1997-07-09July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
000214
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 9, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Chief of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler and Chief of
Community Development, David Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Warren E. Vandell presented the Clerk a written statement pertaining
to reversion and asked that it be incorporated into the minutes. The state-
ment is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to accept Items 5.1
through 5.7 as information, and to approve Item 5.8 on the consent agenda.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
None.
Mr. Marshall
Item No. 5.1. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for June 10 and
June 17, 1997, were received as information.
Item No. 5.2. Copy of memorandum dated June 27, 1997, from
Mr. David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, re: Review for Comp%iance with the Comprehensive Plan
(15.1-456 Review): Albemarle County Service Authority Transmission Water Main
Installation to Key West/Cedar Hill Subdivision, was received as information.
(On June 17, 1997, the Planning Commission unanimously found that the proposal
was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.)
Ms. Humphr±s asked whether this covered the parcels the Board added at
last week's Board meeting. Mr. Tucker said, "Yes."
Item No. 5.3. Notice of Willingness to hold a Combined Location and
Design Public Hearing on the proposed improvement to Route 809 at the inter-
section of Route 250, was received as information.
Item No. 5.4. Memorandum dated July 3, 1997, from Mr. Bill Mawyer,
Director of Engineering and Public Works, re: Trees for Route 29 project, was
received as follows:
"An agreement has been reached between all parties concerned about
the trees to be planted in the Route 29 North median. The par-
ties, which included David Tice, Will Rieley, Peggy and
Mitchell Van Yahres, Phil Garber and D. J. Manafe (City Gas),
Angela Tucker, Bill Brent, Susan Thomas, Lisa Glass and myself,
successfully developed a plan to plant medium sized trees utiliz-
ing an underground fabric to shield utility lines from root
infiltration and damage. The tree species selected include swamp
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 2)
0002 .5
oak, honey locust, lacebark elm and hackberry. The locations for
these trees are shown sketches, which are on file in the Clerk's
office and a permanent part of the record.
Construction bids will be opened on July 22 and the trees will be
planted this fall and next spring. If the low bid is within the
$180,000 construction budget, maintenance of the trees will be
provided by the contractor for three years. The County and VDOT
are negotiating an agreement for maintenance of the trees after
the initial three year period."
Mr. Tucker noted that a section of roadway between Hilton Heights and
the Rivanna River had been deleted from the plan. Mr. Benish said the area
around Hilton Heights is a transitional area for Route 29 construction, and
staff is waiting to receive more information before selecting trees for that
section. Mr. Tucker suggested that, when the time is right, staff provide a
cost estimate for planting trees in that area. Ms. Humphris questioned the
project's cost estimate, saying that the County's original request from %;DOT
was $400,000, but the recommended budget is now only $180,000. Mr. Tucker
said the $400,000 had been a preliminary estimate, but the actual cost was
much less than anticipated.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County is going to redo the Route 250 plant-
ing. Mr. Tucker said staff will revisit that project using the same standards
as used when planning the Route 29 site.
Item No. 5.5. Memorandum dated July 2, 1997, from
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development,
providing notice that the Public Recreational Facilities Authority decided to
keep its membership at nine, was received as information. (One April 10,
1997, the Recreational Facilities Authority discussed a proposed change in the
By-laws to reduce the Authority's membership from nine to seven. It was the
consensus of the Authority to keep the membership at nine.)
Item No. 5.6. Copy of letter dated June 16, 1997, from
Mr. William L. Woodfin, Jr., Director, Department of Game and Inland Fisher-
ies, to Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation,
re: potential development of Priddy Creek property, was received as informa-
tion.
Item No. 5.7. Copy of 1996-97 Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Project
Annual Report for Albemarle County Public Schools, was received as informa-
tion.
Item No. 5.8. Request to set a public hearing to amend and reordain
Chapter 10.1, Law Enforcement, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, regarding concealed weapons permit.
