extension agent could probably handle this situation. Mr. Perkins agreed that Virginia Tech representatives do a lot of this type of work with turf, grasses and turf management systems. Ms. Thomas wondered if it would be appropriate to say Engineering Department approval after consultation. Mr. Perkins stated that the applicant should be responsible for obtaining the report from whomever they wish, whether it is VPI or a commercial company. Mr. Tucker reported that the Engineering staff had recommended these conditions, but the Engineering staff would review and approve what the applicant submitted. The applicant will have the responsibility for obtaining all of this information, and the approval will be based on what the applicant submits to the Engineering staff. Mr. Perkins repeated that he does not think the Engineering Department has the expertise that it takes in this field to give such an approval. Mr. Tucker noted that neither the Planning Commission nor this Board has such expertise. Mr. Perkins replied that this is why he suggested that someone be obtained who has this type of expertise. Mr. Davis stated that he would assume the Engineering Department staff can consult and find someone who could give them the proper advice as to whether or not it is an appropriate plan. Mr. Marshall remarked that Mr. Perkins is saying it is up to the applicant to get this done. Mr. Marshall went on to describe the way he has soil samples tested by the Extension Agent. He stated that this service is in place in Albemarle County with Virginia Tech's Extension Agent. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Hirschman, the Water Resources Manager, might be able to clarify this situation. Ms. Humphris mentioned that perhaps the applicant could also help answer some questions, since the grasses for golf courses are different than the grasses used in people's yards. She would think the applicant would be in consultation with the very best people he can find to advise him. Mr. David Hirschman, Water. Resources Manager, responded that the Engineering Department did not develop the conditions of the action letter. He stated that actually the Engineering Department's recommendation was to just review the plan because the applicant had a designer with experience. The Engineering staff did not think it needed to mandate all of the specifications, because the applicant's designer knew more about these things than the staff. He added that the staff's recommendation was to have all of these features packaged into the plan that would be submitted to the Engineering Department. Ms. Thomas said the plan has to include a selection of turf materials that are drought disease resistant. Mr. Hirschman concurred that this will be done according to the expertise of the applicants and their consultants. He stated that this is why the staff discussed changing Conditions One through Seven and including a condition for an Environmental Resources Plan that would be developed and implemented. It is his understanding that if this condition exists, it will supplant Conditions One through Seven, because the Environ- mental Resources Plan would have to address all of these things, anyway. He stated that it will be easy to get input since he is Associate Director of the Soil and Water Conservation District which is in close connection with the Cooperative Extension. He said all of the resources are available, and the applicant has these same resources. He added that there is a lot of expertise in the community where these things can be addressed. Mr. Marshall asked how Condition Number ll would be worded in order to protect Mr. Helvin. Ms. Humphris stated that Condition Number 11 would stipulate Planning Commission approval in conjunction with site plan review, 000282 September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 36) instead of the Planning Department's approval. Ms. Thomas said Condition Number 11 would also include wording that setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers and similar improvements would be designed to address visual and noise impacts of the golf course on, and to respect the liveability and historical significance of buildings on Tax Map 73, Parcel 27. Mr. Marshall inquired if the Planning Commission can determine this from the site plan review. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Ms. Thomas stated that if some idea of standards is not set in the Board's action today then the Planning Commission is basically going to approve what is required, which is not very much in this situation. Mr. Davis clarified that the Site Plan Ordinance is an administrative ordinance requiring that the specified requirements have to be satisfactorily shown on the site plan. However, there is some discretion needed to determine that the impacts are lessened at the site plan stage. The proposed condition would make it clear that the Planning Commission has an enhanced ability to address these types of factors that go beyond what is typically set forth in the site plan ordinance. He stated that the special use permit is designed to deal with specific impacts to adjacent property. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the result of this condition provides an additional layer of zoning requirement over what the provisions of the ordinance allow for in site plan review. Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen if the site plan was not approved specifically because the Commission felt it was noncompliant with this Board's intentions. Mr. Davis responded that the site plan could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by the applicant, if it was denied by the Commission. Mr. Marshall inquired if Mr. Helvin could appeal to the Board. Mr. Davis answered, "no." Mr. Marshall said Mr. Helvin is going to have to hope that the Planning Commission is going to help his situation with the site plan. Mr. Davis replied, ~yes." He went on to say the Site Plan Ordinance was changed recently to become consistent with the Code. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the issues this Board identified as being important were not satisfied to protect the Helvins in cooperation with the applicant, then the applicant has recourse, but this Board does not. Ms. Thomas wondered if Mr. Perkins would feel more comfortable to remove Conditions Two and Five and have these conditions be a part of the plan that is presented to the Engineering Department. Mr. Cilimberg stated that actually Conditions One through Seven was the original way the Engineering Department's comments were incorporated into the conditions. He thinks this is why Mr. Hirschman remarked that Conditions One through Seven could be replaced with a new condition regarding the Engineering Department's approval of an environmental resources plan. He added that in effect, this plan would be covering everything that is in Conditions One through Seven. He said it wouldn't make any sense to remove two conditions and leave in five, and although the Board can leave in all seven conditions if they so choose, they are obviously covering all of the same ground. Mr. Davis commented that when this matter was discussed internally by staff, the Zoning staff members wanted to leave in Conditions One through Seven because they were more satisfied with the way they were worded rather than the wording in Mr. Hirschman's letter. Mr. Davis emphasized that the staff's collective recommendation is to simply leave the conditions as they are, and add the extra condition, because then all bases would be covered. Mr. Cilimberg stated that nothing will happen in Conditions One through Seven that will prevent addressing these items in the Environmental Resources Plan. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the condition concerning the lighting needs to be added also. At this time, Ms. Thomas offered a motion to approve SP-98-37, subject to Conditions One through Ten as recommended by the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 1, 1998 with the Supervisors' recommended change to Condition Number 11 and adding two additional conditions. She said Condition Number Eleven should read, ~Planning Commission approval, in conjunction with site plan review, of minimum setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers, and similar improvements, designed to address visual and noise impacts of the golf course on, and to respect the liveability and historical significance of O0O;883 September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 37) buildings on Tax Map 73, Parcel 27" Her motion also includes Condition Number Twelve which would state that ~There shall be no outdoor lighting on the driving range and there shall be no public address system". Condition Number Thirteen shall state that, "Engineering Department approval of an Environmental Resources Plan that addresses the items in the August 24, 1998 memo from David Hirschman to Bill Fritz, which is Attachment D. The approved plan shall be implemented during construction and operation of the golf course." Ms. Thomas said she believes she has embodied the comments from the other Supervisors, as well as those from the public. Mr. Perkins referred to Condition Number Eleven which addresses the visual and noise impacts, and he wondered about the need to require fencing, should Mr. Helvin be concerned about trespassers on his property. Mr. Helvin said he has never liked fences in the country, and he is not worried about trespassers. He is more concerned about the level of activity. He noted that it is a large parcel of land, and he thinks the project can be rearranged to adjust for the activity. Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Perkins for the suggestion of the fence, but she said she would not include it in her motion. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Marshall. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Engineering Department approval of phasing plan to ensure adequate erosion control; Engineering Department approval of drought and disease tolerant turf materials; 3 o Engineering Department approval of stream buffer areasincluding all activity within stream buffers such as, but not limited to, enhanced plantings, fairway/path crossings; Engineering Department approval of runoff treatment systems, including monitoring and reporting procedures and approval of any changes in the systems; Engineering Department approval of turf management systems, including monitoring and reporting procedures and approval of any changes in the systems; Engineering Department approval of storage and spill containment systems for all hazardous materials including, but not limited to, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fuel; 7o Engineering Department approval of water quality monitoring program, and reporting procedures; The serving of food and refreshments shall be limited to those individuals utilizing the golf course or driving range; No grading/clearing or other land disturbing activity above the 900- foot elevation; 10. No residential development shall be permitted; 11. Planning Commission approval, in conjunction with site plan review, of minimum setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers, and similar improvements, designed to address visual and noise impacts of the golf course on, and to respect the livability and historical significance of buildings on Tax Map 73, Parcel 27; 12. There shall be no outdoor lighting of the driving range and there shall be no public address system; and September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 38) 0002 14 13. Engineering Department approval of an Environmental Resources Plan that addresses the items in the August 24, 1998 memo from David Hirschman to Bill Fritz, labeled attachment D (copy on file in Clerks office). The approved plan shall be implemented during construction and operation of the golf course. Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-98-07. Stream Restoration. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of The Code of The County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending §30.3.05.1.1 to allow certain uses or activities by-right within the Flood Hazard Overlay District and §30.3.05.2.1 to allow certain uses or activities by special use permit within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that ZTA-98-07 would amend the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the definition of stream erosion structure and uses permitted by right with the floodway. Mr. Perkins asked if this amendment would apply to Moore's Creek. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. The amendment reflects the Resolution of Intent this Board passed on July 15, 1998, and it is establishing a definition of bank erosion structure and allowing certain projects to be undertaken by public agencies. There were no further questions from the Board, so Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing for ZTA-98-07. No one came forward, so Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. At this time, Mr. Perkins offered motion to adopt an Ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of The Code of The County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending §30.3.05.1.1 to allow certain uses or activities by-right within the Flood Hazard Overlay District and §30.3.05.2.1 to allow certain uses or activities by special use permit within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the~ following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:) ORDINANCE NO. 98-18 (2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 30.3.05.1.1 By right within the floodway. Sec. 30.3.05.2.1 By special use permit within the floodway. Chapter 18. Zoning Article III. District Regulations Sec. 30.3.05.1.1 By right within the floodway. The following uses or activities are authorized within the floodway as a matter of right: 1. Agricultural uses, excluding structures of any kind, limited to field crops, pasture, grazing, livestock, raising poultry, horticulture, viticulture and forestry. 2. Recreational uses (excluding structures of any kind and September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 39) 000 85 uses involving human habitation) such as parks; swimming areas, golf courses and driving ranges; picnic grounds; wildlife and nature preserves; game farms; fish hatcheries; shooting preserves; target, trap and skeet ranges; hunting, fishing and hiking areas; athletic fields; and horse show grounds. 3. Flood warning aids and devices, water monitoring devices and the like. 4. Fences. 5. Electric, gas, oil and communications facilities, including poles, lines, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility, but excluding tower structures. (Added 7-1-81; amended 5- 12-93) 6. Water distribution and sewage collection lines and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority, but excluding pumping stations and holding ponds. (Added 7-1-81) 7. If paragraphs (a) through (d) are each satisfied, projects which: (I) are designed or directed by the county, a soil and water conservation district, or a public agency authorized to carry out flood control or environmental restoration measures; or (ii) are reviewed and approved by the department of engineering and public works in accordance with the water protection ordinance. a. The purpose which will be served by the project, as determined by the department of engineering and public works, is either flood control or environmental restoration; b. The amount of fill material placed within the floodway, floodway fringe or approximated flood plain does not exceed the amount of cut material removed from the same floodway, floodway fringe or approximated flood plain in which the fill was placed; c. No natural streams will be relocated; and d. The project will use natural materials such as rock and vegetation, and will not use engineered structures such as those identified in section 30.3.05.2.1(5). Sec. 30.3.05.2.1 By special use permit within the floodway. The following uses or activities are authorized within the floodway by special use permit: 1. Dams, levees and other structures for water supply and flood control. 2. Water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types. 3. Sod farming, topsoil, and sand and gravel removal. 4. Pump stations for water or wastewater including power supply and control devices, holding ponds and other appurtenances. 5. Engineered structures including, but not limited to, retaining walls and revetments made of non-natural materials such as concrete, and gabion baskets, which are constructed along channels or watercourses for the purpose of water conveyance or flood control. 6. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4-28-82) September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 40) 000; 86 Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 13(A), 1995 and September 4, 1996. Mr. Martin said he had read the minutes of March 13(A), 1995, and found them to be correct, except for some minor typos. Ms. Humphris said she had read September 4, 1996, pages 29 (Item #10) to the end and gave a few small typos to the Clerk. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Ms. Thomas remarked that it was pointed out that the Board members talked about certain appointments, but they never actually made the motions. She then moved the reappointment of Mr. Frank Kessler to the Architectural Review Board, with said term to begin November 15, 1998 and to expire November 14, 2002; the reappointment of Mr. Tom Trevillian, Ms. Diane Allen, Mr. David Booth and Mr. Frederick Huckstep to the BOCA Code of Appeals, with said terms to begin November 22, 1998 and to expire November 21, 2003; and the reappointment of Ms. Diane Allen to the Fire Prevention Code of Appeals, with said term to begin November 22, 1998 and to expire November 21, 2003. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. AYES: NAYS: Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Marshall announced that after the first of the year, the Planning Commission is going to try moving its meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He asked the Board members to watch the Planning Commission's trial of this new time, although he was unsure if this would be an option for this Board. Ms. Humphris stated that she is not sure the Planning Commission's situation is parallel to the Board of Supervisors'. She recalled reading that the Commissioners frequently have work sessions, and they felt the need to start their meetings earlier because of the work sessions. She pointed out that the Supervisors do not have their work sessions at night, so the same problem doesn't exist for them. Next, Mr. Marshall asked the other Board members to consider putting a time limit on the time given applicants to make their presentation. He said perhaps 10 to 15 minutes, with a five minute rebuttal time, might be appropriate. Mr. Martin agreed. He said he did not think it was fair to allow the applicant so much time and then limit everybody else to three minutes. Mr. Marshall stated that this could be an agenda item at the next Board meeting for discussion. Approved by Board September 16, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 41) 000£87 Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. At 10:00 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. Chairm~n ~