The Executive Summary indicates that the 1997 Session of the General
Assembly enacted SB 944, which amended Va. Code §18.2-308 regarding concealed
weapons permits. Effective July 1, 1997, counties are authorized to enact
local ordinances requiring any applicant for a concealed handgun permit to
submit to fingerprinting for the purpose of obtaining the applicant's state
and national criminal history record. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has
advised that it will process fingerprints submitted for national records
checks for concealed handgun permits only from localities that have adopted an
ordinance pursuant to SB 944 requiring fingerprinting of such applicants.
Staff recommends that a public hearing be set to consider amendments to
Chapter 10.1, Law Enforcement, for August 6, 1997.
By the above shown vote, the Board set a public hearing for this item
for 10:00 a.m., August 6, 1997.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on an ordinance to Amend and
Reordain the Code of the County of Albemarle, in Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles
and Traffic, Article I, In General, Section 12-5.4, to clarify that no
parking or standing is allowed in fire lanes within the County and Article V,
000:Z16
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
County Vehicle Licenses, Section. 12-21.1, to amend the schedule of fines for
failure to have a valid County motor vehicle sticker. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1997.)
Mr. Tucker explained that the amendments clarify that no parking or
standing is allowed in fire lanes within the County. In addition, the time
within which a person may pay a citation for failing to have a valid County
motor vehicle sticker has been extended from 48 to 96 hours, consistent with
the time frames established elsewhere in the Ordinance for payment of parking
violations.
Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing.
With no one present to speak, Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an
ordinance to Amend and Reordain the Code of the County of Albemarle, in
Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, In General, Section 12-
5.4, to clarify that no parking or standing is allowed in fire lanes within
the County and Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, Section 12-21.1, to amend
the schedule of fines for failure to have a valid County motor vehicle
sticker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the ordinance as set out
below:
ORDINANCE NO. 97-12 (2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,
ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL AND ARTICLE V, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES
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 12, Vehicles and Traffic,
Article I, in General and Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, is
hereby amended and reordained by amending section 12-5, Stopping
or parking; generally; section 12-5.4, Parking or standing in fire
lanes; and section 12-21.1, Violations, as follows:
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 12-5. Stopping or parking; generally.
(a) No person shall stop a vehicle in such a manner as to
impede or render dangerous the use of highways or county roads by
others, except in the case of an emergency, an accident, or
mechanical breakdown. In the event of any such emergency, acci-
dent or breakdown, the emergency flashing lights of such vehicle
shall be turned on, if the vehicle is equipped with such lights
and such lights are operating. A report of the vehicle's location
shall be made to the nearest police officer as soon as practical.
The vehicle shall be moved to the shoulder as soon as possible and
then removed from the shoulder without unnecessary delay. If such
vehicle is not promptly removed, removal may be ordered by a
police officer, at the expense of the owner, if such vehicle
creates a traffic hazard.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va.
§ 46.2-888.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to any
vehicle owned or controlled by the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation or the county, while actually engaged in the
construction, reconstruction or maintenance of highways and roads.
For state law as to exceptions for certain vehicles, see
Code of Va. § 46.2-891.
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
O00: :t7
(c) No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle
shall allow such vehicle to stand on any highway unattended,
without first effectively setting the emergency or parking brake
thereon, stopping the motor and turning the front wheels into the
curb or side of the roadway.
(d) The operator of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer,
when temporarily stopped on the traveled or paved portion of a
highway so as to C~te a traffic hazard, shall flash all four (4)
turn signals simultaneously to signal approaching motorists of the
existing hazard, whenever such vehicle is equipped with a device
which will cause the four (4) turn signals to flash simulta-
neously.
(e) No truck or bus, except a school bus, shall be stopped
wholly or partially on the traveled portion of any highway in the
county outside of a town for the purpose of taking on or discharg-
ing cargo or passengers, unless the operator cannot leave the
traveled portion of a highway with safety. A school bus may be
stopped on the traveled portion of a highway when taking on or
discharging school children, but such stops shall be made only at
points where the bus can be clearly seen for a safe distance.from
both directions.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va. §
46.2-893.
(Previous § 12-5 Authority of fire department officials to
direct traffic, etc. is now § 12-8)
Sec. 12-5.4. Parking or standing in fire lanes.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or stand a
vehicle in any designated and marked fire lane.
(b) The placement of a vehicle, for any purpose, within a
fire lane perpendicular to the curb or edge is prohibited.
(c) Any police officer or the fire marshal or his authorized
representatives who finds any vehicle in violation of this section
shall have the authority to remove such vehicle at the owner's
risk and expense. This authority shall extend to any fire or
rescue officer in charge of a fire or rescue operation who finds
any such violation to be interfering with such emergency Qpera-
tions.
(d) The county police or the fire marshal or his authorized
representatives are authorized to enter any fire lane for the
purpose of enforcing the provisions of this section.
(e) No provision of this section shall apply to fire, rescue
or police vehicles while they are involved in emergency opera-
tions.
ARTICLE V. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSE
Sec. 12-21.1. Violations:
Law enforcement officers may issue citations, summonses,
warrants, parking tickets or uniform traffic summonses for viola-
tions. A violation of this ordinance may not be discharged by
payment of a fine except upon presentation of satisfactory evi-
dence that the required license has been obtained. The procedure
for enforcement of this section and penalties for violation
thereof shall be as provided in section 12-9.1, except that fines
as provided in section 12-9.1(e) shall be as follows:
If paid within ninety-six (96)
hours ........................................... $25.00
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
If paid after ninety-six
(Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. of 6-9-93
96) hours ............. 50.00
Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearzng on a Deed of Easement by and between
the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville for the installation
of a permanent natural gas line in the public right-of-way running from Route
20 to Route 742 in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on plat of the City of
Charlottesville Gas Division, dated April 2, 1997, and identified as "A
Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement for 4" PE and 2" PE Gas Lines". (Advertised in the
Daily Proqress on July 3, 1997.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the request and recommended that he be allowed to
execute the Deed of Easement.
Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing.
With no one present to speak, Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to authorize
the County Executive to execute the Deed of Easement on behalf of the County.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
By the above recorded vote the Board authorized the County Executive to
execute the Deed of Easement as set out below:
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made and entered into on this 9th day of July,
1997, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and the CITY
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in
hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR does hereby
GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY to the GRANTEE, subject to the reserva-
tions hereinafter set forth, the permanent easement of right of way to
construct, maintain, operate, alter, repair, inspect, protect, remove, and
replace certain natural gas line improvements, upon and across the public
right-of-way between Route 20 and Route 742 in Albemarle County, Virginia, and
more particularly described as follows:
Permanent natural gas line easement in the public right-of-way running
from Route 20 to Route 742 in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on
the attached plat of the City of Charlottesville Gas Division, dated
April 2, 1997, and identified as ~A Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement for 4" PE
and 2" PE Gas Lines".
The GRANTEE reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, all of the
aforementioned rights until such time as the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation has issued a permit to the GRANTEE subject to the following two
conditions which shall also be covenants running with the land:
1. That the above-described improvements of the GRA/qTEE may continue
to occupy such street or highway in the existing condition and location.
2. The GRANTEE shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the
County of Albemarle, its employees, agents, and officers from any claim
whatsoever arising from GRANTEE'S exercise of rights or privileges stated
herein.
3 o
In the event GRANTOR shall hereafter require, for its purposes,
that GRANTEE alter, change, adjust, or relocate the above-men-
tioned improvements, across or under such street or highway, the
nonbetterment cost only of such alteration, change, adjustment, or
relocation will be the responsibility of the GRANTEE.
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
0002'19
This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia
Code §§ 58.1-811(A) (3) and 58.1-811(C) (3).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused its name to be signed hereto
and its seal to be affixed and attested by its appropriate officers, all after
due authorization, on the day and year first above written.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-09. Covesville First Baptist Church (Sign
#86). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to add 1.0 ac to existing cemetery. Znd
RA. TM109,P6 (part of) & TM109,P6E. Located on S side of Rt 805, approx 0.25
mile W of Rt. 29. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June
23 and June 30, 1997.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff was unable to
identify any negative issues for this request. Staff opinion was that the
proposed use was consistent with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommended approval of the request subject to one condition.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 1997,
unanimously recommended approval of SP-97-09 subject to the staff's condition.
Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rauzelle Smith, representing the applicant, said he had no comments
to add. The church purchased the property continent upon Board approval of
this request.
With no one else present to speak, Ms. Humphris closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
SP-97-09, subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
None.
Mr. Marshall
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
Ail grave sites shall be located at 100 feet or more from any
well.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-97-10. Sunnyboy Gardens (Sign #85). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to establish a farm sales on 2 acs. Znd RA. TM31,P23,
part thereof. Located on SW side of Rt 743 (Earlysville Rd) near Earlysville.
Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Proqress on June 23 and June 30, 1997.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff opinion was that
this request was in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to two
conditions.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
June 24, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of SP-97-10 subject to four
conditions, which included the two recommended by staff.
Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing.
Mr. Hunter Davidson, the applicant, thanked the Board and staff.
With no one else present to speak, Ms. Humphris closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission did a good job. He then made
the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-97-10 subject to the four
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
O00220
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Compliance with Supplementary Regulations for Farm Sales (Section
5.1.35);
Water Resources Manager approval for compliance with Runoff
Control Ordinance;
The applicant may use the shade arbor as part of the farm sales
structure up to 1,500 square feet, including the interior space;
and
Fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides shall be stored under roof
and off of the ground.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-97-12. Myers Family Division (Sign #83).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request for add'l dvlp right on 31.83 acs. Znd
TM47,P32C. Located on priv access easement off S side of Burnt Mill Rd (Rt
784) approx 3/4 mile W of its inter w/Watts Passage (Rt 600). Rivanna Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1997.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with the provisions of Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval subject to three conditions.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 1997,
by a vote of six to one, recommended approval of SP-97-12 subject to the
staff's conditions.
Ms. Humphris questioned the Planning Commission's decision to allow the
applicant to build on such small parcels. Mr. Keeler said when the property
was first divided, there was a provision in the Ordinance that allowed a
property owner to create five small lots and as many 21-acre lots as can be
created out of the residue. Under the current Ordinance, someone cannot use
more than 31 acres to create those five small lots. That provision was
adopted in 1989 or 1991 as part of Rural Preservation Development. It was put
in because, based on an analysis of special permits received in the rural
areas, more permits were received requesting a variation in lot size than
there were requesting additional lots. Therefore, the County was not getting
21-acre tracts by virtue of not having a limit on the amount of acreage that
could be devoted to small lots, and also, having the opportunity through a
special use permit to take a 200-acre tract and divide it into varying lot
sizes. That provision is no longer available. The applicant is requesting an
additional lot on the property he purchased.
Mr. Martin said the applicant would still be left with more than 21
acres, and there could not have been two 21-acre lots there anyway.
Mr. Keeler said Mr. Myers has never had the ability to create two 21-acre
tracts and use the development rights he purchased. If the original division
of the land had been into small lots, that would have been a 44-acre residue,
and the owner could have done two 21-acre tracts.
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would be able to sell the land if it
became land-locked. Mr. Keeler said there would be an easement providing
access to the lot. Family divisions do not have the same road requirements as
conventional subdivisions. In response to Ms. Thomas, Mr. Martin said Route
784 is not in the Six Year Plan.
Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing.
Mr. Hamilton Myers, the applicant, said he would answer any questions
from the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked if she had to excuse herself since Mr. Myers was
working on the plumbing in her house. Mr. Davis said there was no conflict of
interest.
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
00022 .
There being no other comments, Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said any objections that have been made are not substantial
enough to deny the request. Mr. Martin said this is strictly a family matter.
There will be no commercial sale of the land, so the request should be
approved. Ms. Thomas said the point made informally by the Planning Commis-
sion that seven was the limit is a relevant comment the Board could make also.
Ms. Humphris said that rationale has persuaded her to vote in favor of the
request. She added that she will not support any additional requests for
division of this property.
Mr. Martin made the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
SP-97-12 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
The parcel authorized to be created as a result of this special
use permit must qualify as a family division;
2 o
The parcel authorized to be created as a result of this special
use permit shall not encroach into the flood plain of the North
Fork Rivanna River; and
No building permit for an additional dwelling shall be issued
until the plat has been recorded.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-97-13. 360 Communications of Charlottesville,
Eure Communications, Inc. (Signs #56&57). Public hearing on a request to
construct telecommunications tower w/ overall height of 200' & assoc support
facilities on portion of 10.3 acs. Znd RA. TM46,P15. Located on W side of
Seminole Trl (Rt 29N), near entrance to Forest Lakes South (Ashwood Blvd.).
Site of existing AM Radio towers. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 24 and June 30, 1997.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. In staff's opinion, the
construction of this proposed tower is consistent with the attempts of staff
to locate new towers within tower farms. Staff was unable to identify any
negative factors to this request and therefore recommended approval of the
request subject to six conditions.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
June 17, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of SP-97-13 subject to the
staff's conditions.
Mr. Martin said that the Board's policy has been to try to locate towers
where there are already existing towers. He asked whether staff looked at the
fact that towers block the view. At this site, towers are completely open to
view. Mr. Benish said staff specifically addressed the density issue to
determine when a tower farm became too obtrusive. Mr. Martin asked where else
a tower farm could be built. He also objects to these towers being completely
exposed.
Mr. Benish said staff is seeing an acceleration of tower requests. The
County has been continuing to approve the addition of towers to current farms,
but has not considered beginning new farms, as they would impact additional
areas. Most towers are in more remote locations. Mr. Keeler said that, due
to technology, the Board will see fewer requests for tower farms in the
future. It will, however, see more requests for individual towers, as
personal communication systems spread to provide a continuous service to an
area. Over 20 towers are located on Carter's Mountain.
Ms. Thomas said VDoT said there would have to be a change to the Forest
Lakes entrance. She said it is not one of the Planning Commission's condi-
tions, and she wondered if it should be. Mr. Benish said a site plan is under
review.
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000222
Ms. Thomas asked if there are planning issues to be aware of due to
bypass and Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Benish said that, at this time, the
County does not have enough information, since the study is still under
evaluation. This tower will not be significant to the design.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Davis about the Federal government's stance that a
- County cannot deny tower service. Mr. Martin said he has never had any
problems with his telephone while driving down Route 29, and wondered what
constitutes good service. Mr. Davis said there is no defined standard. Each
circumstance must be taken into consideration. If zoning implications are
problematic, the Board will have to establish service levels that are accept-
able. Mr. Martin said he believed blank spots are to the south and down 1-64,
but not on Route 29 North.
Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing.
Ms. Heidi Parker was present on behalf of 360 Communications, as were
Ms. Danielle Anderson, Mr. Larry Bickings and Mr. Joe Fitzsimmons.
Ms. Parker said the request was made based on customer demand. Wireless
technology has exploded, and the demand is exceeding capacity, especially at
the Rio Road site. The facility behind Fashion Square Mall is operating over
capacity now. All internal activity has been exhausted, and nothing else
internally can be done. The maximum number of channels has been added.
Capacity cannot keep up with the growing demand on Route 29.
When the coverage problem was identified, engineers created a design
that would provide the maximum coverage in an area, balanced with minimizing
the visibility of structures. The company selected a site area where there
are already five existing towers, adhering to the County's Comprehensive Plan
guidelines which suggest adding a tower to this area. She said clustering
minimizes impact. She distributed aerial photos of the current towers. One
can see the bases of the towers, but Ms. Parker said they are not noticeable.
The company hired an engineering firm to see if it could attach to an
existing tower, but it was determined this would be difficult due to AM rays.
It would be an expensive proposition to the land owner and 360 Communications.
Ms. Parker added that grounding would also be a problem, since the company
cannot disturb the existing mat.
The consultant met with WCHV, who agreed new towers should be erected.
The company proposed a 180-foot unlit lattice tower within a fenced compound,
which would not be visible to Route 29 North or South. Attachments would be
12 six-by-one foot panel antennas, which would be good for co-location with
other companies to minimize number of towers in area. The nearest residents
are 800 to 1100 feet from the towers. The proposed tower would be much less
visible than the towers already there, and it would provide the necessary
coverage and minimize tower visibility. Ms. Parker asked the Board to accept
the Planning Commission's recommendation with the waiver of the setback. That
way the tower would collapse upon itself in the event of a problem.
Ms. Thomas asked if the grounding mat is for protection from lightning.
Ms. Parker said, "Yes." A lightning rod would direct energy onto the ground-
ing mat, away from the towers. The company cannot therefore disturb the mat
belonging to the other companies. Ms. Thomas said it is frustrating to try to
find an invisible place to put another tower where there are already other
towers in that location. Mr. Bowerman asked if grounding also had to do with
the physics of AM broadcasting. Ms. Parker said that every piece of equipment
must be grounded to be protected from lightning.
An unidentified woman spoke in opposition, on behalf of residents of Rio
Road. The rural areas of the Comprehensive Plan are to be used for farming.
360 Communications can piggyback on another tower, building, water tower or
church steeple. This is a rural area, and towers should be located in an
industrial area or to a utility easement. Locating towers in tower farms
further degrades the property value and enjoyment of homeowners. The proposed
equipment will be subleased to other companies, resulting in more antennas,
towers and satellite dishes. She suggested towers be located on public
property, not private, since the public will benefit from the expanded
service. The Comprehensive Plan is supposed to protect property values and
the integrity of the community. There are already five towers on this site.
The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance would allow a tower to be
located approximately 29 feet from the property line along a 30-foot public
right-of-way between Rio Road, State Route 643 and Route 29, ruining curb
00022;3
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
appeal. Some of these residents have lived here for over 50 years, so 360
Communications should do without or else go elsewhere. She asked the Board to
respect the rights of residents against 360 Communications' desire to make a
profit. The view from Route 29 is swift and passing, but residents of the
area would have forever to look at the tower.
There being no other comments, Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin said this is a difficult decision for him. He has, in the
past, supported most tower applications. Although 360 Communications used the
County's rationale to establish a tower farm, he is concerned that approval of
this request will increase the chances of more towers being added and prolif-
erating the area. The towers currently in place can be seen from base to the
top. Previously, towers were some distance from entrance corridors, or could
be seen slightly above the tree line. This tower would be wide open to view,
and from the rear, you can see the entire tower. He trusts the engineer's
opinion that telecommunications service is growing, but said this is not the
area to allow the growth. Therefore he cannot support the application.
Mr. Martin also said the tree farm should be discontinued.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board could require that 360 Communications
allow other companies to co-locate and mandate that this is the last tower
that can be added. Mr. Davis said that cannot be required. Mr. Martin noted
that upstart companies are in direct competition with each other. Ms. Thomas
asked if the applicant could volunteer to allow other companies to co-locate
on the tower. Ms. Parker said 360 Communications would accept the condition
to not apply its one-to-one policy to a competitor who wanted to use this
tower.
Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Anderson if there is a limit to the number of
companies that can be located on one tower. Ms. Anderson said a i80-foot
tower can comfortably support three users.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is any limit to the number of towers that
can be placed on this site. Ms. Parker said there will not be a proliferation
of towers. Mr. Larry Bickings, with Sites Unlimited, said he had spoken with
the landowner and an engineer, who told him the whole area is a grounding mat.
The grounding mat comes up to the edge of the compound and is the height of
the tower measured out in a circle on the ground in a wagon wheel shape.
Ms. Humphris said it is important that the County have its own consul-
tant's study done because the Board does not have knowledge of the industry.
Mr. Martin said he trusted 360 Communications to make these decisions, because
they have done what the County asked them to do. He appreciates the money
that has been spent working out the details. However, there is no assurance
this is the only tower that will be erected in this location. He then made
the motion to deny the application.
Ms. Thomas agreed with Mr. Martin and seconded the motion. She said it
is too bad the company cannot use this area, but the Board cannot justify
adding another tower on this site.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this tower would be less intrusive than the five
current towers. Ms. Parker said it would be 180-feet tall, which is 50 feet
shorter than those in place now. It is darker in color, and is self-support-
ing. Lattice-work would support it, not support wires. The tower would be
slightly bigger in diameter at the base. Panels would be added to the tower.
Mr. Perkins asked why this grounding mat would be so much smaller than
the one in place. Ms. Parker said this grounding mat is smaller because the
tower is not a full lightning rod, as are the AM towers.
Mr. Davis said federal law requires that, in order to deny the applica-
tion, there needs to be a written record that is relied upon, as well as
written findings of fact. If the consensus of the Board is to deny the
request, the Board should defer the application to the next meeting so that
the appropriate record can be established. If there is not a consensus to
deny, the Board could proceed with a vote on the motion, and another motion
could be made that does not require a written record. Ms. Humphris said she
does not like having to ask for a consensus, but it is the best the Board can
do.
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000224
Mr. Bowerman said he recognized the arguments that have been made, but
it does not seem to him that any tower, on any other site, as described in the
application, would be any less objectionable than the one proposed. There-
fore, he said he cannot support the motion.
Mr. Perkins agreed with Mr. Bowerman. He wondered if it would be more
acceptable to neighbors and the applicant to put a tree tower in the Ivy area.
Mr. Martin said towers on Route 643 are very intrusive, moreso than in
any other location in the County. Mr. Bowerman said there are no practical
alternatives in how to structure the denial of the request so that it can be
upheld. He questioned whether the Board can say that a sixth tower on a
parcel of land already containing five towers is one step beyond what is
acceptable.
Mr. Martin said these towers are more visible, since they are seen from
top to bottom. The County needs to examine whether a cluster of towers is
desirable in an area where so much of the tower is exposed.
Ms. Humphris said, in an effort to reach consensus, the reasoning used
by the Planning Commission and staff is the impact of these towers, but the
impact is less than if placed where there is not already a tower in place.
Therefore, she cannot support the motion. Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Ms. Thomas said when a tower was proposed at the Ivy Landfill, it was
already an ugly place, but adding one more piece of ugliness was not desir-
able. This seems to be a similar situation. She said she would support the
motion if 360 Communication~ will drop the requirement that other companies
have to trade one-for-one.
Mr. Martin withdrew his motion, and Ms. Thomas withdrew her second.
Ms. Thomas added she would only support a motion if the Board took 360
Communications up on their offer, even though, through no fault of the
company, it is not as generous an offer as desired, due to the limited number
of companies that can co-locate on the tower.
Mr. Davis suggested the following words be included in the subsequent
motion, ~The tower shall be available for co-location for other wireless
communication users, at no greater than fair market rent if siting is neces-
sary for the provision of service in this area by such user and the tower has
capacity for such user." He noted that the applicants said they would be
agreeable to doing so, and would have 30 days in which to appeal the condi-
tion.
Mr. Martin asked if the Board can add a condition that 360 Communica-
tions must plant trees on the backside to shield the base. The applicant said
this was acceptable as long as it does not interfere with the grounding mat.
Mr. Tucker suggested a condition be added that adequate screening be made a
condition of site plan approval, provided it does not interfere with the
grounding mat.
Mr. Bowerman made the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-97-13 subject to the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission,
plus the two conditions added by the Board.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Martin.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Overall height shall not exceed 200 feet;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a
federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to
minimize visibility from the ground;
Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No adminis-
trative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
000225
of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if
they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae
administratively approved under this section;
50
The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to
property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the
tower and components will remain within the lease area;
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for
wireless telecommunication purposes;
The tower shall be available for co-location for other wireless
communication users at no greater than fair market rent, if such
siting is necessary for the provision of service in this area by
such user, and the tower has the capacity for such user; and
8 o
Vegetative screening of the tower shall be provided at site plan
approval, provided that it does not interfere with the grounding
mat.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-97-16. St. Paul's Church (Signs #81&82) .
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend SP-96-54 for St Paul's Church to expand
facilities w/ 2 story addition to existing church on 15.315 acs. Znd VR.
TM58A2,PslT,18&19 (combined). Located on E side of Owensville Rd (Rt 678) at
Ivy. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and
June 30, 1997.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the~.~taff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent p~rt of the record. Staff opinion was that the
request was in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommended approval. Concerns addressed by the condi-
tions are an existing drainage problem with runoff from the site, minor
grading of an embankment to improve sight lines for the northern entrance,
replacing screening at the northern entrance; drainage at the southern
entrance and protecting the historical integrity of the church. Staff
recommended approval of the request subject to four conditions. The applicant
is agreeable to all conditions.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
June 10, 1997, by a vote of 4:0:1, recommended approval of SP-97-16 subject to
the staff's conditions and one additional condition.
Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing.
The engineer for the project, Mr. Mark Keller, was present to answer any
questions from the Board. The special use permit is for a building addition.
Two of the five issues have already been resolved. Mr. Paul Gaertner, the
project's architect, and Mr. David Wood, from St. Paul's Ivy Church, were also
present.
With one else rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-97-16 subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
County Department of Engineering approval of entrance improve-
ments, drainage, erosion control and runoff control;
Staff approval of landscape/screening plan to address replacement
of screening at northern entrance;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of northern en-
trance improvements;
000226
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13) ~
4. Virginia Department of Historic Resources certification that
addition does not detract from the integrity of the existing
historic structure; and
This special use permit is approved for worship and church related
activities only. Day carel pre-school, or other such activities,
shall require amendment to this special use permit.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: October 9, 1996 and June 11,
1997.
Ms. Humphris had read her portion of minutes of October 9, 1996, pages
15 (Item #9) through 26 (Item #10), and, with the exception of some typograph-
ical errors, found them to be in order.
Ms. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the
minutes as read.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Ms. Thomas informed the Board that there will be a public meeting at the
County Office Building the following Tuesday concerning blasting at the Ivy
Landfill.
Ms. Mary Dilborn gave the Board blank petition forms and asked that they
collect signatures in support of a meals tax referendum.
Ms. Humphris asked that someone represent the Board at a news conference
at 8:30 a.m., on July 21, 1997, when JABA announces the public phase of its
funding campaign for their Adult Rehabilitation and Eldercare Center.
Mr. Martin said he would attend.
Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session
At 8:45 p.m. Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into Executive Session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to
consider appointments to a committee and under Subsection (7) to consult with
legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion
and probable litigation regarding claims for attorneys' fees. Mr. Martin
seconded the motion.
Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall
(Note: Mr. Martin left at 9:20 p.m., during the Executive Session.)
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session
At 9:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting require-
ments of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the
executive session.
Approved by
Board
July 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to appoint
the following persons to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee:
Mr. Peter Hallock, Ms. Charlotte Humphris, Mr. Chuck Rotgin,
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Mr. Michael Semanik, Mr. Dennis Rooker, and
Mr. Bruce Dotson. (Note: This committee replaces the previous Fiscal Impact
Committee.)
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. At 9:35 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman