1995-10-11000045
Oct, ober 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on OctOber 11, 1995, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest
R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally
H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
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. Perkins remarked about the number of items listed on the agenda. He
said the room was very crowded, and he asked those people whose agenda item
would be discussed later to make room for the people who were interested in
the things shown on the first part of the agenda. He commented that some type
of political forum is being held in the auditorium, and he suggested that
people could go between the two meetings if they so desire.
Ms. Karen Dame, representing Citizens for Albemarle, mentioned a concern
about the Comprehensive Plan review process. Her organization believes the
Supervisors can make a difference relating to this concern, and members of her
group have observed, and from time to time, have participated within the
ongoing Comprehensive Plan review. They are impressed, and they are grateful
for the careful concern the Planning Commission and staff have dedicated to
this effort. The current section under scrutiny has been something of a free
forum evolution instead of a logically directed process for producing the
document Albemarle County needs. After explaining what is meant by this, she
would like to ask the Board of Supervisors to request the Commission to lay
out a process for the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan review.
Ms. Dame recalled that recently scattered site meetings were held around
the County informing citizens about changes to sum up Chapter Three of the
current Comprehensive Plan. A document was presented entitled, "Proposed
Revision to the Land Use Plan." She said this is not a new draft of the Land
Use Plan, nor is it a full text nor an Executive Summary, but rather it is an
overview of principles, objectives, strategies and standards. This is fine,
except the relationship of this text to the eventual text of the Comprehensive
Plan is undetermined. It is undetermined because there is no working copy of
the Land Use Plan before the public or before the Commission. Over the last
month, sections of the plan have been brought before the Commission. The
Commissioners give direction, make queries and process the text, and then give
it back to staff for revision.
Ms. Dame said the revisions, section by section, do not reappear until
approval of a certain portion of the text is scheduled for approval. Instead,
the review moves forward onto the next section, and another set of directions
and queries take place. The staff members then seek to address these con-
cerns, as well as the first concerns, and they put forth another section of
text for review, etc. Everyone is working very hard, but the process has
spiraled, and no one has seen the current revised text. Many questions were
raised during the Commissioners' discussions but they have been left behind,
buried by this process where no section of Chapter Three goes to completion
before others flood the scene.
Ms. Dame said the members of her organization share a number of these
questions, and they now observe that this evolution of the Land Use Plan is
destined to soon be a finished product. A public hearing date has been
penciled in for November 21, although there is no draft text and no firm date
for presentation of the draft text. She said there have been many work
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000049
(Page 2)
sessions, as well as the scattered site meetings, but no opportunity has
existed for scrutiny nor input into the revised Land Use Plan. Citizens for
Albemarle is an organization giving its input into County discussions, and its
members have been unable to discern the point in the process for their
substantive input, which would represent something beyond a reminder of their
aims for the County. The organization's members think the Commission, the
staff and the public could, at this time, benefit from guidance from the Board
of Supervisors. The value from this guidance would be in terms of making a
more efficient, equitable process for everyone involved and, ultimately, for
producing a quality product.
Ms. Dame next asked the Supervisors to request the Commission and staff
to adopt the following three measures. First, as a means toward moving the
text through the process, she suggested that a parliamentary procedure could
be instituted whereby Commissioners make motions before there is discussion on
a particular point. These motions would lead ultimately to a straw vote on a
particular topic and, therefore, resolve one issue before moving on to the
next. The outcome would be the incremental accumulation of sections of the
revised text which would still be subject to a final round of approval once
the entire chapter has been reviewed.
Second, she said that topics for consideration, listed in the order in
which they will be considered, could then be addressed in the manner described
in Number One. Third, there seems to be the pressure of time on the Commis-
sioners. While an awareness is apparent of the importance of careful consid-
eration of the Comprehensive Plan, which guides 20 years of endeavor in this
County, other pressures are also apparent. There is a pressure to satisfy the
Supervisors, as far as getting something into their hands as soon as possible.
There is also the pressure to address public requests as soon as possible and
to manage all of this before the holiday, the end of the year and the effects
of the election. Her organization's members think it would greatly benefit
the next 60 days of work by the Commission and staff to have the Supervisors'
view of the time frame, as well as their view of how to most effectively
proceed until there is draft text for Chapter Three, and also after draft text
becomes available. She believes this input would certainly benefit the
remainder of the review process.
Mr. Cilimberg said November 21, 1995, has been scheduled for the public
hearing. The Commissioners have the expectation that between now and early
November, they are going to do exactly what is being requested during their
work sessions, and they will make actual decisions on the many elements of the
Land Use Plan. The date for the public hearing was set in order to get the
plan to the Board of Supervisors in December, as well as to allow the Commis-
sion the ability to address the remaining items of the plan before review by
the Commission ends in December. There was a concern raised at the Commission
meeting last night relating to the possible time frame available for the
public to review the draft text. It is hoped this can be done in early
November, which will allow for a two to three-week period in which the draft
text would be available before the public hearing. All of the Commissioners
last night expressed an interest in trying to have the public hearing on
November 21 because there are still a lot of Comprehensive Plan issues with
which they need to deal.
Mr. Cilimberg said a draft land use map was taken to the public meet-
ings, and although it was not a concept map, it related to the Commissioners'
idea of the plan. The document referred to by Mrs. Dame is basically the
principal part of the overall text. He reminded the Supervisors that they did
not adopt every bit of the text when 'they adopted the new Economic Development
Policy. For land use, the Board will be adopting the basic goals, objectives
and strategies. Staff and the Commission are getting to the heart of the
issues, in the hope of avoiding having so many words that the important
elements of the plan are lost. That is the difference between the text being
proposed, and the text in the last plan.
Ms. Dame responded that she still does not know what her organization's
members will have in front of them to review. She asked if the document to
which she referred will be the only thing on which her organization can give
input. The amount of time available is truly not a concern for with whatever
text is finalized. There was concern expressed by the Commissioners last
night that there are topics which have not even been discussed among the
Commissioners. They did not know if there would be time to discuss the rural
areas. There is a great time pressure, and people's questions may not be
answered because of this time pressure.
October ll, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Perkins stated that the goal to complete the Comprehensive Plan has
been set for the end of this year, and that has been the goal for approximate-
ly 18 months. Hopefully, this date can hold, although some things seem to
take more time. There are a lot of pieces to the plan, but they are beginning
to come together.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that he does not think the Commissioners are
going to move forward with anything at the public hearing until they have made
decisions among themselves as to the public comment needed.
Ms. Dame stated that if this strategy is appropriate for County offi-
cials, then she feels that it would help her organization's members to hear
this comment.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the public understands that this timetable is not
something which was developed by the Board of Supervisors. The organization's
members seem to think the Commission is working to meet the Board of Super-
visors' deadline. Mr. Cilimberg responded that this has been somewhat of an
implied deadline. The Commission is feeling a deadline within its body, since
there is the potential that more than one of the Commissioners may not be back
after the end of December. This would make a lot of difference in terms of
effectiveness in completing the work.
Mr. Tucker indicated that the concern of Citizens for Albemarle, as well
as others, seems to be whether or not the staff can complete the draft text in
time for it to be reviewed before November 21. Perhaps the Commission needs
to make a decision indicating that a hearing will not be held without a three
week time period between the time the draft is finished and the time of the
public hearing. He emphasized that this would allow enough review time. The
parliamentary items can be taken back to the Commission by the staff. Budget
items are handled in this manner, and this process makes a lot of sense. Mrs.
Humphris agreed this is a good process which would probably make the situation
better.
Mr. John Carter, a resident of Earlysville, stated that he had three
things to discuss. After studying the same information packet supplied to the
Supervisors and the School Board on the environmental sustainability project
for the new high school, he can only conclude that it has all the earmarks of
a classical con game. Under the enticing remarks of environmentalism, the
Supervisors are asked to put up money now for promises of a return later, they
are told to act immediately before the offer is withdrawn, and to pay a
promoter in the beginning regardless of the outcome. The proposed concepts do
not have a price tag, and none have a pay back estimate.
Mr. Carter mentioned the $2.0 million which he said the Supervisors
approved for start-up costs. In his estimation, the Supervisors have com-
pletely misused their responsibilities as public servants to spend the
people's money wisely and well. There are worse things going on than gambling
with borrowed public money. The Supervisors have brazenly moved in and taken
over the responsibility of the School Board. The Supervisors have decided
where to locate the new high school, and now they are interfering in its
design and construction costs. He wondered about the sudden concern for the
business of the School Board, and he emphasized that this is School Board
business and not the business of the Board of Supervisors. He can think of no
other reason for this except that school boards are now going to be elected by
the people instead of being selected by the Supervisors. He is also troubled
by the fact that the public has been arbitrarily shut out of any participation
in the Supervisors' decision to accept an environmental experiment of indeter-
minate cost and unknown benefits, using the new high school as the guinea pig.
Mr. Carter said he wanted to get the following comment on the record.
He asks the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to call the Board on the
question of whether or not the Supervisors would approve of a public meeting
to elicit comments on participating in an environmental sustainability project
for the new high school. This is not a matter of seeking to change the
decision, it is simply a matter of allowing the public to speak. He asks that
the Chairman not tell him a decision has already been made. He said the
matter will have to be handled in the same manner as budgets, and he empha-
sized that the citizens are always the last ones to get budget information.
He is trying to move the public into the beginning of a broad policy decision
before the matter is approved. He would like to know how the Supervisors
stand, as far as letting the public speak on this issue.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) O000~i
(Page 4)
Mr. Perkins responded that there will be public hearings, particularly
with the Capital Improvements Program budget, and he also has no objections to
having other public hearings. This issue needs to be aired before the public
as much as possible. By doing this, he thinks the County will get a better
job from the people who have been selected for this project.
Mr. Carter commented that the County would get a better job if the
public had been given a chance to say something before everything was already
done. This is his request.
Mr. Perkins replied that there have been an untold number of meetings,
and although he has not been able to attend some of them, other Board members
have been there. A number of the members of the public have also attended
these meetings. He wondered if another Board member would like to speak to
this issue.
Mr. Carter asked if Mr. Perkins would approve of one more meeting. Mr.
Perkins answered that he would be happy to hold another meeting.
Mr. Carter then asked if Mrs. Humphris would be agreeable to another
meeting. He said he would poll the Board members if Mr. Perkins would not.
Mr. Perkins stated that the Board of Supervisors does not operate in this
fashion. If a member of the Board wants to make a motion to set another
public hearing, then a date can be set for one.
Mr. Carter asked if he hears a motion from the Board. Mr. Perkins
reminded Mr. Carter that it is not his job to ask for a motion. Mr. Perkins
then suggested that if Mr. Carter was finished with his presentation, the next
person could speak. Mr. Carter stated that since he did not hear a motion, it
must mean that the Board doesn't agree to have a public meeting on this
matter.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he would like to make a point. He recalled
Mr. Carter's statement that the Supervisors had already approved $2.0 million
for expenditures. Mr. Marshall emphasized that this is not true because he
was very emphatic about the fact that he was not going to spend $2.0 million
unless he knew how the money was going to be used. He was told he was voting
on an issue to be studied, and if it didn't work out, the money would not be
spent.
Mr. Carter stated that Mr. Marshall voted on a motion to approve $2.0
million. Mr. Marshall disagreed. He said he voted for a motion to approve
authorization for the School Board to look into the possibility of spending
$2.0 million. Mr. Carter said he would tell Mr. Marshall what the motion in-
volved although he does not know what the salesmen told the Board. He said
the Supervisors adopted a resolution to accept the Environmental Technology
Leadership Challenge to spotlight the project, and they acknowledged the $2.0
million total cost of the sustainable design for the new high school. He
asked if this refreshes Mr. Marshall's memory.
Mr. Perkins explained that the $2.0 million has to be proven through the
Capital Improvements Program. The money has not been appropriated by this
Board, and this is the reason the Supervisors are involved with building
buildings. This Board has been involved with buildings at times in the past,
it is not entirely the School Board's responsibility.
Mr. Carter inquired if Mr. Perkins thinks it is the duty of this Board
to build and construct schools. Mr. Perkins replied that when the Supervisors
have to appropriate money, constructing schools is their responsibility. Mr.
Carter disagreed. He thinks this project is the responsibility of the School
Board.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that it was time to move forward with the
meeting.
Mr. Perkins told Mr. Carter that comments from the public on non-agenda
items are limited to five minutes, and Mr. Carter had gone over his time
limit. Mr. Carter said if his time is limited to five minutes, then the
Chairman should tell him in the beginning. The Supervisors should not try to
pull this type of thing on him anymore. He only has one more thing to say to
the Supervisors who think it is their job to build schools. He read from the
Code of Virginia that one of the School Board's responsibilities is to care
for, manage and control the property of the school division and provide for
000052
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5) ~ i
the electing, furnishing and equipPing of necessary school buildings. He
reiterated that the Supervisors have just taken over this issue.
Mr. Perkins called attention to the guidelines listed on the back of the
Board's agenda. He noted the statement which indicated that each person
wishing to speak under "Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda" would be
limited to five minutes. He emphasized that this regulation has always been a
part of the guidelines for agenda items, and he thanked Mr. Carter for his
time. Mr. Carter asked if he had gone over the time limit, as usual. Mr.
Perkins answered affirmatively.
Mr. Roland Stanton indicated that he would limit his comments to five
minutes, and he asked why a sustainable high school is a good idea. Based on
existing facilities, the best that can be done with operating costs to heat
and put utilities in a building is about $80,000 a year. The $2.0 million put
into the Capital Improvements Program budgeting process will take 25 years to
pay back with no interest, but it will take 50 years to pay back if the money
is borrowed. He has read all of the materials prepared by the consultant, and
taken a lot of time to analyze these materials. He finds no reality in this
information. He mentioned that he spent a number of years in sales and
marketing, and he understands how easy it is to get caught up in new things.
He used to create this type of excitement in order to sell things to people.
Mr. Stanton suggested that during this type of development, extra
caution needs to be taken and questions need to be asked, and they should not
be asked only to the people who are presenting the matter. Deficit spending
for any reason, is neither logical nor productive. Borrowing from the future,
as the Supervisors have done to pay for the initial $15.0 million, and then
adding additional deficit spending is intolerable. He will not argue the
point of whether or not it is this Board's responsibility to make the motion
and approve it, because that point does not worry him. What is important is
the fact that the Supervisors chose to say they will spend a significant
number of dollars in an area of education without considering any of the
alternatives or even understanding the more critical issues within the school
system. Sustainable quality is a far higher goal than dreaming about a
building.
Mr. Stanton said that not all of the children in Albemarle County
receive a quality education. He has said this same thing to the members of
the School Board, and he recalled a report which he created last fall showing
in black and white that all of the children do not receive a quality educa-
tion. He emphasized that that issue i__s the job of the School Board and the
job of the County as a whole, and it is what has to be done. In the future,
before a decision is made to spend some money on the educational system, the
Supervisors should look to see what the educational system really needs. He
does not think a sustainable building is needed.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.2a on the
Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution requesting acceptance of Moubry Way in
Forest Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following
resolution was adopted by the vote set out above.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Ridge Subdivision described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 11, 1995,
fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats record-
ed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
000053
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Forest Ridge Subdivision as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 11, 1995, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street
Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Moubry Way from Station 0+10, right edge of pavement
of State Route 649, 1158 lineal feet to Station 11+68,
back of the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded
12/7/94 in Deed Book 1444, pages 422-425 in the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
showing a 50 foot right-of-way, for a total length of
0.22 mile.
Item 5.2. Adopt Resolution requesting acceptance of Austin Drive and
Wren Court in Briarwood Subdivision, and the relocated portion of State Route
606 into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following
resolution was adopted by the recorded vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Briarwood Subdivision described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 11, 1995, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Briarwood Subdivision as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 11, 1995, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
OOO054
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
2)
3)
Austin Drive from Station 11+26.80, 1066 lineal feet
to Station 21+93 as shown on plat recorded 9/6/83 in
Deed Book 775, pages 587-590 in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County showing
a 50 foot right-of-way, with drainage easement record-
ed 9/26/95 in Deed Book 1494, page 136, for a total
length of 0.20 mile.
Wren Court from Station 0+19, left edge of pavement of
Austin Drive, 727 lineal feet to Station 7+45.96, left
edge of pavement of Austin Drive as shown on a plat
recorded 9/6/83 in Deed Book 775, pages 587-550 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County showing a 40 foot right-of-way with additional
right-of-way recorded 12/27/90 in Deed Book 1134,
pages 16-18, for a total length of 0.14 mile.
Relocated portion of State Route 606 from Station
3+15.79, 976 lineal feet to Station 12+92.12 with a
right-of-way varying from 60 feet to 70 feet as shown
on plat recorded 9/6/83 in Deed Book 775, pages 587-
590, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County with drainage easement recorded
9/26/95 in Deed Book 1494, page 136, for a total
length of 0.18 mile.
Total length - 0.52 mile.
Item 5.2a. Adopt Resolution requesting acceptance of Stoney Creek Drive
and Starcrest Road in Mill Creek Subdivision into the State Secondary System
of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following
resolution was adopted by the recorded vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Mill Creek Subdivision - Section 8
(SUB-90-025) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated October 11, 1995, fully incorporated herein by reference,
are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Mill Creek Subdivision - Section 8
(SUB-90-025) as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated October 11, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
000055
1)
Stoney Creek Drive from Station 15+87, 1275 lineal
feet to Station 64+62, rear of the cul-de-sac as shown
on plat recorded 6/30/94 in Deed Book 1414, pages 600-
608, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County with a 50 foot right-of-way, with
drainage easement shown on plat recorded 9/28/95 in
Deed Book 1495, pages 449-452, for a total length of
0.24 mile.
2)
Starcrest Road from Station i0+10, right edge of pave-
ment of Stoney Creek Drive, 795 lineal feet to Station
18+05, rear of the cul-de-sac as shown on plat record-
ed 6/30/94 in Deed Book 1414, pages 600-608, in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County with a 50 foot right-of-way, with drainage
easement shown on plat recorded 9/28/95 in Deed Book
1495, pages 56-59, for a total length of 0.15 mile.
Total length - 0.39 mile
Item 5.3. Copies of Minutes of the Albemarle County Planning Commission
for August 15, August 29, September 12 and September 19, 1995, were received
for information.
Item 5.4. Copy of the following Statements showing the Equalized
Assessed Value as of the beginning of the First Day of January, 1995, for the
follows properties (all statements on file in the Clerk's Office), was
received for information:
a. Telecommunications Companies;
b. Water Corporations;
c. Gas and Pipeline Distribution Corporations; and
d. Electric Light and Power Corporations.
Item 5.5. Copy of FY 1996-97 Proposed Budget Calendar was received for
information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-95-20. Centel Cellular. Public Hearing on a
request to construct a cellular communication tower & support buildings on
approx 43 ac zoned RA & EC. Located in SW corner of inters of 1-64 & 637.
TM74, P14A. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a designated
growth area [Rural Area 3].) (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in
the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report relating to a special use
request from the Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville which is proposing
to locate a cellular tower and support facilities near Interstate Route 64
within an area of mature hardwoods. The tower design is different because
branches are proposed which are intended to imitate a tree. He noted that
neither the staff nor the Planning Commission are recommending approval of
this request.
Mr. Dick Gibson, from the Law Firm of Tremblay and Smith, LLP, repre-
sented the applicant. He explained that Centel Cellular does business under
the name of Sprint. Centel Cellular is a public utility and requires facili-
ties of the type being proposed tonight in order to provide service to the
public. He introduced the following people in the audience: Mr. I. Ewald,
representing the owner, who will also make some remarks; Mr. Tank, who is from
Sprint and is the senior engineer for the project in this area; Mr. Mike Vega,
Project Engineer; Mr. Clifford Shaffer, Real Estate Administrator; Mr. Larry
Bickings, who has charge of site acquisition; Ms. Kelly Truax, General Manager
in Central Virginia; and Mr. Dean Grower, who is an engineer for Sprint.
Mr. Gibson said he sent a letter to the Supervisors and staff in which
he covered a lot of the details. This project follows the project proposed
for the Ivy Landfill, where company representatives were very focused on
meeting the concerns of the County's Architectural Review Board (ARB), because
the site was in the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay district. In addressing
this concern, company representatives were careful to locate the proposed
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000056
landfill tower off of 1-64 and received the endorsement of the ARB. However,
they didn't realize there would be so much opposition in the Ivy valley to the
Landfill itself, and they became a part of that disagreement by accident.
Mr. Gibson said when the application was presented, some of the members
of the Commission suggested that the facility be moved closer to 1-64 where,
if it was going to be seen, it would be seen by the people who were needing
the service. It would also be moved away from residential areas. He empha-
sized that this was not a formal motion, but there was a nodding of the heads
by the Commissioners after it was suggested, so this was taken as a hint to
proceed in that direction. After the Board of Supervisors denied the applica-
tion for the first site at the Ivy Landfill, a search was started for a site
closer to 1-64, which is where the project is proposed at this time. He noted
the dilemma of trying to satisfy the concerns of the residents, as well as the
concerns of the EC District. It makes sense from a coverage standpoint for
conveniences such as interstate highways and cellular towers to be in proximi-
ty to each other. This is where the requirements of the EC District take
effect.
Mr. Gibson said Sprint representatives have now designed a tree tower,
with the help of others, and the proposal is to make a standard monopole look
as though it is a tree by attaching limbs to it. This is a very expensive
proposition, but it has been done successfully in other jurisdictions. There
is only one other tower such as this in the Sprint system, and it is in
Charleston, South Carolina. That tree tower is near a historic trust proper-
ty, and it has been well received. There are only a few such towers in the
country, but they have been well received by communities as a way to balance
the preservationists' interest with that of progress.
Mr. Gibson next indicated that he would like to refresh everybody's
memory about some facts and figures relating to cellular service so the
importance of this tower to Sprint can be understood, and more importantly, to
the people Sprint serves. The cellular business has been growing at a
tremendous rate, and it continues to grow at an approximate 50 percent rate
per year locally as well as on the national level. There are 28,000 new
cellular telephone subscribers added every day on a nationwide basis. Of all
of the new telephone numbers assigned, two-thirds are assigned for cellular
telephone service, and only one-third for conventional land line telephones.
The cellular industry reached an important milestone earlier this year by
accomplishing a ten percent population penetration when customer number 25.0
million signed for service. The cellular industry reached a ten percent
penetration in 11 years as compared to 68 years for land line phones. When
the cellular industry started off, service was fairly expensive, so it was
used mainly by businesses. Prices started coming down, individuals became
interested, and now most of the phones are purchased by individuals as opposed
to businesses. Two-thirds of the purchases are by individuals who want
cellular phones for their personal safety and convenience.
Mr. Gibson said it is obvious that cellular service is no longer
considered a luxury or a toy of the wealthy or business people. Cellular
phones have become a necessity for everyday people, but they still remain an
important commodity for the business community. Any community wanting to
ensure a good business base is going to be interested in having good cellular
telephone coverage, and he noted that practically all businesses use them. He
mentioned that another reason for having cellular service is for emergency
response. People who are driving along the road can dial 911 to summon help.
Sprint officials allow local governments to locate their emergency communica-
tions equipment on Sprint facilities at no cost and portables are loaned for
emergencies.
Mr. Gibson said Sprint representatives have been asked how many times
they will be back before this Board asking for additional towers. A three-
year plan has been developed, which is the best engineering consensus based on
information known today. This plan will not necessarily be in effect forever
because the market and the need for towers is driven by customers demands.
Sprint officials can only construct the towers, see what customers demand, and
react to those demands.
Mr. Gibson said their three-year plan for 1-64 West will involve the
Bloomfield site, which is the proposal being presented tonight; Yancey's Mill,
which is further to the west; as well as the possibility of a third site at
the Albemarle County/Nelson County boundary line in order to provide continu-
ous coverage from Charlottesville to western Albemarle County. To the east,
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000057
Mr. Gibson mentioned that one site is being considered for Zion Crossroads,
although it is uncertain whether that site will be located in Fluvanna, Louisa
or Albemarle County. There is a need for better coverage in that area. As
far as Route 29 South is concerned, a tower is planned for the Hickory Hill
area, as well as one for the Red Hill area. These two towers might be com-
bined depending on whether or not the engineer can design one tower to handle
both areas. Another tower has been planned for the Covesville area. He said
nothing else is planned for Route 29 North since that coverage is good, with
the help of the Airport site this Board approved earlier this year.
Mr. Gibson commented that Sprint representatives are before this Board
tonight because there is a dead spot existing in the coverage area along 1-64
West. The center point of the dead spot is near the rest stop just west of
the Ivy interchange, in an approximate two to three-mile radius in either
direction of the rest stop. There is "good to scratchy" mobile coverage,
which is a three-watt coverage with the antennae on the roof of the automo-
bile, but there is essentially poor to nonexistent portable coverage for hand
held units which are six-tenths of a watt. This is creating the need for the
proposed facility.
Mr. Gibson said there has been an intensive search in the area, and he
reiterated that Sprint representatives were not allowed to put a tower on the
Ivy Landfill site. This plan is the best which can be developed in this area
because it locates the tower as far away from residents as possible, but it
will still provide the required coverage. Their coverage objective is to
provide good portable coverage between the Camp Holiday Trails site and the
Bucks Elbow Mountain site, which are to the east and west of the proposed
location. He then distributed computer-generated models to show where there
would be coverage with and without the addition of the proposed site.
(Mr. Martin left the room at 7:43 p.m.)
Mr. Gibson went on to say that this project involves a structure with an
overall height of 129 feet including the addition of the antenna on top and
the lightning rod, although the pole itself will only be 118 feet in height.
The pole will be painted a rust brown color and there will be various antennae
mounted on the pole. He also has photographs of the pole showing how the
antennae and the tree branches are mounted. There will be a six-panel
antennae, as well as three whip antennae, and there will be a lightning rod on
top. There will not be a dish antenna on this site. The site will not be
lit, it will be located 180 feet from 1-64 and 1000 feet from the nearest
dwelling. The site is near an existing utility line so the power for the site
will come from this line. Interstate 64 is a busy highway with many manmade
structures, manmade visual intrusions along the corridor.
Mr. Gibson said he had a number of exhibits representing the visual
impact of the tower to share with the Board members since he thinks most of
the concerns relate to the visual impact. He showed aerial shots taken from
different points indicating that the site is in a heavily wooded area, and
most of the facility is going to be masked by existing trees. In order to
determine the visibility of this facility, Sprint representatives conducted a
balloon test. He explained that a balloon was floated on a clear day when no
wind was blowing, to a height which would be the same as the top of the tower.
Sprint representatives drove to all vantage points along 1-64, as well as all
of the roads surrounding the area, and took photographs where the balloons
were visible. He talked about an illustration resulting from the balloon
study. Three balloons were used, and they were two inches (later, he correct-
ed this to be two feet) in diameter. They was a metallic silver on one side
and a dark color on the other side. It was hoped that the reflection of the
sun or the darkness against the skyline would ensure visibility of the
balloons from all potential vantage points.
(Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 7:47 p.m.)
As far as visibility from the residential areas was concerned, Mr.
Gibson said the photographs indicate that the balloons were barely visible
from only one lot in Rosemont, and they were not visible at all from Peacock
Hill. The balloons were visible from three to four lots in Langford, which is
clearly the residential area with the greatest visibility. If vehicles were
traveling west on 1-64, the balloons were visible intermittently at the tree
top level for a total time of approximately 25 seconds. Traveling 1-64 East,
the balloons would be continuously visible for approximately one mile, or one
minute, at heights of 40 feet above the tree.tops. He asked the Supervisors
000058
October 11, 1995 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting)
(Page 11) ~.
to keep in mind that these tests were done with balloons, and the monopole
will be designed to resemble a tree, causing it to blend in with the surround-
lng topography.
Mr. Gibson also had with him a photo montage. The tree tower was
superimposed onto these photographs in the spot where the tower would be
located. Although these are the same photographs included in the letter sent
to Board members, he distributed them again. The final visual aid represents
an existing tree tower in Charleston, South Carolina, which is in the center
of the picture. This is a different type of tree tower than the one in the
photograph distributed to the Board. The tower in the other photograph
resembles a white pine, and this one resembles a Loblolly pine. Sprint
Company offers both designs, and Sprint officials are happy to construct a
plain monopole or have it resemble a white pine or a Loblolly pine, or
whatever people think is the least visually intrusive. There are also
photographs showing the relationship of the branches and the panel antennae.
He called attention to close-up views of the branches to show that they look
as though they are real tree branches.
In summary, Mr. Gibson stated that as far as the EC District is con-
cerned, the proposed tree tower is an attempt to address this concern. He
remarked that people driving along 1-64 at 65 miles per hour are hardly going
to notice if a tree tower is present. They may or may not notice a monopole,
and although they probably would not notice it going west, they probably would
notice it going east. With the monopole being disguised as a tree, the
likelihood of anybody noticing it will be slim. Sprint officials feel they
have gone the extra mile to address this concern, as well as concern for the
EC District. As far as the residents' concerns, he noted that the tower site
has been proposed to be moved closer to 1-64 as was suggested. He again
mentioned the Rosemont lot from which the tower can be seen. By using the
proposed tree tower treatment, the balloons are below the tree line, and there
is a tree line in front of the balloons and one in back of them. The front
tree line will block all except a small section of the top of the tower, and
the back tree line will be a mask against which the tree tower will be seen,
and it will blend into the back tree line. He thinks the residents' concerns
have been adequately addressed by this tree tower proposal.
Mr. Gibson said that at the Commission meeting there was significant
opposition expressed. There were some contentious remarks about people from
Chicago telling the citizens of Albemarle County what is right for them. This
is certainly not the case, and he noted that the Sprint engineers and other
people are here from Chicago only to address concerns and answer questions.
Sprint representatives decided they would determine what their customers
wanted and rather than be perceived as people who were trying to tell Albe-
marle County citizens what they think is best for them, Sprint representatives
determined that the best thing would be to let their customers answer the
question of what they want.
Mr. Gibson said that in an effort to solicit support of its proposal,
Sprint officials sent a letter to approximately 7000 of its customers. There
were 975 returns, with 969 marked in favor of the tower, and only six marked
against the project. He wanted to make it clear that the letter only request-
ed support, just as the opposition to this Project would be entitled to enlist
opposition. Mr. Gibson pointed out that the percentage of returns is signifi-
cant because it was a 13.6 percent return. He has been told by people who are
experienced with these types of surveys, that it is considered a good return
if there is a two-percent return on a mass mailing of this type. Ms. Kelly
Truax conducted the survey, and she has a couple of things to share with the
Board, including the post card survey itself. The results have been tabulat-
ed, and Ms. Truax can speak to these. She also has a few post cards on which
people have written notes, and she would like to read them to the Board.
Ms. Kelly Truax, General Manager for Sprint Cellular in Central Virgin-
ia, stated that she would like to share the survey post cards with the Board
members. She would also share some written responses in addition to the
general information that was requested. She then read into the record
comments made by a number of customers on the postcards. Next, Ms. Truax read
some letters in support of the Sprint Cellular proposed tower in the Ivy/
Bloomfield area which were written by customers and citizens who have asked
her to share this information with the Supervisors since they could not attend
this meeting (see letters dated October 12, 1995, addressed to Sprint Cellular
from Mr. William L. Howard, President of Real Estate III; and Mr. Charles A.
Kabbash, also of Real Estate III. See letter dated October 11, 1995, to Kelly
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12) ·
000059
Truax, General Manager of Sprint Cellular, from Mr. R. V. Finley, of Dick
Woods Road. See letters dated September 12, 1995, to the Albemarle County
Planning Commission from Janice Stargell, a home-based business owner; and
Dick P. Kastra, who holds a position with the Virginia Student Aid Foundation.
See letters dated September 27 1995, to the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
sors from Ann T. Wood, a realtor; and October 11, 1995, from Kyle J. Denzel,
General Manager of Virginia Sports Marketing) . ~
Mr. Gibson mentioned that copies of these letters are available for the
Board members, and he reiterated the need for a tower in this area; engineers
and customers have confirmed this fact. Sprint Cellular officials have
solicited support from their customers, and their customers have overwhelming-
ly endorsed the need for this facility. Sprint officials would not be
investing the type of money they are intending to invest were it not for the
need. The cell sites cost approximately $1.0 million each, which is a
significant sum of money. Although people may say a need does not exist, and
they may indicate that they can get phone coverage, the fact remains that
there are many people who cannot get cellular coverage. Sprint officials have
gone the extra mile to try to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the govern-
ment and citizens of Albemarle County. The tree tower proposal, which is
approximately three times as expensive as the conventional monopole structure,
is really going much further than the normal process.
Mr. Gibson remarked that in the spirit of being a good community
citizen-Zen, the Sprint Company is proposing a tree tower which should satisfy
any legitimate concerns of either motorists on 1-64 or people who are living
in the area. The fact remains that people who are traveling 65 miles per hour
on 1-64 are not going to see the tower. Once it is constructed and has the
appearance of a tree, the only people in the residential area who will be
affected are in the Langford Subdivision. He reminded Board members that they
have seen from the photos and the photo montage how the tower will look to
these people, and it will look as though it is another tall tree. Sprint
officials have gone the extra mile to meet the concerns, and the criteria has
been satisfied for obtaining a special use permit. Sprint officials will be
very grateful if the Supervisors approve this request.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the dead spot appears to be a very small area.
He inquired if the structure is designed taller than it should be just to
cover this area. Mr. Gibson replied, "no."
Mr. Bowerman asked how high above the tree line the proposed tower will
be built. Mr. Gibson responded that, including the tip of the lightning rod,
the tree tower will extend 30 or 40 feet above the trees. He recalled that
this point was addressed at the beginning of this process, and knowing height
was going to be a consideration, the engineers designed the tower to the
lowest possible height to provide coverage in the area of the dead spot.
There is no need to extend the structure beyond its planned height, because
the areas beyond this tower are covered by the other two sites.
Mrs. Humphris asked if this is a replacement for the landfill site. Mr.
Gibson answered that the 1-64 site is part of the replacement, but it is not a
direct replacement for the Ivy Landfill site.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if the spot that has no coverage is due to the
limitation of portable phones and not mobile phones. Mr. Gibson replied that
mobile phone coverage is "good to scratchy" in this area, and portable phone
coverage is poor to nonexistent.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the diameter of the test balloons. Mr. Gibson
responded that the balloons used for the test were two feet in diameter. Mr.
Bowerman, Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris recalled that Mr. Gibson had indicated
the balloons were two inches in diameter when he made his presentation earlier
in the meeting. Mr. Gibson apologized for his error, and he reiterated that
the balloons were two feet in diameter. He went on to describe the balloons
by saying they are the large, round birthday balloons which can be purchased
at Kroger's.
Mrs. Humphris said she appreciated Mr. Gibson's description of Sprint's
three-year plan. She wondered if the seven additional sites are all being
planned because of the limitation of portable phones. Mr. Gibson replied that
he has a mobile phone, as well as a portable phone, and he has trouble in some
of these spots with both of them. He asked Ms. Truax to make further comments
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000060
(Page 13)
on Mrs. Humphris' inquiry. Ms. Truax responded that these sites are being
planned because of a combination of coverage issues.
There were no further questions from Board members at this time, so Mr.
Perkins opened the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Richard Martin remarked that he is an employee of the Police
Department, although he is not speaking in this capacity tonight. He is
speaking as a citizen and as a user of cellular phones. He agreed with Mr.
Gibson's comments about the coverage from the Ivy interchange west to Yancey's
Mill. He has an installed phone in his vehicle, as well as a hand held phone.
The hand held phone is totally useless in the vehicle halfway down Ragged
Mountain and almost to Yancey's Mill, and it is almost totally useless out of
the vehicle. A three-watt phone installed in the vehicle does not have good
communication in some places either. Whether it is a tree tower or a monopole
tower, coverage is needed in this area, and he feels the Supervisors need to
work on this matter with Sprint representatives. The American public has
started to depend on cellular phones, and they have gone from being a useful
commodity to being a necessity. Cellular service is advertised nationwide as
a safety item for families when they travel. People buy a bag phone, throw it
in the seat of their car, and depend on it to dial 911 when there is a
problem. They also depend on it to call Triple A if the car breaks down.
Safety on the highways has decreased.
From a personal standpoint, Mr. Martin indicated that fire, rescue,
police and emergency services are relying more and more on cellular telephones
for senior management. He referred to a fire at apartments in the University
area on July 4, when the elderly people had to be moved. Cellular phones were
used for coordinating transportation needs and opening of shelters. He
complimented Sprint officials by saying they were called and asked if there
were extra cellular phones available, and they delivered them to the scene.
There have been other law enforcement emergencies where the cellular phone
becomes a very useful tool because it has a higher level of security than an
ambulance radio, a fire truck radio or a police radio. Cellular phones are
becoming more and more of a necessity. At one time they were thought of as a
convenience, but now they are a necessity.
Mr. Martin said when he leaves Richmond, Virginia, his cellular phone
does well until he reaches a spot at Zion Crossroads where the service
switches from Centel to Sprint. After this spot, his cellular phone does fine
until he reaches the area from the Ivy interchange to just west of the Mechum
River. After that lapse in service, it becomes a useful tool again. However
it can be done, he thinks phone coverage is needed in the western part of the
County.
Mr. Marshall asked if there are police officers who have need for the
six-tenths phone wattage in that area. Mr. Richard Martin replied that Sprint
installed a star number for the Police Department, and he emphasized that this
is something the Sprint Company has done for the community. This star number
can be used by all citizens, or police officers, to dial the police adminis-
tration office which is located in the County Office Building. That is a toll
free call. This encouraged a lot of the police officers to buy cellular
phones, and most of them bought the hand held phones. The police officers
carry them while they are on duty, and when they need information from the
office which is not allowable on the police radio, they will use the star
number to call the office. Police officers also use these type of phones in
their personal lives. In this way, they can have full cellular service which
is something the County cannot afford to furnish to them.
Mr. Marshall asked if police officers are using the six-tenths phone
wattage coverage while they are on duty for the health and safety of the
County citizens. Mr. Martin answered affirmatively. He noted that police
officers also have the phones for their personal use. A lot of the officers
have bought the six-tenths wattage phones, and they hang them on the partition
in the police cars. They use the star number often, and some of them will
actually make calls which cost them money. These calls can relate to such
things as returning a citizen's call or handling a citizen's problem. He
noted that officers also allow citizens to use their cellular phone to call
Triple A or to get a needed service. The police will use their radios to help
people call home when necessary.
Mr. Marshall wondered if the fire companies and rescue squads use these
phones in the same manner. Mr. Richard Martin replied that the fire command
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
0006:1.
cars all have cellular telephones, and almost all of the volunteer companies
have at least two cellular phones. The rescue squad has several cellular
phones which are used as command phones for coordination purposes at the scene
of major accidents. Fire, police and rescue personnel are using cellular
phones in their provision of services.
Mr. Forrest Miller, a Sprint cellular customer, said he came to the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area in 1963, and has lived in Albemarle County for
27 years. Year after year he has been appalled by the erosion of the quality
of the visual environment in Albemarle County, environment which helped lure
him here. Much of the erosion has been the result of commercial growth.
Plans to erect a series of cellular transmission towers 40 feet above the
average existing tree line is, in his opinion, an exceptionally bad expansion
of this destructive activity. It is bad enough to watch the transformation of
woods and fields to shopping centers, and it is an unacceptable and senseless
addition of insult to injury to allow further contamination of the County's
unparalleled view scapes. He commented that when he lifts up his eyes to the
hills, he would rather not have to be reminded of Sprint Cellular's business
operation. Sprint Cellular has a right to manage its business in a way which
is sensitive to the beauty and character of Albemarle County, but it does not
have the right to manage its business in a way that despoils the visual
environment to Albemarle County citizens whether or not they are Sprint
Cellular subscribers. He asked the Supervisors not to approve the erection of
the proposed tower. Mr. Miller said he also got a post card from Sprint
Cellular officials, and he wrote a negative comment across it. This is a
rich, as well as the most technologically advanced country in the world, and
there are ways to manage this public service without erecting towers 40 feet
above the tree line so that everyone can see them.
Mr. Bruce Hogue spoke against the tower. He informed the Board members
that the proposed tower would be located right behind his house, and he would
be looking at it forever. He mentioned that Mr. Ewald has agreed to locate
the tower on a piece of his property where he (Mr. Ewald) will not have to
look at it. Mr. Hogue said the people in Langford Subdivision and the
subdivision next to Langford, as well as the people in Spring Hill, will all
be able to see this tower. He emphasized that the neighbors who live next to
him will have to look at this tower all of the time. This is a densely
populated area, and the tower is proposed to be built in the middle of it.
The tower could be built in a location at the Landfill or further west. He
next referred to Mr. Finley's letter by saying that Mr. Finley grew up in this
area as a child and moved away in the early 1930s, if not before. Mr. Finley
came back as a retired minister, but he cannot see the tower from where he
lives. Mr. Hogue asked that the Supervisors not approve the tower for this
densely populated area, which is still growing.
Mr. Joel Loving, a resident of Albemarle County, remarked that he is
speaking against the proposed cellular tower, and he does not understand why
this meeting is being held. Centel Cellular Company had permission from this
body to erect a tower which would provide a slightly better service for the
small number of portable phone users in the area. The approved site, referred
to as the Bear Den Mountain, was behind The Rocks Farm on the southeast border
'of the Ivy Valley where it could be neatly nestled into the surrounding trees.
It would not have to stick up 130 feet in the air. This site would not
represent an eyesore to the thousands of visitors and the hundreds of neigh-
bors who will see this tower every single day, if it is located in the center
of Albemarle County's nice valley.
Mr. Loving recalled that the Sprint Cellular representative who stated
that the Bloomfield site is the only one available did not state a fact. It
appears the Bloomfield location is a cheaper place to build a tower but,
without a doubt, it will be much more costly to the residents who will be
living within the shadow of this tower. He went on to say that Sprint Company
representatives are asking for permission to save the expense of erecting the
tower where it should be located, but the local community will pay the
difference by virtue of the permanent presence of a structure that in no way
could ever be in harmony with this part of the countryside. This is true no
matter whether the tower is made to resemble a Loblolty pine, cedar tree or
any other fake variety.
Mr. Loving said the Board members have been privy to the photographs
favoring this tower, and he would now like for them to look at a few of his
pictures. Mr. Loving pointed out that these photographs were taken a few days
ago, and based on the photos of the South Carolina tree tower presented by
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Centel representatives at the Commission meeting last month. He has taken the
liberty of superimposing the tree tower into these snapshots taken in and
around the Ivy valley area. He mentioned that the first photographs were
taken at the entrance to the Langford Farm Subdivision. One photo depicts the
current scene when leaving the neighborhood, and another shows a tower in
place. He noted that there are 30 families living in this immediate neighbor-
hood, none of whom would be able to avoid the stark presence of this 130 foot
tower every single time they come to a stop at this intersection. The public
was told at the Commission meeting by Sprint Cellular representatives that the
tower would be 800 feet from the nearest occupied dwelling. He reminded Board
members that this tower is proposed to be 130 feet tall, and it would only
take six of the towers placed end to end to represent the very short distance
from the tower to the nearest home.
Mr. Loving showed a photograph taken along 1-64 at the proposed Bloom-
field site. He noted that the truck parked at the bottom of the picture is on
the shoulder of the road, and it is a six-foot tall truck from the road to the
top of the cab. Since the ground level of the site is slightly above the
grade of the interstate at this point, to reach the top of the proposed 130
foot tower, 25 of these trucks would have to be stacked one on top of the
other. He emphasized that the tower is a great deal taller than the tree
line, and it will be an extremely conspicuous Loblolly pine. He would really
like to know where the other Loblolly pines and cedar trees are on this site,
which would allow the tower to blend into the existing foliage. He sees no
pines or cedars in the area, and the trees located there will likely lose
their leaves every fall. If a 130 foot Loblolly pine towering to 40 feet over
the mature oaks below looks unusual during the summer season, think of what it
will look like once the leaves fall. He said the previously approved Bear Den
Mountain site would nestle the tower into the existing trees without drawing
attention to its presence. There would be no distraction to interstate
travelers, and no neighbors would have to live within the shadow of a 130-foot
artificial tree. The request for the Bloomfield cellular site can be reject-
ed, and he emphasized that it should not be the role of local government to
make it more cost-effective for a company to operate at the expense of the
community it has been selected to represent. Mr. Loving said Sprint Cellular
seems to be willing to spend thousands of dollars to make their proposed tower
look like a 130-foot pine tree. They should be willing to spend the money
necessary to erect the tower where it would do the least harm to the members
of the community. He said a vast majority of Albemarle County citizens do
not have a cellular phone, but everyone has access to the views and the rural
character of the countryside. He wondered why so many people should suffer
for the sake of saving Sprint the expense of building a small road to a much
better site.
Ms. Kathy Verel, a resident of Langford Farms Subdivision, stated that
she is a resident of the little neighborhood where the tower would be visible
every day. When she built her home in Langford Farms, she knew about the
interstate, and she wrestled with whether or not her family could live with
the noise. She knew what was proposed for the Landfill eight or ten years
ago, but now she and her neighbors have to live with a marginally satisfactory
environmental rating on this Landfill. This was an informed decision made
when she built her house. She does not understand why the other sites which
are possibly available, and don't encroach on an existing neighborhood, can't
be reconsidered. She is concerned about what this tower will do to her
property value, and she asked if there has been any research as to what
happens when such a tower is erected. Her neighborhood has 30 houses in it.
Every vehicle has to come to the same stop sign, and 20 feet away on a knoll
of oaks is where the tower is proposed to be placed. As she was leaving the
neighborhood this morning, her three year old son told her to look at all of
the naked trees. She wondered what she will tell him about the 130-foot
Loblolly pine. She is a Sprint customer, and agrees there is a need for this
service in this area. She does not know why the tower has to be put in an
existing neighborhood, and she asked why the tower cannot be put in another
site which would be more aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. John Comus, a resident of the Langford Farms Subdivision, said he
would like to speak against the proposed cellular tower. It is all well and
good for a Sprint representative to indicate that the tower is necessary for
customers to have perfect service 100 percent of the time, but he does not
feel as though the burden of this needs to be put on the backs of the homeown-
ers in the area. He recalled the discussion about people with the smaller
units, such as bag phones, having the most problem. The people with outside
antennae don't seem to be having the same problems as they pass through the
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
000063
Ivy area. He thinks these problems need to be solved by the people who
manufacture the phones and not by the people in the Ivy community. He is sure
a customer could wait 30 to 45 seconds to make a phone call which is the time
the proposed tower will be visible from 1-64. He indicated that the customer
traveling east on 1-64 could go up to Ragged Mountain hill and look at the
other 130-foot tower which does not blend in with the surroundings. He asked
if County officials and citizens should be asked to sacrifice the watershed in
the Ivy valley and create visual pollution because a public corporation sells
a product which doesn't do exactly what it should do. He is additionally
concerned because Sprint is currently the only service provider to this area.
What is going to happen when U.S. Cellular representatives approach this Board
or other cellular company officials come and ask for similar towers? Thirty
or 40 towers would be seen dotted between the Ivy exit and Crozet. If the
Supervisors approve this request, they will probably have to approve others in
the future. He also wondered what state society is in when technology
continues to progress at the sacrifice of the aesthetics in this' community.
He said this question needs to be asked, and he encouraged the Supervisors to
vote against the tower.
Ms. Virginia Barber commented that she lives in the Langford Farms
Subdivision, but the tower would not be visible from her house. She referred
to her recent letter to the Board of Supervisors. She read the letter in its
entirety, which indicated that she is a Sprint cellular customer, but she
would rather have less than perfect reception than impact the beauty of a
whole region. She also mentioned in her letter that she has a U.S. cellular
phone with which she has had no problems (see letter from Virginia G. Barber,
M.D., to the Board of Supervisors, dated October 11, 1995).
Mr. Edwin Strange remarked that he lives near the Ivy area, and he plans
to leave a letter with the Board of Supervisors indicating his opposition to
the proposed tower. There is one thing the two sites proposed by Sprint
officials have in common with each other. Both sites are on electric power
rights-of-way. It seems as though Sprint officials are not willing to spend
the money to put the power underground. He had to put his power lines
underground on his property, and he believes it would be in everyone's best
interest if Sprint officials had to do the same thing. He next read the
letter to which he referred earlier (see letter from Edwin L. Strange to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, dated October 11, 1995).
Ms. Beth Goshberglipper stated that she is a resident of Langford Farms
Subdivision, and that most of the public services for the citizens of Albe-
marle County are located in the Samuel Miller District. The landfill service
is there, as well as highway rest area facilities. The citizens in this
district are already living with groundwater pollution, airborne pollution and
problems from the rest area odors, and feel as though they have done every-
thing possible to be a good neighbor. These people are not implying that this
is an upper middle class neighborhood or that they are residents of a middle
class neighborhood who think other people in the County need to carry their
weight. She said the people in this area really do carry their weight,
because of the public services that are being provided for both County
residents and tourists. She commented that Ivy residents do not want to sound
like "nimbys", as they have been accused. She admitted that neither her
cellular phone nor her flip phone will always work, but the phone with the
installed antennae works all the time. She asked the Supervisors to consider
the fact that the residents in this area have already paid their dues to
Albemarle County and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. Hyatt Ewald, a member of the family partnership who owns the lot for
the proposed site, said his comments would be limited to two areas. He
remarked that one area relates to perspective, and the other involves practi-
cality and economics. Change is difficult. He moved to Albemarle County from
somewhere else, but whether or not he has lived here for two years or 25
years, does not give him any greater or lesser voice in what goes on here. He
referred to the staff's comment about the tower changing the rural aspect of
the Ivy Valley. He thought this happened when 1-64 was constructed 25 years
ago, and he pointed out the interchange at Ivy as also being a dramatic
change. The citizens have learned to live with the interstate, it has
improved their lives, and it gave him access to The Rocks Farm. Since the
interstate was built, developments such as Langford Farms, Rosemont and
Peacock Hill, have occurred. He commented that it is a beautiful valley, and
it is what drew his family to Albemarle County. He remarked that some very
small and selfish people are trying to keep it that way forever.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
On the practical side, Mr. Ewald indicated that Sprint representatives
approached his family and indicated that this was the best site they could
find. His family partnership looked at the proposal as landowners with a
significant investment across the road. He emphasized that this tower is
proposed literally in his family's back yard, and they would not do anything
to alter or deter the nature of their property values. He pointed out that
this tower is going to be up against a major interstate highway where the eye
looking around the valley is drawn to tractor trailers, asphalt, bridges,
overpasses and signs, etc., and he thinks the tower would be overlooked. As
neighbors living in the Ivy Valley, they thought it was good use for their
land, and sprint is a good corporate neighbor.
Mr. Ewald referred to comments indicating that some cellular phones work
and some do not. He pointed out that Sprint is a business, and its officials
would not build such a tower on a whim, because it will not incrementally
increase Sprint's business. It is a necessary addition to Sprint's cellular
service. He summed up his statements by indicating that his family is in
favor of this proposal in a practical way because it makes good use of the
land, and he asked the residents, neighbors and friends in the area to take a
deep breath and listen. It can be a hostile area, and he gave as an example
of this that he believes someone's dog was shot just because the owner was
going to speak at this meeting. Too much has been made of this proposal, and
he pointed out that it is just a tree pole against an interstate. He does not
think it will terribly alter the vista or nature of the rural Ivy Valley. He
then informed the Board members that he had to be elsewhere relatively soon,
so if there were questions, he would need to answer them at this time.
Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Ewald could see the tower from his home.
Mr. Ewald replied that he lives on the other side of Ivy, but he owns
some lots to be developed across from the tower site, and he will probably
live there some day. He reiterated that he has driven all over the Ivy
Valley, and everywhere he looks, he sees a highway. His eyes are drawn to the
tractor trailers driving 65 miles per hour. He thinks the cellular tower is a
reasonable use of the land, and this is a reasonable request to consider. He
is flabbergasted at some of the hostility toward it.
Mr. Bill Fish_back, from the Rosemont Subdivision, thanked the Supervi-
sors for the opportunity to appear before them. He indicated that he was
speaking in support of his friends and neighbors at Langford Farms. To come
in and out of the Langford Farms subdivision and face this monstrosity of a
tree, which six months of the year will be standing by itself blotting out the
sun, moon and the stars, is more than he thinks anybody should have to endure.
Much has been said which he will second, but he thinks the concept of a master
plan for this type of utility needs to be considered and approved by this
Board. Technology is developing very rapidly. In just a few months Moto-
rola's Meridian Program, which involves 66 satellites, will be launched, and
it will address this kind of use. The Global Star is also in the wings.
These poles will be out of date by the time they are constructed, and to argue
the point of the very low wattage hand held units in this area seems to be
ridiculous. He has talked to a person involved with a rescue squad from the
western part of the County, and has indicated this is not an issue. This
person is a neighbor, and some of the Board members probably know him. The
people who live in Langford should not have to face this tower issue.
Mr. Kendall Skeen, a resident of the County, said he had not planned to
speak this evening, but it seems as though a good portion of the support and
applause is in opposition to the tower. This is simply a matter of practical-
ity to him, because he and his wife travel and use cellular service. He is
not a resident of the Ivy area, yet he can, to a small degree, understand the
reasons not to want to consider this tower. Mr. Skeen said he feels that when
traveling, cellular service is a must simply from a safety and security
standpoint. He lives in North Garden, which is south of Charlottesville. The
gentleman from Sprint mentioned the possibility of requests for additional
towers for the North Garden area. He does not support the tower proposed this
evening in Ivy, but the closer to his house that a tower can be built, the
happier he will be. He is in a rural area, and he does not have access to a
pay phone. He would get great comfort in the fact that if his wife's car
should break down, she could have a cellular phone. He referred to the police
officer's previous remarks, and said he made some very valid points about the
service this tower and all towers give to all County residents. He appreci-
ates their concerns, but he would like for the Supervisors to consider the
entire County when making this decision. He knows only a small area is
involved, but he would be very uncomfortable if his wife should break down in
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
000065
this particular area, and couldn't make a phone call. He supports this
request, and he asked the Supervisors to please consider additional towers if
Sprint officials request them.
Mr. Brian Broaddus, of Peacock Hill, remarked that there is not just a
small area involved. It is a small area of coverage for small phones, which
-- is an important point. He referred to the fact that the interstate goes
through the Ivy Valley. He lives with the interstate every day, and he can
hear the traffic from his house, but this doesn't make him hunger for a tower
in his back yard. Just because the Ivy Valley has been damaged by the
interstate or the Landfill, to do further damage there doesn't make sense.
This is his point.
Ms. Karen Dame, speaking as a resident of Albemarle County, indicated
she finds this request to dot the fabulous landscape with communication towers
exceedingly odd. She said it is so odd, one almost fails to protest, because
one can hardly believe such a thing would be allowed to happen. She said one
tower has already been constructed using this process, now the second applica-
tion is here, and the public has been told tonight to expect more applications
to follow. The people in Albemarle County live in a most amazing place.
Among other delights, people can drive along an interstate and enjoy some of
the ride because the landscape has not been blighted with wires, towers,
billboards and other things man seems to leave everywhere if he is allowed to
do so. She has a cellular phone, which she used when she had a wreck a year
ago to call the police, her husband and a wrecker, etc. It was very helpful
and convenient at the moment.
Ms. Dame said she has her own business, and she is the sole employee, so
when she is working with a client, no one is in her office and it is worth-
while for her to be available by telephone. Even so, Ms. Dame remarked that
she does not want the landscape dotted with towers just so she will never be
slightly inconvenienced. Absolute convenience would be delightful, but in
this case, the aesthetic price is too high. She noted that the Planning
Commission came to this same conclusion. This is not unlike the case when the
power company representative appeared at her door not too long ago to explain
that they were going to mutilate the mature trees on her property. She said
this representative indicated that the trees would be trimmed so she would not
have to worry about snowy branches causing power outages in the winter. She
refused the gentleman, assuring him that rather than wincing and averting her
eyes from carved up misshapen trees along her driveway, she would greatly
prefer to endure the power outages which occur occasionally. Her point is
that just because people have, enjoy and rely on cellular phones or electrical
service or cars or whatever technology can generate, that doesn't mean that
people necessarily want the landscape sacrificed for those conveniences. She
asked the Supervisors to oppose this tower and others like it, because such a
step will inspire this industry to create newer technology to convenience its
customers, using a method acceptable in the community in which those customers
live.
Ms. Dame referred to the Sprint representative's comment that demand
will drive Sprint's response and the company, as judged by the metal tree
limbs, is creative and spares no expense to serve its customers. She empha-
sized that alternatives will be found, and in the meantime perhaps, Sprint
will donate three-watt phones to the emergency service providers who seem to
have come to rely on them. She said accepting these towers encourages a bad
idea. She pointed out that she is the presiding officer of Citizens for
Albemarle, which is an organization of County and City residents who share
these views. She recalled that this organization sent a letter on September
1, 1995, to Representative Tom Bliley urging him to reconsider his support for
impending telecommunications legislation which will preempt local zoning
authority over the placement of these towers, as well as local ability to
require the companies to pay fair and reasonable compensation for the use of
public rights-of-way. She said her organization protested to Mr. Bliley, and
she is protesting to the Supervisors now, about these towers which would
severely detract from the local residents' and tourists' view shed. On her
own behalf and that of 400 other County residents, Ms. Dame asked the Supervi-
sors to defend their interest in the landscape.
Ms. Jane Nolan informed the Board that she has petitions from residents
of the Langford Farms Subdivision which include approximately 40 signatures.
She gave these petitions to the Board and explained that these people are all
in opposition to the Sprint cellular tower. She is also opposed. She works
as a nurse, and in her dealings with patients, she frequently asks what
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
000066
brought them to Charlottesville. Half of the time the reply refers to the
University and the educational opportunities, but a lot of the time the reply
indicates that the person was driving through Charlottesville years ago, and
he or she fell in love with the beauty of this area. She asked the Supervi-
sors to remember their stewardship of this beauty, because it continues every
day to draw new residents. A tower such as this doesn't just affect the
selfish neighbors of the neighborhood, but it really affects the character of
Albemarle County.
Mr. Ed Bain, representing Rosemont Homeowners Association, stated that
he cannot begin to say what the residents themselves have said to this Board
about how the tower affects them. The Supervisors may indicate that they are
thinking about the interest of the larger County population, and he does not
disagree with some of this thinking. Sprint company officials have the same
obligation. He mentioned today's technology, and said some people may say he
should look at technological progress as an oxymoron because he is not a great
believer in it. Times change and things move forward. He suggested that this
Board look at the long-term effect and not at today, tomorrow or the six-
tenths of a watt telephone users who have the immediate benefit. He inquired
if County staff has considered the new technology in terms of satellite
technology and other technologies currently being developed. He referred to
the statement by the Sprint representative that this tower can be constructed
with the promise of taking it down when it is no longer in use. He pointed
out that $1.0 million is being proposed to be put into this site, and he does
not believe the tower will ever come down because Sprint will find a way to
use it.
Mr. Bain mentioned driving from the edge of Albemarle County on 1-64 to
Ragged Mountain. It is pristine in appearance, and there are no manmade
towers or poles dotting the interstate. He recalled the sight when traffic
comes over the top of the mountain into Augusta County, and he referred to the
300-foot sign for Waynesboro Village. He asked if this is what Albemarle
County citizens want. This is an exaggeration, because 300-foot towers are
not being discussed. It is not only the Ivy Valley involved, it is the entire
valley. It means something to a lot of people when they come to Albemarle
County and drive the interstate at 65 miles per hour. It is something
unusual, and the scene cannot be found on Route 29 North. He noted that Route
29 South is somewhat similar, because of the mountains and the fact that
nothing much has been done in that area. He asked if the long-term beauty of
the landscape is important to the Supervisors.
Mr. Bain referred to Mr. Richard Martin's remarks and asked why money
isn't being spent to get equipment needed for the police, fire and rescue
workers so they can perform their duties. Why are they having to rely on
six-tenths of a watt pieces of equipment. He wondered if this makes sense.
He mentioned that the Supervisors are getting ready to review the Comprehen-
sive Plan. He knows this is important to the Supervisors, who are anxious to
get this document from the Commission so they can start reviewing it. He
emphasized that the Comprehensive Plan is not just a short-term plan. He said
Mr. Gibson is a good lawyer, and he is going to be speaking again in a few
minutes, and he will probably make a counterattack on the technology issue,
etc. His question of Mr. Gibson is, why didn't he make these remarks first?
Mr. Bain said he wants to know where the technology issue is now. He has
talked to a former Sprint Centel employee, who indicated that in two or three
years, it will be a totally changed technology. These towers will not be
needed then, and he asked the Supervisors to think about that fact. He gives
the Sprint representatives credit, because they have been honest in their
remarks tonight. They told the Commission and the Supervisors how many more
towers they think are needed, and the locations that have been identified. He
asked that they identify some other technology, and he suggested that the
Supervisors and staff look at others.
Mr. Bain said this is not a courtroom where experts can be placed
against experts. The Supervisors are only hearing one side tonight, and the
County does not have an expert who has looked into the technology issue. He
asked if it is important for the Supervisors to consider this and think about
it before they approve this application. He mentioned the desire for seamless
coverage, and said Albemarle County is more important than this desire. He
and several County officials grew up in this area. He is glad and happy to
have the other people who have moved here, because they are enjoying something
which he has enjoyed his entire life. Rosemont is a new subdivision, but a
lot of people have retired here, and they have their assets in hand to make a
contribution, because it is a wonderful area.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000067
Mr. Bain said that technological advances, as far as the towers are
concerned, are really critical. He is not suggesting Bear Den Mountain as a
site, but he thinks the Supervisors really need to look at all of the loca-
tions. He recalled when the plans for the widening of Route 29 North were
discussed (He was on the Board of Supervisors at the time). He said the
Supervisors talked with VDOT representatives about putting some of the
utilities underground. It would have cost millions of dollars, so it didn't
get done. He remarked that it seems as though this is being reversed and more
towers are being constructed when technology doesn't demand it. He next
referred to Mr. Gibson's comment that Sprint officials have gone the extra
mile. He doesn't agree with this statement, and he hopes the Supervisors will
not agree. He knows the Supervisors can only vote with the information they
have in front of them. He reiterated that the Supervisors need to look at
this technology and see what will be happening in the future before Sprint
officials spend the money, and the Supervisors approve this application, as
well as the others which may come before them.
Mr. Martin referred to Mr. Bain's comment about the rapid movement of
technology. He recalled that Mr. Bain tied this comment into the discussion
of the widening of Route 29 North and the fact that it cost too much money to
put the power lines underground. He asked if Mr. Bain sees any connection
with one pole every five miles replacing one pole every 100 yards. He stated
that there are some areas in Albemarle County where telephone lines are
underground, and there are some areas where they are not. He emphasized that
putting telephone lines underground is incredibly expensive, but in those
areas where the lines are not underground, there is one pole every 50 or 100
feet. He reminded Mr. Bain that the discussion is about telephones and about
a lot of people having access to these types of phones. He said one of the
things he is envisioning is that portable phones may one day overtake the
phone lines, and there will be one pole every five or ten miles as opposed to
a pole every 100 feet.
Mr. Bain responded that he does not have expertise in this field, but to
keep the phone service going, there would be a pole every two square miles.
He does not think this is progress despite some people indicating the need for
these phones. He believes some other available technology is being pushed
aside because it won't be available for two years. He wondered if it is not
better to have this type of technology where there is nothing showing on the
landscape. He next referred to PCS technology where poles are not needed, but
antennae will be necessary. He said these antennae won't be seen because
poles will not be required, and he emphasized that this technology is current-
ly being developed.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Bain to explain this type of technology. Mr.
Bain answered that he doesn't know anything about it, but he knows there are
other technologies being developed.
Mr. Marshall said he voted against a similar request previously because
he did not want towers all over the County. The idea of the tree tower
sounded good to him if towers are necessary, but he also agrees with some of
the speakers that it should be a tree which will blend into the landscape.
Perhaps the location of the tree tower in this proposal is wrong, because it
seems to him the current technology, according to some of the pictures in
other areas, blends in well. He emphasized that on the drawing where the tree
was superimposed, the tree did not blend in with the proposed location. He
wondered how many towers would be necessary if everybody used the six-tenths
of a watt telephones. He asked if the Supervisors should be considering a
different tower or pole if this technology eliminates the use of other phones
and phone lines.
Mr. Bain responded that the Supervisors should be considering other
techniques of advanced technology currently being developed. He said County
staff does not know all about this because they are not experts in this field.
He understands there is a study about these different types of technologies,
although he doesn't know who is conducting it. He mentioned that Sprint
representatives are talking about the technology being presented at this
meeting, and he agreed it is a better type of tower. They have said nothing
about technology, such as satellites, etc., not just for them, but for
everybody in the business. He doesn't know a lot about the technologies, but
he is told by people that certain things are available, and they will not be
as intrusive. He suggested that a delay of two or three years might be
helpful. He referred to the E-911 system which took four or five years to
develop, and he asked the Supervisors not to rush into this approval. He
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
0000(;8
suggested that company representatives be responsible for giving the County
staff this type of information. He said everybody is talking about conve-
nience today, but it. may not be needed two years from now.
Ms. Charlotte Hogue informed the Board members that she is the owner of
the property adjoining the site where this tower will be located. She often
looks out of her kitchen window and thinks how wonderful it is to own her own
view, and she enjoys the uninterrupted view of the sky and trees, etc. This
is a terrible location for the tower, not only for the people who live there,
but for all of the people who drive on 1-64. Every time she comes into town,
she looks over Camp Holiday Trails and shakes her head in disbelief. She has
seen a lot of trees in her time, and doesn't understand how a tower can be
made to resemble a tree. She grew up in Charlottesville, and when she first
moved to the County, the power lines coming through her property were on small
poles. The power service coming through her property now is unbelievable, and
she wonders if the same type of thing is going to happen with these towers.
The tower might be constructed now, but next year more towers might have to be
added, and she asked what will be the stopping point. There are a lot of
older people who have retired and are living in this vicinity. What will
happen to these people's retirement if this tower ruins their property values.
Ms. Barbara Harrott indicated that she lives at 4109 Dick Woods Road,
and she would like to underline the fact that the cellular tower is not
needed, even now, anywhere in the Ivy Valley. She underlined this statement
with a call she placed today. She then asked Mr. Perkins to read a message he
received from her today, through a call to his secretary.
Mr. Perkins responded that the message he received indicated that
Barbara Harrott called regarding the cellular tower issue which was to be
discussed at tonight's Board meeting. He said Ms. Harrott informed the
secretary that she was calling from her car on her flip phone coming off the
Ivy ramp, which is Exit 114 near 1-64, and the reception was excellent. The
message reported that Ms. Harrott was questioning the necessity of placing a
tower in this vicinity, since her reception was so good. He continued to read
the message which included her phone number should Mr. Perkins desire to speak
to her further about this issue.
Ms. Harrott displayed to the group her six-tenths of a watt flip phone.
She emphasized that Mr. Perkins' secretary received her message from this
phone today, and it was perfectly clear. She was parked in the spot that is
supposedly not adequately covered for flip phones, and she wondered why there
is a problem for some people in this area, but not for others. She thinks the
major difference is that a booster kit in the car is needed for the six-tenths
of a watt phone to bring the power up to that of a three-watt phone. She
explained that the booster kits are available, and they are easily installed
in the car. The kit provides a cradle for the phone so both hands can be free
on the wheel, and it furnishes three-watt power so people will be able to
traverse the Ivy Valley. Proposing a tower for people who don't want to
purchase a booster kit poses a major problem for the community. The problem
can be solved very easily by the people who want the service and want to use
the flip phones. She thinks this should work fine, because those people can
buy the booster kit, and the tower would not be installed in the Ivy Valley.
Ms. Harrott indicated that she would like to speak to the new technolo-
gies being developed. She had some relevant articles with her, and she
referred to one indicating there could be a reduction of towers of approxi-
mately 50 percent. She read from the article which indicated that a higher
system of performance would allow carriers to further reduce cost since even
fewer cell sites would be required. She called to find out exactly when this
technology would be available and found that a couple of units had already
been shipped, and the developers were quickly working toward getting manufac-
turing and marketing kinds of quantities. This technology would greatly
reduce the need for towers. It would greatly increase each tower's range, and
it is already in the marketing stages. (See Electronic Engineering Times,
Monday, September 18, 1995, Issue 866, Page 20.)
Ms. Harrott referred to another article about filters for cellular
systems which are designed to reduce interference in cellular base stations.
She emphasized that people have been complaining about static on the line and
that is the major reason for constructing another tower. This filter is ready
for market, and this type of technology is becoming available very soon so a
lot of additional towers won't be needed. With the booster kits which are
available, six-tenths of a watt telephones can be used and people can go
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
through the Ivy Valley without a tower being located there.
September 25, 1995, Page 11).
000069
(See Design News,
Ms. Harrott next addressed the responses from citizens previously read
to the Board members by the Sprint representative. The Sprint letter was very
misleading, and it negates any consideration of the small percentage of the
returns. She read from this letter that the tower was necessary in order to
provide coverage in an area approximately two to three miles east and west of
the rest stop just west of the Ivy interchange. She read further that local
phone coverage in this area is scratchy and portable phone coverage is poor to
nonexistent. She added that the letter asked for help to convince the
officials the tower is needed in order to providq coverage for Sprint's
customers. She commented that this letter blatantly informs the citizens that
there is no coverage, and it is a problem for users, and asks them to return
the cards. She said she has shown today, by the phone call she made, that
this is not true.
Ms. Harrott said citizens returned the cards based on misinformation, so
it doesn't matter how many were returned, because they didn't understand the
real situation. She added that the Sprint letter does not mention at all how
the tower impinges on the neighbors. The letter made the situation sound as
though the tower was out of the way, and there was no problem with it, and
this could have entered into some of the citizens' decisions. She commented
that the letter should also have informed Sprint's customers about the booster
kits available to help the particular individuals who are having problems with
their cell phone coverage. She next mentioned that she also talked with
rescue squad volunteers, and they told her they have radio coverage. These
people use cell phones also, but they do not have a problem. She recalled one
of these volunteers stating he would hate to see a tower constructed for a
little bit of scratchiness which shows up occasionally on cell phones. She
then referred to the comments made by the policeman who spoke earlier in the
meeting. She has talked to several safety officers, who are policemen, and
they are concerned about car phones being used while people are driving.
Ms. Harrott said there is concern about underwriting a technology which
may be a problem in another area, and she recalled that other people have
spoken about the mountain views. She would like to underline these comments.
The mountain views have been entrusted to the citizens by previods genera-
tions, and they are the citizens' heritage. Although the citizens get used to
them and are lackadaisical about them because they see them every day, they
are very important to this area. She commented that people drive for days
just to view them. These are the first mountains people cross when they drive
west on 1-64 all of the way from the Eastern Shore of Virginia. This is also
the first opportunity to see the Ivy Valley with the rolling hills and the
Blue Ridge Mountains behind them. If the tower is approved, it will be
sticking up in the middle of this view. She asked the Supervisors to vote
against the tower for all of the reasons she mentioned. Any slight inconve-
nience for people whose cell phones might need repairing, or because they have
not bought a booster kit, in no way outweighs the trauma which will be imposed
on the people who will be living there for years and years to come with the
tower in their faces. If any of the Supervisors are considering voting for
the tower, she challenged them to ride with her and test the phone service to
see it will traverse this particular area without problems. If they do this,
they will see absolute proof that the tower is not needed.
Ms. Gertrude Weber stated that she owns Mountain Farm, which is immedi-
ately off of the 1-64 exit at Ivy. She mentioned the struggle over the
Landfill situation. She told Board members that when she is driving west on
1-64, she looks forward to the moment when she drives up the rise and all the
mountains are spread out in front of her. This helps her live there, and it
is the most spectacular unmatched view anywhere in the County of Albemarle.
That view can be seen by travelers just before they get to the 1-64 exit at
Ivy, and on the left of this area is where the proposed tower would go. This
is unthinkable, and when she heard again from some of her neighbors about this
situation, she couldn't believe it. The best of the County is being traded
for this tower; history and the mountains. These things bring people here;
they are what brought her here.
Ms. Weber said she believes in her property. She built it up from
nothing, and she saved an historic property. She loves the County and the
area, but it is almost getting intolerable to live here, if this kind of thing
continues. She mentioned that she owns stock of other telephone companies, so
she is not an anti-corporation person. She understands corporations' problems
000070
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
with regard to development. The people making this presentation are not
making the major decisions. Major decisions are being made on a different
level, and the Sprint representatives are just doing their job, which is to
build more towers.
Ms. Weber said the Ivy Valley cannot be sacrificed for an immediate
concern of people down the line in the corporate structure for something
everybody can live with anyway. She was shocked when a County police officer,
who should be speaking for himself personally, was speaking for the Police
Department. Mr. Marshall informed Ms. Weber that the police officer had
indicated he was speaking for himself. Ms. Weber stated that the police
officer appeared in uniform, and she resents this fact.
Mr. Dennis Stokes said he is a lifelong resident of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County and a resident of Langford Farms Subdivision. He has opposed
the proposal set forth by Sprint and/or Centel Cellular representatives for
the last eight plus years, and he shares the concerns and views of his
neighbors in the Ivy Valley. He emphasized that a vote against Sprint
Cellular's proposal is not a denial of cellular service to the Ivy area for
this dead spot since there are alternatives which have been pointed out.
There is the alternative of a different site, particularly the Bear Den
Mountain site, as well as others, and additional time could be taken to review
and research them. Secondly, he mentioned alternatives in regard to available
phones, such as the three-watt power phones. He indicated that the price
between the three-watt phone and a six-tenths of a watt hand-held, flip phone
is not great.
Mr. Stokes referred to Ms. Harrott's statement relating to a booster kit
for the six-tenths of a watt phone so it can reach as far as the three-watt
phone. He emphasized that this is not an expensive item. He said there are
other cellular services available which provide services to the area in
question. He knows this is a fact because he is with another cellular company
and he has a three-watt bag phone. He does not have an external antenna on
his vehicle and he has excellent reception in this area. Mr. Stokes asked the
Supervisors to consider the alternatives, as well as what technology may bring
in the near future.
Since there was no other member of the public who wished to speak, Mr.
Perkins asked Mr. Gibson if he would like to make some rebuttal comments.
Mr. Gibson said a need certainly exists, notwithstanding Ms. Harrott's
phone call at the point from which she indicated she made her call to Mr.
Perkins' office. He pointed out that even many of the citizens who spoke in
opposition to the proposal indicated there is a need in this area for portable
coverage. He does not think Sargeant Martin had to support anybody in this
matter, and he told the Supervisors there is a need for coverage in this area.
Mr. Gibson also recalled the overwhelming response of almost 1000 Sprint
customers who sent in postcards indicating the poor coverage and the need for
improvement in this location. He said it defies logic to assume that Sprint
representatives would undertake this type of effort if coverage was fine and
no improvements were needed. It would defy every system of logic of which he
is aware, for a company to spend this type of money to improve something which
doesn't need to be fixed.
Mr. Gibson said he believes that the people who are in opposition to the
proposal are trying to attack it on a multi-level front, with necessity being
one of the levels. He said one person makes a phone call, and he or she has
coverage, so it is no problem. It is not as simple as that. He then asked
the Supervisors to consider the engineers' comments, as well as the type of
investment the company officials are willing to make in order to cure this
problem which unquestionably exists. He pointed out that it would certainly
improve Sprint's financial position if this tower was not necessary in order
to provide coverage in this area. He thinks the building is the issue, and
the case against the visual intrusion has been vastly and grossly overstated.
He caught a glimpse of a picture one of the gentlemen submitted to the
Supervisors, and it in no way resembles what Sprint representatives are
proposing. He mentioned some other information which was sent to the Planning
Commission showing the tower and, according to the scale, it would have been
500 feet tall. He emphasized that the case has been grossly exaggerated
against the tower. The visual aids provided to the Supervisors, as well as the
balloon study, tell the real story. He asked the Supervisors to look at where
the arrows are pointing to the balloons. This is how the situation will look,
and it will not be a monster looming on the horizon. He remarked that the
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
00007
tree tower should address any legitimate concern about visibility. His
clients will stand behind the photograph which has been presented to the
Supervisors, and if they are inclined to approve this application, they can
approve it subject to the tower looking substantially as it is represented in
the photograph. This will remove the debate of how the tower will look,
because the Supervisors will have spoken as to how it must look, and the
Sprint officials will have to comply with the terms of approval. Next, Mr.
Gibson noted that Mr. Tank, an engineer, would like to address the Bear Den
Mountain site issue. After Mr. Tank's remarks, Mr. Gibson indicated he had
some closing comments to make.
Mr. Tank, Sprint's Senior Engineer in charge of the Central Virginia
area, said he oversees the team of engineers and the real estate acquisition
personnel who brought this project forward. He has a Master of Science in
Electrical Engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology, so he is
qualified to speak about the technology Sprint is using. He then stated that
putting a site on Bear Den Mountain would cause frequency reuse problems. He
pointed out that there would be co-channel interference potentially causing
interference with other conversations being held by other people and could
cause a person to be unable to carry on his or her conversation, and could
possibly drop it altogether. In response to remarks made by some of the
speakers about mobile phones being adequate for conversations, he mentioned
that having done the analysis with a team of degree engineers, he can verify
that there is a lack of adequate coverage in the area in question. He cannot
guarantee that a mobile phone will provide a complete phone conversation. If
he was asked as an engineer if he could guarantee a safe level of service in
that area, he would have to say ~no". He reiterated that Bear Den Mountain is
not an alternative. The Sprint Company is allocated frequencies by the FCC
which regulate the company, and the FAA which regulates tower heights and the
safety issues behind them. There are a certain amount of frequencies which
have to be used and reused, and putting the site on Bear Den Mountain would
mean that those frequencies would be blaring out everywhere and causing
interference within Sprint's own system.
Mrs. Humphris inquired as to when Mr. Tank found out about the problems
relating to the frequencies at the Bear Den Mountain site. Mr. Tank replied
that this was found in an analysis done recently. He was brought into the
project in July, and this is when he was made aware of the Bear Den Mountain
site, as well as the Bloomfield site.
Mrs. Humphris wondered why all of the effort had been put forth to
approve the Bear Den Mountain site. She asked if Centel representatives would
have known about the frequency problem before they went through the process.
Mr. Tank said he is not sure what happened before he was put in the position
of Senior Engineer. Once he was put in the position, he realized that to
allocate those frequencies on the site to provide coverage to the uncovered
area was not going to happen.
Mrs. Humphris said that evidently another engineer had another opinion.
Mr. Tank answered that the staff preceding him was probably just considering
coverage. When there is a site put on a mountain, a computer analysis will
show certain scatters, and if a deeper analysis is done, it will show that
frequencies will interfere with each other. He said a conversation cannot be
carried on without co-channel interference, and neither a good conversation
nor good coverage can be guaranteed in such situations.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 9:33 p.m.)
Mr. Gibson said he can speak to this issue because his tenure has
overlapped the Bear Den Mountain site issue. The engineer who originally
worked on the Bear Den site plans is no longer with the company. There were a
number of problems with the site, which is partly why this meeting is being
held. He said when the first Bloomfield site was denied, another examination
was done for Bear Den Mountain to see if it was possible to revive the plan.
He stated that the engineering indication was that it could not be revived and
be an integral part of the Sprint system.
Mrs. Humphris recalled that she had asked this question previously, and
the answer then related to environmental concerns as far as constructing the
road. Mr. Gibson replied that the cost of putting the road in was a concern,
although Sprint representatives are always concerned about the environment.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
000072
Mr. Gibson continued by referring the question of proliferation. He
said Sprint officials have been given the Supervisors their best judgment for
a three-year plan. He does not think the word proliferation comes to mind when
the number of sites and their locations are considered. When he thinks of
proliferation, he thinks of the Tidewater area where the topography is flat,
and a lot of towers are visible. This will never be the situation here, even
with the other carriers on the horizon, but he can't speak for them. Sprint's
three-year plan certainly does not suggest proliferation.
Mr. Gibson then mentioned the debate relating to portables, installed
kits and mobile phones. People who subscribe to cellular phone service have,
for some reason, decided in favor of portable phones. He pointed out that the
number of portable phones purchased today exceeds the number of bag phones and
mobile phones combined. The reasons are obvious. People are untethered with
a portable phone, and they can go wherever they want to go. People can travel
in vehicles and can put installed kits in their vehicles to boost the wattage.
However, if people are out in the field, installed kits in their cars will not
help. If a police officer is out in the field at a crime scene, an installed
kit will not do much good. If a person is hunting or goes into the woods for
any other reason, an installed kit will not do that person much good. If
realtors are showing property, the realtors are in and out of their cars, and
they take their phones with them so they won't miss a call. An installed kit
will not do much good under these circumstances. He said people have decided
that, for reasons important to them, portable phones make a whole lot of
sense. In order to be able to use portable phones, the Sprint company has to
be able to provide the coverage needed.
Mr. Gibson mentioned the comments about technology changes, and he
emphasized that Sprint utilizes state-of-the-art technology. It is true that
technology is constantly being improved and refined, but the technology in use
today depends on towers as the base of the system. This appears to be the
technology which will be used for a long time in the future. He referred to
the information given to the Board by Mr. Bain relating to PCS technology, and
he emphasized that Sprint Cellular is not in the PCS business. PCS is a
different source of the Spectrum Radio Wave, assigned and sold to other
companies by the FCC. Sprint Cellular operates within the 800 to 900 mega-
hertz frequency and is not authorized or licensed to operate within the same
frequency as the PCS providers. Mr. Gibson said PCS is an evolving technology
and, initially, representatives of this company thought there would be
invisible cell sites. The reality is that there are no invisible cell sites,
and tower heights of approximately the same height or higher are being
considered.
Mr. Gibson said he is working with some PCS companies in the Tidewater
area, and these companies are considering 125-foot tower heights. He reiter-
ated that as far as being the answer to the problems of towers, PCS is not the
answer. He then mentioned satellite technology, and said that Sprint Cellular
is not in the business of providing this type of service. This service is not
available to consumers today. He doubts that it will be available in the near
future. As the technology exists today, a unit sufficient to transmit and
receive satellite signals from the earth is the size of a large suitcase and
costs $13,000. The original satellite system is designed primarily for third
world countries where there is not a telephone system. There are lots of
places where telephone lines cannot even be installed so a base unit is set up
as a central location where people can go to make phone calls. These people
do not have phones in their own homes. The genesis of Meridian was to provide
telephone systems in third world countries, but it will not become available
to consumers in the near future. The Sprint company has been, and continues to
be, on the cutting edge of technology. He emphasized that if technology
changes occur which will enable the Sprint officials to stop building these
ridiculously expensive towers, they will be the first to take advantage of
that technology.
Mr. Gibson referred to the conditions of approval recommended by staff,
which are included in every application approved for Sprint Cellular today.
These conditions include a regulation indicating that if Sprint no longer uses
the site, then the tower comes down, and it disappears. The problem is solved
with this condition for the present time as well as the future. Sprint
officials are doing the best they can, and they are not trying to make enemies
or impose upon neighbors. He thinks Sprint officials have gone the extra mile
in proposing the tree tower. If the Supervisors want to approve the tower
pursuant to the photographs, then that is the way it will be. Sprint repre-
sentatives have done what they think is necessary to meet the legitimate
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
000073
concerns of the citizens. It would be impossible to meet every one of those
concerns. When the tower site was moved from the Landfill to another area,
all of the opposition was brought along to the new site as well as new
opposition, sprint officials are trying to do what they can to provide the
service they feel is necessary.
Mr. Gibson mentioned an article appearing in the August 29, 1995,
Washington Post about cellular phones which were referred to as pocket-size
protectors. He read excerpts from this article indicating that the cellular
phone is rapidly becoming a personal safety device, and two-thirds of all
cellular customers bought their phones for safety and security reasons.
Further, 18,000 calls are made each day to 911 or other emergency numbers, and
these are all free calls. He indicated that the dispatcher for the Virginia
State Police says that cellular calls account for about 30 percent of all
calls made to the State Police in Fairfax. He said one person quoted in this
article estimated that his office receives 35 to 50 calls per day from
cellular telephones, because people call often about drunk drivers and
reckless or aggressive drivers, as well as people calling from the scenes of
accidents~ He read a quote from a State policeman who recommended that people
should have cellular phones if the cost is within their budget. He reiterated
that he is reading an article from the Washington Post, and not from ads
placed in the paper by Sprint Cellular representatives. This is why there are
28,000 new cellular subscribers who sign up every day.
Mr. Gibson said Sprint representatives are before the Supervisors this
evening to ask for support of this project so this very important service can
be provided not only to the people who live in the Ivy Valley, but to the
people who live in the entire County of Albemarle, as well as to visitors who
pass through Albemarle County.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 9:35 p.m.)
Mr. Marshall recalled seeing some tree towers on the educational
television channel. He said they looked good, and blended in well with the
landscape. He noted that he voted against the last application for a Sprint
tower. He indicated that he has another telephone service/ although he has
nothing against the Sprint Cellular company. He has a three-watt telephone,
so he doesn't have problems with reception. He realizes there is a need as
far as health and safety factors of County citizens are concerned. He feels
very safe in the knowledge that his wife can get in touch with him if she has
problems.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks the speakers are right. There are a few
people in this room who were born and reared in this area and who remember the
County the way it was. They want to keep it as pristine as possible. He
emphasized that he does not like these towers all over Albemarle County, which
is why he made the suggestion of tree towers. He was not talking about this
location, and he was hoping that all of the towers in Albemarle County could
be replaced with tree towers. These speakers have some legitimate concerns,
and he thinks the concerns need to be addressed. The picture of the tree
shown to the Supervisors did not blend in with the landscape, but the tree
towers he saw looked as though they were dead trees, and they didn't look at
all like towers. He said those towers looked exactly like dying oak trees in
the woods, and he couldn't tell they were towers. This immediately made him
think it was a great idea. He then referred to the picture of the tree tower
and indicated he didn't think it looked so bad. He said the other pictures he
saw of this tree tower made it look as though it was at the end of a driveway
or road. Mr. Gibson responded that this is the view from the Langford Farms
Subdivision. Mr. Marshall indicated that the South Carolina tree tower looks
very much like the tree in his photographs.
Mr. Martin asked that it be compared to the drawing on the board. Mr.
Gibson stated that the picture is a computer drawing, and the ugly Loblolly
pine shown in the other photograph is not the way it will appear.
At 9:45 p.m., Mr. Perkins ended the public hearing, since there was no
one else from the public who wished to speak. He said there would be time for
further questions for Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Perkins commented that natural trees in this particular area would
be approximately 75 to 80 feet tall. He asked why there is a need for a 140
foot tower. Mr. Gibson said the topmost point of the structure is 129 feet,
and the tower itself is 118 feet. The antennae are not nearly as visible as
0000'74
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
the tower. The lightning rod is the tallest point, and it will protrude above
the tree limbs. The lightning rod is three inches in diameter, and it is sky
gray in color. The reason for the height is to be able to provide coverage
within the entire area of bad reception. There is dense foliage and rolling
topography, both of which are a challenge to cellular radio waves. The tower
is at the lowest engineering height in order to be useful and to fill in the
entire area of bad reception. Mr. Gibson referred to a study which indicated
that there is coverage from the other towers all around the poor reception
area, so there is no need to fill in these areas. He said this tower is
designed only to fill in the bad reception area.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that the idea of a tree is very creative, and she
has seen pictures of trees in other areas. If an evergreen is put in the
middle of a deciduous forest, it will look very strange from mid-October to
April when the leaves are off the trees. She said the Supervisors have been
working with this problem for a long time, and she has spoken about this issue
before. She referred to her previous affirmative vote on the possibility of a
tower at Bear Den Mountain, because it seemed as though it was the obvious and
acceptable site, and everybody was happy. She said there seem to be reasons
mitigating against the Bear Den Mountain site, but she hasn't changed her
perspective. She agrees with Mrs. Weber because she also is a stockholder in
the companies making money off of this new technology, and she would benefit
by it. She added that sometimes there is too high a price to pay for what is
called seamless coverage. She was really astonished to hear about booster
kits, and she wished the company representatives had told the Supervisors
about them.
Mrs. Humphris said she did the simplest arithmetic and figured this
situation was similar to companies selling razors and razor blades. Company
representatives give away razors because they know they will make all of their
money from the razor blades. She said 5000 booster kits could be given away
at $200 each and a profit would still be made from the service provided, and
Sprint representatives wouldn't have to spend $1.0 million for this tower.
She recalled a comment by Mr. Bain and others that Albemarle County is worth
more than seamless coverage for six-tenths of a watt phones. She said the
limitations of flip phones needs to be broadcast more widely to people, and
they need to be told that if they want this type of coverage, they will have
to invest in three watt phones. Mrs. Humphris she will oppose the SP-95-20
request by Centel Cellular.
Mr. Marshall asked if a tree tower can be designed similar to the one he
described, Mr. Gibson replied that if Mr. Marshall saw such a tree tower,
Sprint representatives can get it. He has not seen a dead oak tree design,
but he has seen the Loblolly pine and white pine design. Mr. Marshall said
the tree tower to which he is referring had no leaves on it, and the arms were
the antenna, This tower blended perfectly with the landscape. With no more
distance than from one end of this meeting room to the other, people would
have to look closely to see whether or not it was a real tree.
Mr. Gibson said Sprint representatives took the Loblolly pine design to
the ARB, and Frank Kessler suggested that the branches come all the way down
to the top of the tree level. A manufacturer was found in Texas who indicated
that this could be done, but there is a tremendous wind loading on these
towers when the branches are added. The design was passed around to some
people who indicated they thought it looked good. He is probably biased in
favor of the design, but he thinks it looks good too.
Mr. Bowerman said this is a land use decision, and he referred to the
Planning staff's negative recommendation of the proposal. A lot of the
comments made tonight were emotional, some were non-factual, and some were
overstated. He believes the smallest monopole possible might be a better
solution because it would take up the least space. He is also aware that
Albemarle County is not going to get seamless coverage, and there will not be
absolute service throughout this County.
Mr. Bowerman said if the County had a master plan from all the vendors
who will want to construct towers (recognizing that the poles will probably
not be shared), there would be a sprinkling of 30 to 40 towers throughout the
County. There is no way this Board will ever approve a master plan with 30 or
40 tower sites. He is going to rely on the Commission and staff's opinions.
He thinks Sprint Centel representatives did a good job making the presenta-
tion, but he thinks the public also made a very good showing.
October ll, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Bowerman said seamless coverage is not necessary throughout
Albemarle County. He can get cellular service anywhere in the County if he is
willing to wait a couple of minutes, and if he is not behind a mountain.
Drivers of his business trucks call him from cellular phones. These truck
drivers go off the air, and then five minutes later they come back on, and
they call him again. It is inconvenient, but it is not absolutely necessary
to have seamless coverage. If it was absolutely necessary, then he would
support this request, but he does not see this as being the case. He does not
think it makes sense to approve a tower just because it is not opposed and
then to not approve one that is opposed when both may be needed.
Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Bowerman's comments relating to the presenta-
tion, as well as the over-exaggeration of comments made by some people. He
got caught once in an area with no coverage when he was driving, He explained
that state employees use portable phones which can be moved from car to car
because they are cheaper. He remarked that his car started smoking badly so
he pulled over and tried to call 911, as well as his office. He was in an
area where there was no coverage, so he had to make a decision. It was a hot
95 degree summer day, and he had to decide if he wanted to walk two miles to
the next exit, if he wanted to try and drive until he could get phone cover-
age, or if he wanted to sit there and hope some nice person passing by would
help him. Eventually he drove until he got out of the no coverage zone. It
is more than just the inconvenience of having to wait until a person gets
beyond a mountain. His wife travels tb Martinsville often without him, and it
is his hope that she will be within phone coverage if her car should break
down.
Mr. Martin said this is a tough decision for him, although this phone
coverage may not be so important yet. He referred to Mr. Bain's discussion of
new technology. Perhaps technology will be available soon which will make
towers obsolete, and there will be seamless coverage, however, this does not
seem to be the case according to the experts. Even Mr. Bain indicated he is
unsure about this new technology. Mr. Martin said he connected to the
Internet before he came to this meeting, and he realized he has a lot more
learning to do and a lot more work ahead of him. There is a price to pay for
technology. He may not vote for approval of this tower, but he is very
sympathetic to the need for the tower. He does not think towers look bad
enough for this Board to always vote negatively. He recalled that he had
voted in favor of a tower in the Route 29 area. He said, at some point, this
Board is going to have to start approving them.
At this time Mrs. Thomas moved for denial of Centel Cellular's SP-95-20.
She said she does not have to talk to the crowd because she is always proud of
the Ivy Valley people. They are articulate, and they care deeply. She added
that a plan is needed because she does not think it is fair to Centel to react
to hints and whispers, and it is also not fair for this Board to have to worry
about the possibilities of more towers. She commented that this matter needs
to be tackled as a whole issue and not just on a one-on-one situation. She
recalled that someone suggested thinking of the County as a whole, and she
agrees with this statement. She also thinks it is a lot easier to ruin an
area than it is to retrieve it, and there is no reason why Albemarle County
has to be known as an area rushing to the foreground of every possible
technology. The Ivy Valley is a beautiful area, and the people feel the need
to save it. She also pointed out that she will not give in on the attempt to
have the Supervisors take a guilt trip just because there may be an area
without cellular phone coverage and some day a bad accident might take place
there. If Sprint representatives feel guilty for everybody who has an
accident because they are inattentive while talking on their car phones, then
she will feel guilty when there is an accident in the one area where there is
no coverage. She emphasized that this particular line of argument doesn't
affect her very much because she gets nervous when she sees people talking on
their phones while driving. She said she is not implying that this is the
fault of the Sprint Company representatives.
Mr. Bowerman gave second to the motion.
Mr. Marshall stated that he is going to support Mrs. Thomas' motion
because the matter relates to her district. He does not entirely agree that
these phones are not needed for health and safety because he thinks they are
necessary for this reason. He thinks Mrs. Thomas is absolutely right that the
whole picture needs to be considered. He feels strongly that towers should
not be so gaudy, and they should blend in with the environment if they have to
be built. He is sorry this is not the case with this particular tower, and it
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
is obvious to the people who live there that it doesn't blend in with the
landscape.
Mr. Perkins commented that he likes the idea of the artificial tree
tower, although he does not like artificial trees, and he expressed concern as
far as where technology is headed in this field. He recalled that some of the
first tower requests were presented when Mr. Bain was on this Board, and the
Supervisors talked about possibly having antennae put in church steeples. He
said there would be more of them, but they wouldn't be visible at all. He
would support the motion because of the people who came to this meeting
opposing this tower.
Roll was called at this time and the motion to deny SP-95-20 carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:05 p.m., and reconvened at 10:17 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-95-26. Paul McGill. Public Hearing on a request
for a Home Occupation-Class B for blacksmith shop on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Located
on S sd of Rt 250 E approx 600 ft E of Rt 616. TM94,P28. Rivanna Dist.
(This site is not located in a designated growth area.) (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and
October 2, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg told Board members that the biggest concern relating to
SP-95-26 is the location of the proposed blacksmith business relative to
residential properties. He noted the potential noise factor, and he referred
to a report from Amelia McCulley, the Zoning Administrator (included in the
Supervisors' packets), which showed the decibel readings for noise at the
site. He said Mr. McGill, the applicant, had also furnished a packet of
information relating to his proposal. This information, as well as Ms.
McCulley's observation on site, indicated that a limited impact on adjacent
properties could be anticipated. With the current proposal, the occupation
would be 16 feet from the property line and 80 feet from the adjacent resi-
dence. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that 16 feet is less than the 25 feet
specified in the ordinance, so the permit would have to be modified to allow
this use. The operation would be in an existing accessory structure which has
been retrofitted for the proposed home occupation. Staff has recommended
approval with four conditions, but the Commission, in consideration of
adjacent property concerns, recommended denial of the request.
There were no questions from the Board members, so the public hearing
was opened.
Mr. Paul McGill, the applicant, asked for approval of his petition for a
special use permit for a Class-B home occupation permit. This would allow
business use of a small workshop on his property in which he has done black-
smithing on a hobby basis, for the last two years. The permit would allow one
craftsman, himself, to work in a small shop with no road or driveway access.
He stated that work conducted in this shop is limited in scope and intensity
to what he would consider conscientious residential usage, and any noise from
this building on weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. is no greater than
the ambient level of noise in the neighborhood. There will also be days in
which he will be gone entirely working on farms or at someone's house. He
pointed out that this special use permit creates nothing new in this neighbor-
hood except employment for himself and taxes for this County.
Mr. McGill said before he applied for this permit, he discussed his
plans with the three adjacent neighbors and received their verbal support. He
referred to the September 19, 1995, Commission meeting where his neighbor, Mr.
Bruce Hunter, with whom he had been on good terms, objected to his petition
and raised concerns about the potential noise, smoke and property value loss.
Since this time, Mr. McGill has finished his work relative to noise attenua-
tion, spending over $500 and many hours of labor for this purpose. Mr. McGill
mentioned Ms. McCulley's visit and the tests that were conducted which are
included in her report. He also referred to the great deal of information he
supplied, and which he hopes the Supervisors have examined.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30) ....
Mr. McGill said he invited Mr. Hunter over after these tests, thinking
he could demonstrate to him the actual level of noise being created, as well
as the intermittent nature of it, etc. He noted that Mr. Hunter came over,
but he was not interested in a demonstration. He said Mr. Hunter's indica-
tions were that although his objections were not personal, he was determined
to object because he feared his property might lose value if Mr. McGill
obtained a special use permit. Mr. McGill emphasized that this is the issue.
He went on to say that he does not think Mr. Hunter will lose property value
because of this permit, and for him not to be supportive of this application
without being willing to conduct some tests and view real evidence, does not
make this a justifiable reason or excuse. He then asked for this Board's
approval of SP-95-26.
Mrs. Thomas asked how Mr. McGill will heat the irons. Mr. McGill
answered that the irons are heated in a cold propane forge.
Mrs. Thomas inquired if Mr. McGill has operated this forge in a closed
building, and if he can stand the heat with all of the doors and windows
closed. Mr. McGill replied affirmatively.
Mrs. Thomas wondered if Mr. McGill has an air conditioner in his
building. Mr. McGill responded, "no." He explained that the forge does not
produce a lot of heat such as a wood stove. A pipe conducts air into the coal
which has been converted into coke and produces very little smoke. He said it
is very hot where the material is located, but it doesn't radiate a lot of
heat. He indicated that the material with which he works is very small, and
he primarily makes scrolls out of relatively light material, so the fires are
kept to a simple size.
Mrs. Thomas inquired if Mr. McGill can do all of his work within his
enclosed building. Mr. McGill answered affirmatively.
Mr. Bruce Hunter informed the Board members that he is the adjacent
property owner immediately east of Mr. McGill's property. He will mention
five issues which he has already raised with the Commission, and he also
wishes to address a couple of items raised by Mr. McGill in his presentation.
He first mentioned the character of the area in which this proposed business
would be located. He referred to Page Two of the staff report which indicates
that no change in the character of the district is anticipated. With all due
respect to the Planning staff, he feels the character of the immediate
neighborhood and his home site, in particular, will be affected due to the
close proximity of the structure housing this proposed business. The permit
should be denied because of the character of the neighborhood in which this
shop would be located.
Mr. Hunter then quoted from Page One of the staff report indicating that
this area of Route 250 has a number of residential units and is not used for
agriculture. He said his home is located in the Boyd Tavern neighborhood, and
it is a residential area. Although it is zoned rural, over the years it has
been subdivided into two-acre lots for homes. There are no businesses of any
industrial nature, and there are no ongoing farming operations, the area has
single-unit family homes. He feels that an industrial business of this type,
even on a small scale, should be carried out in areas specifically zoned for
this type of enterprise and not in the middle of an area where people have
homes and seek to get away from such enterprises. This is true from his
perspective because the proposed business would not be 80 feet from his back
door.
Second, Mr. Hunter addressed setback requirements, and he called
attention to the staff's indications that the building in which this business
would be housed does not meet setback regulations. He quoted from the Zoning
Ordinance that any accessory structure not conforming to the setback and yard
regulations for main structures in the district in which it is located shall
not be used for any home occupation. The required setback is a minimum of 25
feet, and the present structure for this proposed blacksmith shop is only 16
feet from the property line. Approval of this permit will require a special
waiver of the setback regulations specified in the special use permit itself.
Mr. Hunter respectfully requested that this Board follow the ordinance in
place concerning special use permits for Class-B home occupations. He this
application is not in compliance with the regulations set forth for such
permits.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
oooo?s
Mr. Hunter said his third concern relates to noise levels. He admitted
that he is not an expert when it comes to the blacksmith business, but he
understands the whole enterprise centers around working with metal. He feels
that using hammers to strike metal with sufficient force to work it into a
salable product produces an inordinant level of noise, although Mr. McGill has
indicated that he has installed insulation to help alleviate this problem.
Mr. Hunter said he has grave doubts as to whether or not thermal insulation
designed to block the transmission of heat will significantly dampen the level
of noise generated by steel hammering steel. Mr. Hunter quoted from Page One
of the staff report which indicated that equipment used in the occupation
included, but was not limited to forge, hand tools, drill press, hacksaw and
grinder. He commented that Mr. McGill, after receiving his special use
permit, may use any tool or any piece of equipment he so chooses in the
carrying out of his business. He invited the Supervisors to drive to the old
Rivanna Fire Station in Keswick and listen to the hammer mills in this
blacksmith shop. He noted that an automatic hammer mill, consistently
striking metal several times a second, sounds as though it is a jack hammer.
He referred to Mr. McGill's indication that he does not own a hammer mill nor
does he intend to purchase one. He pointed out that Mr. McGill's application
specifically states that he may utilize any tool or piece of equipment
including hammer mills, and Mr. Hunter emphasized the lack of desire to have
even the potential for such a repetitive inordinate level of noise 80 feet
from his back door. He remarked that this special use permit is so open-ended
that it in no way precludes this type of ongoing repetitive, excessively loud
noise.
Mr. Hunter voiced concerns about the performance standards required of
this enterprise, and he said Mr. McGill had made reference to these standards
earlier. As an adjacent property owner, if this permit is approved, he has
practically no recourse in raising an objection because the performance
standards dictating an acceptable level of noise are not based on reasonable
neighborhood standards. The performance standards are not even based on the
level of noise which can be reasonably expected in rural agricultural dis-
tricts. Rather, Mr. Hunter stated that the performance standards are based on
the level of noise acceptable in an industrial district. He also mentioned
that, according to the Zoning Ordinance, such levels of noise would be allowed
from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week, 365 days a year, 80 feet from
his home. He said this is an absolutely unacceptable standard for a residen-
tial neighborhood. He is convinced that if the Supervisors make a recommenda-
tion for this special use permit to be granted, they are allowing for the very
real probability of his family being subjected to an unreasonable and unac-
ceptable industrial level of noise which will have a severe and adverse impact
on the quality of life they currently enjoy and appreciate in the Boyd Tavern
neighborhood.
Mr. Hunter said his fourth concern is related to smoke and particulate
matter from a coal-fired forge. It was his understanding, after speaking with
the Planning staff last month, that Mr. McGill intended to fire his forge with
coal rather than coke. He agreed that coke burns much cleaner than coal, but
it is also more expensive. The Planning staff indicated that requiring coke
to be used, as opposed to raw coal, might possibly be included as a condition
for the granting of this permit. He said Mr. McGill later indicated that coke
was not readily available in Central Virginia, and he would be "coking coal"
in his forge. Mr. Hunter went on to say that coke is produced because it
burns away the impurities which cause the greatest amount of smoke and the
greatest amount of particulate matter. The process utilizes coal in order to
produce a more concentrated fuel which results in a cleaner, hotter and more
even burning fire. He believes burning coal and coking it in Mr. McGill's
forge rather than burning coke exclusively would produce an inordinate amount
of smoke and particulate matter. He mentioned again the performance standards
by which this smoke or particulate matter would be measured. These perfor-
mance standards are not required in a residential district, nor in a rural
district, nor an agricultural district, but rather in an industrial district.
He emphasized that neither he nor Mr. McGill live in an industrial district
but, instead, they live in a residential neighborhood which lies in a rural
area.
Mr. Hunter then shared with the Board an incident occurring when he and
his family returned from church on October 1, 1995. He fixed a pot of coffee,
got the Sunday paper and went to sit on his back deck. He stated that before
he had finished the editorial page, his entire back yard and deck area, along
with that of his adjacent neighbor, was totally enveloped in smoke from ground
level to approximately 30 to 40 feet in height. When he first saw it, he
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
000079
thought something was on fire, but upon further investigation he noticed the
four-foot smoke stack from Mr. McGill's coal-burning forge. He said the smoke
was so intense he left his coffee on the deck and retreated to the den to
finish reading the paper. Last Sunday, at approximately the same time, there
was no smoke, but there was the repulsive odor of coal fumes wafting across
his rear deck. No person sitting on this Board would desire these types of
nuisances 80 feet from their back door.
Mr. Hunter then mentioned his concern relating to declining property
values. He was told by a realtor, from whom he purchased his home 18 months
ago and who has done business in Albemarle County for over 40 years, that if
this special use permit for a blacksmith shop is granted, it will adversely
affect the value of his home. Most families in this society move once or
twice over the course of their lifetimes, and in all likelihood, he will do
the same thing. He reiterated his extreme concern that if this permit is
approved, the investment which he made in good faith, as well as being the
largest investment he has made in his life will, in all likelihood, decrease.
He asked if Mr. McGill or any of the Supervisors are willing to assume the
financial responsibility for the risk Mr. McGill is asking Mr. Hunter and his
family to take in order for Mr. McGill to start a business. He Hunter said he
cannot afford a dramatic reduction in the value of the home he has bought, and
in all frankness, he does not think it is reasonable for Mr. McGill or this
Board to expect him to do so. He reiterated that while the neighborhood in
which he lives is zoned rural, the area is not comprised of farms. He said it
is comprised of single-family residences built on subdivided lots of two- to
four-acres. There are no other businesses in the area, other than the ones
normally associated with such residential areas, such as a small food market,
a beauty shop and a home-based day care center for children. He said that
when objectively examining the issues involved, the Commission voted unani-
mously to recommend against granting this permit. There is a piece of
property located approximately four and one-half miles from his home which has
already been granted the same type of permit by this Board, at some point in
the past, for which Mr. McGill has applied. He pointed out that this property
is for sale, and he suggested that Mr. McGill purchase or rent this property
and locate his business on a piece of property which has already been granted
a special use permit for this purpose. He wondered how many pieces of
property need to be available for blacksmith shops in Albemarle County. He
has no desire to risk his investment in his home in a desire to finance Mr.
McGill's business initiative.
Mr. Hunter said that because of the present character of the neighbor-
hood in which he lives; because the structure of this shop does not meet
setback requirements; because of concerns with regard to noise levels; because
of concerns regarding smoke and particulate matter; because of concerns with
regard to performance standards which are those for an industrial district
rather than a residential neighborhood; and because of the certain adverse
effect of the value of his property, he respectfully requested that this
application for a special use permit to open a home-based blacksmith shop be
denied. He referred to a comment made by Mr. McGill who indicated that prior
to applying for this permit he had done hobby work in this shop. He said it
is his understanding that this forge has only been installed recently, and it
has not been there for the year and one-half that Mr. McGill has lived in this
area. Further, Mr. Hunter stated that he does not think it is fair for Mr.
McGill to characterize himself as making small items to sell at craft shows,
etc. He said Mr. McGill has indicated to him on more than one occasion that
he intends to do subcontract work for his former employer, meaning the
blacksmith shop located in Keswick in the former Rivanna Fire Department.
With regard to the amount of money Mr. McGill has already spent on this
enterprise, Mr. Hunter said that he can appreciate Mr. McGill's concern about
this expenditure. He commented that wisdom and prudence should have dictated
the act of applying for and receiving a permit for this enterprise before he
expended the money. He feels this is not an issue, and he asked the Supervi-
sors, again, to deny the request.
Mr. Gordon Wheeler said he had been asked by Mr. Hunter to give his
professional opinion as to whether or not this special permit would affect the
value of Mr. Hunter's home. Mr. Wheeler said he had examined the issue from
the two standpoints of sight and noise. If he took a client to look at this
property, and black smoke was drifting in the direction of Mr. Hunter's
property, which could well happen, the value of the property would go com-
pletely down. If the client heard noise, the value would go down, and
certainly, in his professional opinion, anything of this type would affect the
value of Mr. Hunter's property.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
0000 0
Mrs. Julie McGill reiterated her husband's comment that when they
applied for this permit, they had the verbal approval and support of all three
of the adjacent neighbors. They thought there was no problem. She called
attention to the heavy smoke incident to which Mr. Hunter referred. She said
Mr. Hunter talked with her husband about this matter and they thought it was
settled. She said there was a great deal of smoke the first time the new
forge was lit, and her husband will go into that with the Board. She thinks
it was unfair of Mr. Hunter to bring up this matter when it had already been
discussed.
Mr. Robert Wesley Couch, Jr., a neighbor of Mr. McGill's, stated that he
could not find a finer neighbor than Mr. McGill. He came before this Board
relative to a zoning issue when Mr. Gordon Wheeler was a Supervisor so
businesses would be allowed in the Boyd Tavern area, and the citizens could
support themselves. He pointed out that at the present time, there is a
business in front of Mr. McGill's property, Mr. Couch's wife has a beauty shop
at the side of Mr. McGill's property, and there is a shop behind his property.
Mr. Couch said Mr. McGill has put as much time and energy into his business as
any doctor or lawyer would do to make his or her livelihood, and he asked the
Board to allow Mr. McGill to have his workshop on his property. As far as
property values are concerned, he built the house and shed on Mr. McGill's
property and every time it was sold, it increased in value. Some members of
this Board granted a permit for a much more extensive metal shop which was
located in front of the adjacent house to Mr. McGill, and it operated for ten
years before it got big enough to move further down the road. He is sure that
when Mr. McGill gets as big, he will also move. Mr. Couch indicated that now
Mr. McGill needs to work where he lives. Mr. McGill has been a mighty good
neighbor for a mighty long time, and he asked the Supervisors to please grant
Mr. McGill the special permit to forge his steel and sell his products.
Mr. Richard Diamond said he and his family moved here from southern
California six years ago. His house sets directly behind Mr. McGill's
property. He stated that Mr. Couch, who just spoke, built the McGill's home,
and he built the house in which Mr. Diamond lives, and he also built his
present home. His house is directly between the Couch and McGill properties,
but it is set back, the original lot is triangular in shape. The Couch and
McGill properties are located on Route 250, and his property is directly
behind their properties. He has not had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Hunter
until tonight, and he hopes they can be good friends, because they are next
door neighbors. He understands Mr. Hunter's concerns because they are his
concerns also.
Mr. Diamond said he does not want property values to decrease, and he
does not want smoke or noise. He knows the McGills and he is willing to bet
his investment in his house that Mr. McGill is as good as his word, and he is
not going to damage the community. He believes Mr. McGill is going to help
the community, and he emphasized that he had never had such good neighbors
before. He moved to his property approximately five and one-half years ago,
and the McGills have been there for three or four years. They have done
wonders in terms of putting in a beautiful garden, moving trees and installing
ornamental wrought iron work, which he understands is the type of thing Mr.
McGill will be making in his shop. Mr. McGill showed him the shop, and it is
in a pre-existing shed. He said Mr. McGill assured him the shop is well
insulated, and he believes him. He understands the Zoning Administrator has
checked the noise decibels. He has never heard any noise come from that
direction, and he has never seen any smoke. He mentioned other noises in the
neighborhood, such as chain saws and lawnmowers, which he doesn't mind. He
also hears the bass sounds from cars on the road which is a horrible noise.
He is very sensitive to noise and does not want noise, but he believes the
McGills are the finest people anyone could possibly have for neighbors. He
then thanked the Supervisors for the work they do, and for staying up late at
night to make decisions. He stated that the spirit of Thomas Jefferson is
here, as well as the spirit of home government, and not government from some
foreign place. There is also the idea of small businesses, and the McGills
fit into this category. They are very conscientious people. He reiterated
that the McGills are not going to hurt the neighborhood, and he is willing to
bet his property values on that.
Mr. McGill commented that if people were asked how they would like a
sanitary landfill 80 feet from their back door, they would know how to
respond. He hopes the Supervisors have taken the time to review the data and
photographs he supplied because they give a better impression of this situa-
tion than Mr. Hunter has created. This is a big deal for him because he has
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
00008'1
invested in this business, he has planned for it, and he has taken risks to
try to make it happen. He emphasized that it shouldn't be a big deal for
anyone living close to him, because the shop produces less noise and smoke
than a home woodworking shop with a wood stove. The shop is under 100 feet
from his own house, and it is as close to his house as it is to Mr. Hunter's.
He has spent over $1000 and hundreds of hours improving the building's
appearance and making it quieter. He said that he and his wife are committed
to improving the value of both their property and the neighborhood. They have
been doing this since they moved into the neighborhood two and one-half years
ago.
Mr. McGill said he has done blacksmithing in his shed whenever he could,
and he has had other forges in it. He has typically had propane forges in the
shop, and there have been other chimneys through this particular roof. One
chimney was connected to an oil burning unit, which he never used, because it
produced a lot of smoke. He mentioned that Mr. Hunter gave the same speech at
the Commission meeting. He could almost excuse his misrepresentations then
because Mr. Hunter had not seen him working, and he had not seen any of the
items he intended to make. He explained that since this meeting, Mr. Hunter
has had such an opportunity, and he should know that he has given this Board
the wrong impression. The smoke incident to which Mr. Hunter referred
occurred on Sunday, October 1, 1995, and he had warned Mr. Hunter in advance
about the smoke from the new forge. He had told him the forge would smoke like
a steam engine because he had to burn coal directly to create the heat to make
a supply of coke in the forge which would afterward provide the fuel. He said
this is a one-time event, and he doesn't believe it produced as much smoke as
Mr. Hunter implied. He has been doing this for six years, and he has never
seen as much smoke produced in this type of event. He had hoped to do this
when Mr. Hunter wasn't home, but because Mr. Hunter had raised objections at
the Commission meeting Mr. McGill was very pressed for time. He had to do it
when he had the occasion, so when Ms. McCul!ey visited, he could demonstrate
the forge as it typically works. He then invited the Supervisors to his shop,
and he offered to demonstrate the forge's operation. He mentioned that a
little smoke is produced upon first lighting the forge, but during the
operation, there is little or no noticeable smoke. He referred to Mr.
Hunter's comment about the odor last Sunday, and he said he does not know what
Mr. Hunter smelled. He was not using the forge, and he did not smell the
odor. He can only assume that it was something from Mr. Hunter's own back-
yard, because it was not coming from his shop.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. McGill to comment on the process of making coke
from coal. Mr. McGill responded that coke is typically produced for steel
making in large quantities in special containers which limit the amount of
oxygen to make coal combustible. It turns it into fuel with fewer impurities
which is important, not for smoke attenuation, but to keep the metal from
coming into contact with impurities such as sulphur, etc. He went on to say
that in a blacksmithing forge there is a supply of coke generating the heat.
The surrounding coal around the coke is kept wet and compacted. The impuri-
ties are cooked out, and it changes to a much lighter substance.
Mr. Martin asked if when coke is being used, new coke is being made.
Mr. McGill agreed, it is a very antique procedure, and it takes some skill.
He referred to Mr. Martin's visit, and said the bed of coke was still being
created when Mr. Martin was there. Mr. McGill indicated that he was preparing
to run the forge for Mr. Hunter on Friday, but he didn't show up at the agreed
upon time. Mr. McGill noted that he ran the forge for approximately an hour
that day, and nothing was noticeable. He calls this a blacksmith shop, but he .
puts to use a variety of skills. Forging elements is not the large part of
his business by any stretch of the imagination. There are days, and perhaps a
week at a time, when he would not even light the forge. He explained that it
is not necessary to forge some things to make certain products, such as fire
screens, etc. He pointed out the weather vane on the top of his workshop, and
said he did most of this work, and a forge was never lit.
Mr. Martin next inquired about the hammer mills. Mr. McGill replied
that power hammers are made in many sizes, and he has no desire for one. He
would be happy to have a condition on the special use permit excluding them
entirely. He does not have the space for one, and the light material with
which he works does not require a power hammer. He explained that power
hammers are for drawing down heavy material, and he works with rods of
five-sixteenths of an inch up to one-half inch in size. He told Board members
that scrolls are the primary design he will be making, and this is mostly a
bending operation, with not much forging involved. He commented that the ends
000082
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
of the rods are flattened, which is the forging operation, and then they are
curled over and bent. He mentioned that almost all of the work he will be
doing could be done with a propane forge, but they cost approximately $600.
He has put a lot of money into this operation, and unless he is in business,
he will have a hard time j~stifying this expense. He said the propane forge
would almost make the coal forge obsolete. There may be occasions when he
would need to use it.
Mr. McGill said he has spent money on this operation because it was a
hobby, and he already had most of the tools. He set the building up as a shop
and did the noise attenuation test because he felt as though people would
misunderstand his blacksmithing operation. Most people are unfamiliar with
such an operation, and they would not understand his situation. He felt as
though he would have no opportunity of getting this application approved if he
could not demonstrate the noise and smoke levels. He actually thought there
were no objections.
Mr. McGill said e is not in a position to move somewhere else. He is
trying to make do with the resources he has in hand. He does not think Mr.
Hunter's concerns about the property value loss are justified. He does not
think this matter will ever become an issue. Mr. McGill referred to the types
of things he will be making which are within his capabilities and within the
limitations of the shop. It is a small building, with no road or driveway, so
he cannot be making anything large. His business will be very limited, and it
is not something which is going to be a bother to anybody. He is very
sensitive to his neighbors' rights for privacy. He thinks a lot of this
concern relates to Mr. Wheeler's position. Mr. McGill knows Mr. Wheeler is a
respected realtor in the area, but he noted that Mr. Wheeler has made no
attempt to contact him or see a demonstration. He said Mr. Wheeler sold Mr.
Hunter his property, but Mr. McGill thinks he has done more to protect Mr.
Hunter's property than Mr. Wheeler did in helping Mr. Hunter choose his most
expensive investment. Mr. McGill informed Board members that Mr. Hunter was
not even aware the area was zoned RA. He thinks Mr. Wheeler could have
informed Mr. Hunter of this zoning, rather than trying to say that this area
is strictly residentially zoned. He asked if there were any questions for
him.
Mr. Hunter remarked that he would concur with the individuals who have
spoken on Mr. McGill's behalf regarding his character and his goodness as a
neighbor. Both he and his wife are indeed good neighbors. With all due
respect to the rest of the neighbors, this building is not located anywhere
near the places where they live and where they house their families. Mr.
Couch's house is removed from the building by one whole two-acre lot, and the
gentleman who lives behind Mr. McGill has a home not even visible from Mr.
Hunter's back yard. He commented that he understands why none of these people
would have any problems with this business. He told Mr. Couch that if this
business was located 80 feet from his back door, Mr. Hunter wouldn't have a
problem with it either. In all fairness to Mr. Wheeler, as well as his own
character, Mr. Hunter stated that he highly resents the insinuation that
misrepresentations have been made or that Mr. Wheeler has in some manner
failed or did something corrupt in selling him this property. He said this is
not the case.
Since there were no further comments at this time, Mr. Perkins closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Martin informed the other Supervisors that he has gone to the site
and spent some time there. He went through the building, and he looked at the
insulation. He said Mr. McGill turned on some of his equipment to show him
how noisy it is. Mr. Martin said he also went outside of the building and
stood on the side toward Mr. Hunter's lot. He had Mr. McGill beat cold metal
on cold metal. He said this sound is a lot louder than what Mr. McGill will
actually be doing because most of the time he would be beating a hammer on hot
metal. He remarked that it is possible he could have been set up, but the
smoke he saw when Mr. McGill revved up the forge was not nearly what would be
coming from a regular chimney. He also indicated that he did not think people
could hear the noise unless they were tuned into it. He thinks if Mr. McGill
was working on a Sunday afternoon, and Mr. Hunter was sitting on his deck, and
he was tuned into the noise, he could probably hear it. He also stated that
on a week day if Mr. Hunter was moving about, he does not think he would hear
this noise any louder than cars traveling on Route 250 or a horn blowing. He
thinks these other noises would be heard a lot quicker than the noises coming
from Mr. McGill's shop.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
000083
Based on his observation and some of the comments he heard today, motion
was offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-95-26, with the four conditions
recommended by the Planning Staff, adding No. 5 to read "Hours of operation
shall be week days between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m."; and adding No. 6 to read
"The use of a hammer mill is prohibited."
Mr. Davis suggested that the granting of a waiver be included in the
motion, so it can all be done with one vote.
Mr. Martin then included in his motion the granting of a waiver from 25
feet to 16 feet for the side yard setback.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Marshall inquired as to why the Commission denied this application.
Mr. Martin replied that he does not believe anybody from the Commission had
actually been to the site and looked at it. He thinks this happened even
before Ms. McCulley had an opportunity to go there. Ms. McCulley agreed. Mr.
Martin stated that this is the reason he went to the site. He really wanted
to see what was so bad there, and it wasn't what he had pictured from reading
the Commission's minutes.
Mrs. Thomas commented that she had noticed Mr. Martin had gone to the
site on October 3. She pointed out that the Commission had denied the
application on September 19th. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that his staff members
had gone to the site on the Wednesday before the application was taken to the
Commission.
Mrs. Thomas stated that she didn't have a chance to visit the site, but
she had her neighbor pound his anvil with a hammer. She stood 80 feet away in
the open and listened. She added that this will probably be the noisiest part
of Mr. McGill's operation, which is the reason she asked if the work would be
done in an enclosed space. It makes a great difference because hammering in
the open caused an unpleasant noise. She went on to say that she is going to
support this motion, but she wished it was in the Supervisors' power to direct
neighbors not to start a feud. The noise is as psychological as it is
auditory.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he has known Gordon Wheeler all of his life.
He asked if Mr. Wheeler had heard anything tonight to change his mind about
property values. Mr. Wheeler replied, "no. He has been by the building at
Keswick, which has the same type of operation, and he has seen the black smoke
coming from the building. He said when coke is made from coal, there is going
to be black smoke. If any of the Supervisors think this will not devalue
property, they are mistaken.
Ms. McGill pointed out that the blacksmith shop at Keswick has six
employees.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are as follows.)
3.
4.
5.
6.
Use shall be limited to the accessory structure identified
in Attachment C (on file);
No employees other than family members residing on the
premises;
No signage shall be permitted;
All outdoor activities, including storage of materials,
shall not be permitted;
Hours of operation shall be week days between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.;
The use of a hammer mill is prohibited.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-95-28. Church of God. Public Hearing on a
request to expand existing church on approx 1.6 ac zoned RA. Located on S sd
of Rt 663 approx 0.7 mi E of Rt 810. TM9,P4&6A. White Hall Dist. (This site
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
000084
is not located in a designated growth area. ) (Notice of this public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2, 1995.)
Mr. Martin suggested to the Chairman that it might be a good idea to
establish some ground rules as far as how long people will be allowed to
speak.
Mr. Cilimberg informed the Supervisors that the application relates to a
proposal to construct an expansion to the Church of God for additional
sanctuary area, classrooms and kitchen, and was recommended unanimously for
the Supervisors' approval, with no discussion by the Commission.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was
present. The applicant was present, but had no comments.
Motion by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas to approve with the
four conditions of the Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are as follows.)
4 0
Relocation of the existing sign in order to achieve a mini-
mum of 350 feet of sight distance;
Paving of the entrance to the right-of-way limits;
Development shall be in general accord with the site plan
titled "Addition to the Nortonsville Church of God" dated
June 2, 1995. Modifications to the site plan to address the
requirements and recommendations of the Site Review Commit-
tee shall be permitted;
Approval of this permit shall not constitute approval of a
day care/nursery school.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-95-10. Crozet Moose Lodge No. 2164. Public
Hearing on a request to rezone approx 3.0 ac zoned RA to HC. Located on S sd
of Rt 250 approx 0.7 mi E of 1-64. (This site is not located in a designated
growth area [Rural Area 3]). TM55,P109B. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and
October 2, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, and discussed the positive
and negative factors of a request by the Crozet Moose Lodge to rezone 3.18
acres from Rural Areas to Highway Commercial. He explained that the property
is located on the south side of Route 250 approximately one-half mile east of
the Yancey Mills interchange at 1-64. He noted that the staff, as well as the
Commission, have both recommended denial of the request.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing immediately since there were no
questions for Mr. Cilimberg.
Mr. Richard Carter was present to represent the applicant. Generally
applicants have a vacant piece of RA property, and they want to rezone it to
Highway Commercial or some type of commercial zoning. This Board has always
been hesitant to rezone property without knowing how it will be used. He is
happy to say tonight that the use is already there. The property in question
was originally zoned for commercial use, but it was downzoned to RA. Somehow,
the members of the Moose Lodge did not realize this was being done. They have
searched their minutes and talked to people who where members of the Board of
Supervisors at the time, and have even gone to the Moose headquarters in Ohio
to see if there are any records of the downzoning of this property from
commercial to R3t. He is not implying that the downzoning was improperly
done. But the Moose Lodge members would like to have the zoning the thought
was still on the property.
Mr. Carter said there are no plans for a different use on the property,
and he recalled a truck repair shop being housed on the property when it was
purchased by the Moose Lodge members. The property was commercially zoned at
the time, and he asked for the same flexibility now that was available at the
time the Moose Lodge members purchased the property. He called attention to
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
000085
the fact that three of the five nearest lots are zoned highway commercial. He
referred to the staff's report which includes a copy of the tax map section
where this property is shown. Parcel One has HC zoning; Parcel Two is zoned
HC; Parcel Three is the Moose Lodge property which is zoned RA; and Parcel
Four has HC zoning. He emphasized that the use for this property is no
different, and in many ways has more of a commercial use, than the other
properties. He does not think this is good planning.
Mr. Carter said this is not an agriculture area, and the character of
the area is not going to change. He referred to Page One of the staff report
and read from the section involving the character of the area. He mentioned
that the Comprehensive Plan should have flexibility, and a commercial use
already exists. He read from Page Two of the staff report advising that the
Commission, as well as the Board of Supervisors, have denied requests to
establish commercial and industrial zoning in rural areas in the past and have
only allowed commercial and industrial rezonings outside of the growth area
where such uses already existed. He does not think the request from the Moose
Lodge will set a precedent, and he thinks it is in line with the way things
have been done in the past. Mr. Carter said he thinks the Moose Lodge has
been put into a situation where it is the exception instead of the rule.
Mr. Carter then called attention to the section of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to Highway Commercial zoning and permitted uses by right. He said
clubs, lodges, civic, paternal and patriotic, are listed as uses by right in
the Highway Commercial zone. The Crozet Moose Lodge is located in an area of
RA zoning, and he pointed out that the Lodge does not have a special use
permit. This is true because a special use permit is an exception to the use,
and it is not for a by-right use. He emphasized that the Lodge shouldn't have
to do this, because it has a commercial use which is compatible with adjoining
properties, and it should not need to be an exception. He said the use should
be by right.
Mr. Carter referred again to the staff reportl, where on Page Four,
positive factors are listed. He asked what can be Gone. There are three
acres of land on a major highway, and it has an old truck garage located on
it. He said the intent of the rural area cannot be met on this land because
commercial zoning is to the left, right and across 'the street. The proposal
is generally compatible, the intent of the surrounding areas cannot be met,
and the property is zoned RA. It is like putting a square peg in a round
hole. He said to rezone property which is being used for commercial purposes
and has been used for such for over 40 years is not a precedent about which to
be concerned. He knows what is recommended for Crozet as far as commercial
use is concerned. The way the property is zoned is not good zoning, and the
Moose Lodge members are not asking for something different. He said they are
simply asking to be back where they were.
Mr. Randy Layman, a governor at the Crozet Moose Lodge, stated that it
is not often that people from his organization talk about what they do, but
they have a lot of fund-raising events, and they work hard for the community
of Crozet. He mentioned the Lodge's support through many years of the Peach
Tree Little League, and his belief that if it were not for the Crozet Moose
Lodge, the Peach Tree Little League would not be in existence. He called
attention to the Lodge's support throughout the years of the Girl Scouts and
Boy Scouts. The Lodge is a major contributor to the All Night Prom Party in
Charlottesville and has donated approximately $1500. Further, Mr. Layman
mentioned a $500 donation to Camp Albemarle in the White Hall District. He
said the list continues with the Lodge members cont'ributing approximately
$20,000 to community activities. This is not a rezoning issue but, instead,
it would be getting back something for which the Moose Lodge members paid.
When the lot was bought, it had highway commercial zoning, and certain things
could be done there by right without a special use permit. Perhaps it was
ignorance on the part of the Lodge members because 'they did not catch the
zoning change when it was done, and it was only 18 months ago that they
actually realized the property was not zoned for Highway Commercial activi-
ties. He researched the Lodge records before he called the County. He was
told that a personal letter to every owner was not necessary at the time the
rezoning occurred because there were over 500 parce'ls in the comprehensive
downzoning throughout the County, and all that was necessary was one
advertisement in the newspaper. He reiterated that the Lodge members missed
this advertisement, but they are requesting the zoning be returned to its
previous state.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
0000 6
Ms. Liz McGregor said she heard someone say recently that whether or not
the public liked the actions of the present Board of Supervisors, its members
are the best informed of any of the previous boards. She wants to relate to
this Board what she perceives as an inequity. She lives in Western Albemarle
County on a small farm where she was born and where generations of her family
have lived. Not too many generations in her family would have to be contacted
to find farmers who would approve preserving the face of agriculture in
Western Albemarle County, but like many Albemarle County natives, her family
members would have a deep-rooted suspicion of those who would tell them how to
use their land. They would also have an intolerance of any governmental body
making an arbitrary decision affecting the value of their property. She
generally approves of and supports the Comprehensive Plan, but she finds
changing the zoning on a property without notifying the owner ludicrous.
Ms. McGregor she has not yet heard a valid argument for why property on
both sides of the Crozet Moose Lodge retained the Highway Commercial zoning,
and this property was downzoned to Agricultural, because there is nothing
about the property that looks agricultural. She mentioned the fact that this
property is located in the watershed area, but she pointed out that this is
also true with the other properties. At a meeting of the Commission, several
Commissioners saw the inequity, and indicated they might consider a change in
zoning when the need was there. She pointed out that the representative from
the White Hall District voted against a change stating that although growth in
Crozet is desired, Crozet is limited in its offerings and this should be
considered. The same representative went on to say that to change or restore
the zoning on this piece of property would send the wrong message. She
emphasized that not restoring the zoning on this property sends a message
which is diametrically opposed to her view of the Comprehensive Plan which is
inconsistency of zoning along this strip of highway as opposed to consistency.
Ms. McGregor said she retired after having taught in western Albemarle County
for 30 years. Her students learned that governments were responsive to the
people because they were made up of the people, and change or inequity would
be effected following prescribed procedures. She hopes the Supervisors will
not make a liar of her tonight.
Ms. Karen Dame, representing Citizens for Albemarle, agreed with the
position taken by the Commission and staff. Citizens for Albemarle and the
County staff continuously spend an enormous amount of effort trying to find
growth areas for the County and working to stabilize them. Her organization
supports the Crozet Community plan for downtown Crozet by directing new
commercial activity in the right direction, the defined growth area is more
viable and accomplishes the County's intent to avoid large-scale commercial-
ization along Route 250 West. She noted that members of Citizens for
Albemarle have consistently sought all protection possible for the watershed
area and have supported measures necessary in the County to maintain this
protection. She asked the Supervisors to deny this rezoning request in
support of the County's well-established plans for directing the impact of
development to particular areas of this magnificent County. Ms. Dame added
that she is always impressed when she comes before this Board with the
enormity of the Supervisors' task and the difficulty of it, and she thanked
them for all of their efforts.
Ms. Nancy Whiting Barnett, a resident of western Albemarle County,
stated that her property adjoins the Moose Lodge property, and it has been in
the Whiting family for over 70 years. She is a retired nurse, and her husband
is a retired postal worker, and she and her husband enjoy the quietness and
tranquility of their neighborhood. They would like for the property to remain
as it is currently zoned. She recalled that her father, who was a laborer,
earned $1.50 a day. He was able to buy five acres of land in western
Albemarle County, and with the aid of his friends and neighbors, he built her
home place. She would love to have her home kept in the Whiting family, and
does not want to feel as though she is being forced out by rezoning. There is
no way she and her husband could remain in their home with a shopping center
or some other type of business at their front door. Her property is located
in back of the Moose Lodge property. She wondered where she and her husband
would go, if they were forced out of their home, because Albemarle County has
lack of affordable housing for its citizens in the lower income bracket. She
would hate to have to consider relocating in the Charlottesville area which
has affordable housing, and she would not like to have to make a choice. She
thinks the Moose Lodge property would increase in value if it is rezoned~, but
she wondered what would happen to her property. Who would want to buy a house
with a shopping center sitting in its front yard. She believes her property
value would decrease, and she thinks it is time to consider what would happen
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40) ·
0000 7
to homeowners who cannot afford to change their residence. She said this
property is not in a designated growth area, and she wondered why it would not
remain zoned as it is currently. She asked the Supervisors to support the
decision made by the Commission.
Mr. Martin inquired if Ms. Barnett lived behind the Moose Lodge proper-
ty. Ms. Barnett replied, "yes. Her property is not mentioned in the staff
report, but her front yard is right behind the Moose Lodge property. Mr.
Martin asked if there are other residential properties in the vicinity of the
Barnett parcel. Ms. Barnett answered that her property goes to 1-64, and
there is a small village in that area called Free Town with approximately
eight houses. She said the neighborhood is made up mostly of African
Americans, but there are three Caucasian families living there also.
Mr. Marshall asked about the location of the access to the Barnett
property. Ms. Barnett responded that there is a road beside the Moose Lodge
providing access to her property. She said she does not live in Free Town.
Mr. Marshall inquired if Ms. Barnett's property is landlocked. Ms. Barnett
answered that she has her own driveway.
Mr. Martin next asked Ms. Barnett her opinion as to what would happen if
there was a shopping center where the Moose Lodge is presently located. Ms.
Barnett replied that she does not even know the Moose Lodge is there. The
members are quiet, and the trees have been left in front of her place. She
added that the noise is blocked, and she can't see anything going on there.
She emphasized that the Moose Lodge members have been excellent neighbors, but
she does not think this would be the case if a shopping center is built there.
She said her concern relates to where she will move if she has to leave her
home.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,
read a prepared statement urging the Board of Supervisors to follow the
recommendation of the Commission and staff and deny the rezoning application
(See statement from the Piedmont Environmental Council, dated October 11,
1995, and delivered to the Board of Supervisors on that same date).
Mr. Richard Brown indicated that he owns property adjoining the Moose
Lodge and he is not in favor of a rezoning. He did not receive any
information about this application but he lives in the same neighborhood. He
thought he had heard someone say that the Moose Lodge property is not in the
watershed area, but this property is certainly in the watershed area, and he
does not know how anybody can say it is not.
Mr. Perkins commented that he does not think anybody has stated that
this property is not in the watershed area. Mr. Brown said he didn't receive
any information about this issue until he talked to his neighbors. He went on
to say that he lives in the same neighborhood, and he feels if the property is
rezoned, there will be problems. He then asked if anybody knows what the
zoning will be if it is rezoned. Mr. Perkins answered that there are no
proffers on the rezoning. Mr. Brown said, if this is the case, then it is not
known how it will be used. Mr. Perkins indicated that he has no knowledge of
any changes. He reiterated that the Lodge members have offered no proffers
indicating that certain things will be put there if the property is rezoned.
Mr. Brown stated that consideration should be given to this fact, because the
people in this area get their water from the reservoir.
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, called attention to the long
discussion about the aesthetic effect to the Ivy neighborhood relating to the
cellular tower issue. He thinks this proposal poses much more of a threat to
the community than aesthetics. He mentioned that there are no proffers, and
Mr. Jenkins voted against this application at the Commission meeting. He
referred to Mr. Jenkins' suggestion that there should be a plan for the area
to protect the neighbors and the community, but there is no plan currently.
Mr. Loach said this is the problem, and Crozet is finally getting to the point
where there can be more commercialization downtown. He mentioned his concern
that if these parcels will now be contiguous in this area, and if there is
large-scale commercialization with no plan, the community will suffer. He
said it must be known what will happen to the area to protect the greater
community of Crozet.
Mr. John Marston mentioned that the applicant has expressed ignorance as
far as receiving notice of the prior rezoning. The effect of the
Comprehensive Plan and the downzoning in this area was public knowledge in
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
those days. He mentioned a comprehensive map where there are five or six
areas in the vicinity of the Mechum River which are no longer shown as
commercial areas. If this application is approved, it will set a precedent
for all of these property owners to request the same consideration. He
referred to an earlier application requesting rezoning from RA to LI for the
same neighborhood which was denied by this Board in January. He read from the
minutes of this meeting where one of the Supervisors indicated that approval
of the request would break a precedent existing since 1980. He quoted another
Board member as saying that approval of the request would weaken Crozet as an
attractive place to live and have businesses. He then mentioned a third
supervisor's remark indicating that a plumbing business representative's
request in Scottsville was denied for the same reason. He urged the Supervi-
sors to deny this application for the reasons stated by the Commission and
staff.
Mr. Layman indicated that he could rebut the negative comments, but he
does not think this is the issue. The main issue is that the Lodge members
bought the property, they paid for it, and they want the previous zoning back.
There were 15 to 18 Lodge members present tonight, in addition to the ones who
are still present, but due to the crowd and the lateness of the hour, it was
suggested that they go home. He then asked that the remaining members of the
Lodge stand and be recognized. He said the Lodge was allowed in the Highway
Commercial zone by right, and he again mentioned the trucking company located
on this property previously. He said that on weekends there would be as many
as 50 tractor trailers with refrigeration running. The neighbors had worse
conditions to contend with than they do now. The Lodge members are not asking
for permission to change the use of the property. They just want to be on
this property by right, and they don't want to have to get a special use
permit.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Perkins closed the public
hearing.
Mrs. Humphris said she wanted to set the record straight. She referred
to 1980, when there was a massive rezoning in Albemarle County, and one-third
of the whole 740 square miles of Albemarle County were rezoned. She said this
came after years of trying to deal with problems of the water supply and it
was found that this would be the solution which could be upheld in the courts
because it would protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens. There were probably as many as 240 to 250 square miles of the
County being rezoned, and everybody in the County knew about it. Such a thing
is almost unprecedented, and it was the topic of a tremendous amount of
discussion. She partially understands what the Lodge members want, but not
completely. She recalled the Lodge members saying they have no plans for
another use, so it didn't make any sense to her for them to ask for the zoning
to be made compatible with the surrounding uses. She explained that these
uses were left there because they were pre-existing uses, and this was
carefully thought out by the Board of Supervisors at the time. Because of all
of the negative factors cited by the staff and the Commission, but most
particularly because of the possibility of setting a precedent, she will not
support the request. She explained that the precedent is the most important
thing here, because it can be very dangerous, and approval of this application
could set a precedent for the possibility of future requests.
Mr. Perkins remarked that he thinks the Moose Lodge members have been
dealt with unfairly because of the nature of ownership, and he called atten-
tion to the three other parcels adjoining the Lodge property which still have
commercial zoning. He feels something is wrong somewhere, although he doesn't
know who to blame. If a citizen did this kind of thing to the County, the
County officials would not accept it. He stated that, in his opinion, this is
spot zoning in reverse. As to the Lodge members' intentions, he is concerned
about what will be done if the rezoning is approved. He mentioned that a lot
of time and effort have been spent working on the plan for Crozet and how it
should proceed. However, he thinks the Lodge has been done a great inequity.
He mentioned also the possibility that the property has been taxed at Highway
Commercial rates for the last number of years. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that the
Lodge is tax exempt.
Mr. Bowerman asked for someone from the staff to go through the ratio-
nale used in 1980 relating to these four parcels which are side by side. Mr.
Tucker said that since the Comprehensive Plan had been changed in the Crozet
area, the area in question would have become nonconforming, so the Supervisors
tried to recognize an appropriate zoning category for any use in existence.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
They did this by recognizing the least intensive zoning that permitted the
use. Although it may not seem logical, it was the basis for the change in the
zoning.
Mr. Marshall concurred with Mrs. Humphris that he does not want to set a
precedent. He would like to find a common ground where a precedent would not
be set. He referred to the parcels of land alluded to in Ms. Thorpe's PEC
presentation and he wondered if these parcels are vacant. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that all of these properties are zoned for Highway Commercial use.
Mr. Marshall referred again to Ms. Thorpe's comments about the other
properties zoned for RA use. He asked if there are buildings on these proper-
ties, and if there were any buildings on them when this zoning was done. Mr.
Tucker replied that he does not know about the properties to which Ms. Thorpe
referred. Mr. Marshall commented that it seems to him a precedent would be
set if there are buildings on the properties which have been used for other
uses. He said if there are no buildings involved, then he does not think a
precedent would be set by approving this application.
Mrs. Humphris responded that she is not just talking about this particu-
lar area. She was also referring to everything that existed in 1980 in the
County.
Mr. Cilimberg referred to the PEC statement which mentioned properties
on the north side of Route 250 West which were zoned RA, and they are current-
ly in RA use. There are probably some residences located there, as well as
open land, although he does not know the particulars. He concurred with Mr.
Tucker's statement that the zoning was created to match the uses present in
1980 at the lowest intensity of zoning possible. The RA properties would be
either vacant or they would have residences on them. He said Highway
Commercial properties exist, as Mr. Carter mentioned, and they have Highway
Commercial uses on them. He went on to say that this is a Highway Commercial
use, and it is also a use allowed by special use permit in the rural area,
according to Mr. Tucker's recollection. Mr. Cilimberg commented that he was
also told this by another staff member.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the tractor trailer trucks were on this
property prior to 1980. Mr. Tucker responded that the Moose Lodge was on this
property in 1980, so he is unsure when the truck shop was there. Mr. Layman
stated that the Lodge members bought this property in 1975, and the tractor
trailers had been there since 1953.
Mr. Carter mentioned that some of the lots next door to the Moose Lodge,
which are zoned RA, have uses for which the property owners have to get
special use permits. Mr. Tucker said he can only tell the Supervisors his
recollection about the matter, he does not remember the specifics.
Mr. Layman commented that he can give the life history of all of the
land in this area, because he has lived there all of his life. He mentioned
that a lot of the real estate has Highway Commercial and Industrial zoning.
Mr. Perkins said any of the existing businesses located in the area
would have zoning which had been grandfathered in 1980. Mr. Tucker agreed.
He said if something happened to the businesses, they could be rebuilt.
Mrs. Thomas said the present zoning doesn't.hurt the Lodge at all, and
its own attorney spoke about naked rezoning. She said this is one of the most
naked rezonings she has seen in a long time. It has absolutely no proffers,
and by referring to flexibility, it is clear the Lodge members want the
rezoning for something. She added that it sets the kind of precedent which
has been resisted since 1980, and County officials have gone all the way to
the Supreme Court in a number of cases. She was reminded this evening that
not one of those cases was because of lack of notification. This rezoning was
widely recognized in the County and everyone knew it was taking place. She
added that she does not think an injustice has been.done because the Lodge
members have bought, paid for and used the property very well. She
appreciates all of the things the Moose organization has done, but the Lodge
members have a good piece of property which they have used, and it is neither
harming their present use nor denigrating all of the good things they do for
the community. She said some people might think the Supervisors are blowing
this all out of proportion by saying they don't want to set a precedent
leading them on a path to rezoning and undoing everything that was done in
1980. This is what the word "precedent" means. She cannot support this
0000 0
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
request even though she appreciates what the Moose Lodge members have done and
will continue to do in the community.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman,
to deny ZMA-95-10 relating to the Crozet Moose Lodge's request for a rezoning.
Mr. Martin remarked that this is like many issues where public officials
come to a meeting with an idea in mind as to how they will vote. He added
that a public hearing is held and information comes out, and they vote
differently than how they had planned. He referred to the precedent aspect
and especially the information he heard tonight concerning the 1980 down-
zoning. He thinks people were aware of this rezoning, and he believes it was
a well thought through procedure. He will support the motion.
Mr. Marshall said that he, like Mr. Perkins, supports the Crozet plan,
but he feels as though the Lodge members have been done an injustice. He
pointed out that there are only two of the Supervisors who feel this way.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Mr. Martin left the room at 12:05 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-95-03. Farm Sales. Public hearing on an
Ordinance to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA of the Zoning
Ordinance, to permit by special use permit the sale of merchandise not
necessarily produced on the premises, but directly related and accessory to
agricultural or horticultural produce which is grown by the owner or his
family on their farm. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg announced to the Supervisors that all of the requests
relating to farm sales have the same basis of purpose to be served in consis-
tency with the Comprehensive Plan and generally the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each are fairly similar. The staff made an initial recommendation
for the Rural Area District to allow farm sales by special use permit with
supplementary regulations. The Commission heard this zoning text amendment
originally on August 1, 1995, and posed some questions and made
recommendations for changes to the staff. This information came back to the
Commission on August 29, 1995. He pointed out that the most significant
concern had to do with the size of the farm sales structure which was proposed
at 4000 square feet, but has now been reduced to 1500 square feet. There was
concern expressed about the requirement for items produced on the premises,
and the Commission decided that 50 percent for items produced on site and 50
percent for companion items was a good mix. He said questions were asked
about providing for a review in one to two years, but the County Attorney
noted that this is not a good idea. Other questions were raised about
limiting farm sales to one structure. Staff felt this was desirable from an
enforcement standpoint. Mr. Cilimberg said the recommendations are coming to
this Board from the Commission, as recommended by staff at the August 29,
1995, meeting. He mentioned one exception regarding a change in the first
supplementary regulation to add that "Such growing area shall be
re-established on an annual basis." This refers to the growing area which
would justify the farm sales structure at the farm. A second recommendation
is that the secondary regulation be changed to a 50/50 mix. He explained that
the interpretation of this mix relates actually to the retail sales area.
Fifty percent of the retail sales area involves on premises items, and the
other 50 percent of the sales area is for companion items. This means there.
could be more companion items within the store at any one time than on
premises items as long as they meet the definition of being subordinate. He
reiterated that this regulation raised questions among the Commissioners, and
it was discussed among the Planning staff, the County Attorney and the Zoning
Administrator. It was agreed that this is what the wording will allow.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to
speak to this matter.
Mr. Scott Peyton encouraged the Supervisors to accept the farm sales
Zoning Text Amendment. He feels it will provide a tool to allow agricultural
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
OOO091
and horticultural producers in the County to expand their product base to
better capitalize on items they are producing on their farms, as well as to
help their operations be more economically viable. He quoted from the
Comprehensive Plan that, "For agricultural and forestal resources to be
successfully preserved from a land use standpoint, they must be successful as
a business industry." This farm sales amendment will go a long way toward
meeting this Comprehensive Plan intent and goal. Mr. Peyton said he has a
request which differs from the recommendation before the Supervisors, and it
has to do with the total square footage. He referred to Mr. Cilimberg's
statement that the original language for the regulation relating to the farm
sales structure was for 4000 square feet, and it was reduced to 1500 square
feet. He had asked the Commission to consider adjusting this square footage
to 2000 and he proposes the same request to the Supervisors. He asked the
Supervisors to keep in mind that according to the language, only half of this,
which is a maximum of 50 percent of the square footage of space could be for
accessory or companion items. He pointed out that if there was a total of
2000 square feet, only 1000 square feet of any place on his farm could be for
accessory items above and beyond what he actually produces. He feels his
request is reasonable, and he asked for the Board's consideration.
Ms. Babette Thorpe read a statement from the Piedmont Environmental
Council supporting ZTA-95-03, as revised by the Commission (see statement from
the Piedmont Environmental Council, delivered on October 11, 1995).
Mr. Scott Peyton asked to clarify for his own understanding that the
50/50 split relating to the farm sales structure is based on an area criteria.
He said that, seasonably speaking, he may have 50 percent of a building filled
with companion plants, but there may be no items there which he has produced.
He explained that there are certain times of the year when he has not produced
anything. He asked if this is the understanding of this Board on the intent
of the language.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, replied that this is not
correct because by definition it wouldn't meet the language of the farm sales
provision. She said there would still have to be the agricultural and
horticultural produce merchandise in addition to companion items, and there
could not just be companion items involved. She went on to explain that a one
to one ratio does not always have to be maintained, but when the square
footage is first approved, and a certain amount of the square footage is
designated, it would not be possible to go beyond that with companion items.
She said there always has to be produce coming from the farm.
Mr. Peyton stated that he is partly responsible for this particular text
amendment. He asked for this clarification because his concern relates to the
more marginal times of the year, and he referred to early spring before his
crops come in when his greenhouse is in operation. He may not have field
produce at this time. The farm sales structure, in all likelihood, will be an
unheated structure. He said there may be items being produced, but by the
language of the amendment, he would have to demonstrate a production capabili-
ty to even apply for the farm sales structure permit. He may not, at certain
times of the year, have items which are produced on the farm available for
display in the farm sales structure. He may have greenhouse plants, but he
wouldn't take them from a heated greenhouse and put them in an unheated farm
sales structure. He mentioned that the other marginal season of year is late
fall. His desire with this proposal is to broaden and extend the season of
his farm operation to be able to generate an expanded cash flow. From a
practical standpoint, Mr. Peyton explained, there will be times of the year
when he might wish to sell companion items to his greenhouse plants, but he
may not have produce or field crops appropriate for display in a farm sales
structure. He is representing this as his intent and desire for flexibility
which is very important in his farm operation and would also be important to
other producers. He said there are seasonal variations and fluctuations when
crops are available and when they are not, and this is an attempt to try to
expand the base of the crops and to extend the season of cash flow. He
commented that this goes back to the question of intent as far as how the
Supervisors understand and want to interpret this amendment.
MS. McCulley agreed that it is the Board's determination as to intent.
She added that, in her opinion, when there is a greenhouse growing area, it
meets the language of the text amendment. Mr. Perkins concurred. He said the
farmer has something to sell when there is a greenhouse growing area, even
though it might be impossible to put the items on the floor because of lack of
heat, etc.
000092
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Martin inquired if this applies to the fall season. Mr. Peyton
stated that his question is whether or not the items have to be displayed in
the farm sales structure. He said the only place on his farm available for
display and sale of companion items is going to be in 50 percent of the farm
sales structure. He has to have the production capability to even qualify for
having the farm sales structure.
Mr. Martin commented that in the spring there will be flowers for sale,
and he understands they will not be in the farm sales structure. He asked
what items, available for sale in the fall, will not be in this structure.
Mr. Peyton responded that his latest fall crops are pumpkins and nursery
stock, and he wouldn't have these items displayed in a farm sales structure.
He said they would be in mulch beds or otherwise displayed on the farm.
Ms. McCulley added that Christmas trees, for example, might also be farm
sale items. Mr. Peyton said Christmas trees might be displayed outside,
although materials for making wreaths, ornaments and decorations might be
placed inside the farm sales structure.
Mrs. Thomas referred to the statement by the Piedmont Environmental
Council indicating that if the Supervisors don't go beyond 1500 square feet
for the retail sales area, supplementary regulations will allow the Commission
to increase the square footage. She asked if this is true. Mr. Cilimberg
called attention to the Home Occupation permit proposal previously presented
to this Board at tonight's meeting. He explained that this involved a
supplementary regulation requesting a reduction for the setback, and he
concurred that the Commission can adjust the supplementary regulations to
allow greater square footage.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the definition in Section 5.1.35 (e and f) of
the ordinance has been modified from the way it was written in the staff
report. The modification is not done in a substantive way, but it is simply a
clarification of language and text so it will be more uniform and consistent
with the requirements.
At this time, with no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr.
Perkins closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that she had gone through all of the Commission
minutes from the various meetings, and they had some interesting points. On
the negative side, there were discussions relating to possible compromise to
the rural areas in the agricultural/forestal districts. She named some of the
negative points such as: farm produce should be sold on the farm and not
things produced otherwise; or if there were things produced other than on the
farm, then they should be farm produce from some other farm; it is not
appropriate to have commercial activities in an agricultural/forestal
district; it is not fair for people to be able to compete with commercial
enterprises when they are paying lower taxes and other people are paying
higher taxes to be in designated rural areas; or it would be difficult to
enforce the regulations, etc. On the other side, Mrs. Humphris mentioned the
idea that it is of the utmost importance to preserve the rural areas and to
promote agriculture. She next referred to the 1500 square feet with the 50/50
balance as being a good compromise. She was concerned until she realized
that nobody who had an enterprise in a commercial area had objected. She had
thought if there was no objection from other people in the commercial area,
and it would definitely be a benefit to farmers in the rural area, then she
could support the ordinance with the 1500 square foot limit on the structure
and the 50/50 balance of the products.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the Commission did an excellent job of
reviewing this matter, and they developed some good recommendations after a
lot of thought. He wholeheartedly endorses the Commission's recommendations
and he then offered motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to Adopt an
Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 20, Zoning, Article I, General
Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regula-
tions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, as advertised. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
000093
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20 (3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I,
GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND 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 20, Zoning, Article I, General
Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained by amend-
ing Section 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplementary Regula-
tions, and Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, as follows:
3.0 DEFINITIONS
Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural or horticultural
produce or merchandise produced on the farm, with
subordinate sales of produce or merchandise not pro-
duced on the premises. Merchandise not produced on
the premises shall be companion items intended to be
used with (for planting, caring for, displaying,
combining with, canning, or preserving) the agricul-
tural or horticultural produce which is produced on
the farm, but shall not include farm machinery and
equipment (except hand tools), building materials,
furniture, or other like items. Examples: Canning
jars, pumpkin carving kits, wreath making supplies,
floral arranging supplies, potting soil, pots, pack-
aged fertilizer, mulch, peat moss, pruning shears,
gardening gloves, Christmas tree decorations.
5.0
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5.1.35
FARM SALES
so
One (1) farm sales structure may be established
per farm. In addition to displays and sales of
agricultural or horticultural produce or mer-
chandise which is produced on the farm, it may
include companion items not produced on the
premises, but intended to be used with the agri-
cultural or horticultural produce which is pro-
duced on the farm. The farm sales structure
shall not be established until the agricultural
or horticultural produce growing area has been
established and is in production. Such growing
area shall be reestablished on an annual basis.
bo
The total retail sales area in the farm sales
structure shall not exceed fifteen hundred (
1,500) square feet. Greenhouses shall not be
counted as part of the total retail sales area,
unless one is designated as the farm sales
structure. At all times, at least fifty (50)
percent of the retail sales area inside the farm
sales structure shall be agricultural or horti-
cultural produce or merchandise produced on the
premises. The remaining fifty (50) percent area
may be companion items. Displays outside the
farm sales structure shall be limited to agri-
cultural and horticultural produce only.
C0
A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with
section 32.4.1 shall be submitted along with,
and become a part of, the special use permit
application. The plan shall include the area of
the farm sales structure, parking and entrance.
The plan shall address, in particular, provi-
sions for safe and convenient access from and to
the public road, adequacy of delineation of
parking, and general information regarding the
exterior appearance of the proposed site. Based
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
000094
on the submitted information, the board of su-
pervisors may then waive the requirement for a
site development plan in a particular case, upon
a finding that the requirement of a site devel-
opment plan would not forward the purposes of
this ordinance or otherwise serve the public
interest. No such use shall be established
without Virginia Department of Transportation
approval of commercial access to the site.
do
The farm sales structure and parking area shall
not be located closer than fifty (50) feet to
any adjoining property not under the same owner-
ship. The farm sales structure shall meet front
yard setbacks for a primary structure. The
parking area shall not be located closer than
ten (10) feet to any public or private street
right-of-way.
Farm machinery and equipment (except hand
tools), building materials, furniture or other
like items, shall not be offered for sale.
Ail farm sales structures shall meet all appli-
cable requirements of the Virginia Uniform S-
tatewide Building Code.
10.0
RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA
10.2.2
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
45. Farm sales (reference 5.1.35).
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-95-04. Farmers' Market. Public Hearing on an
Ordinance to amend Section 22.0, Commercial, C-i, and Section 24.0, Highway
Commercial, HC, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit farmers' market by right;
and to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance,
to permit farmers' market by special use permit. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2,
1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report relating to ZTA-95-04. He
said this began as a request to create a new use, Farmers' Market by right, in
the C-1 and HC districts and by special use permit in the RA district. He
said the RA district element was dropped, but it would still be a use by right
in the two commercial districts. He mentioned that a lot of issues were
discussed, but the basic recommendation is to approve the Farmers' Market,
with its definitions, by right in the C-1 and HC districts, with supplemental
regulations addressing the concerns of the Commission.
The Board members had no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Perkins
opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak. Mr. Perkins then
closed the public hearing.
At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion to adopt ZTA-95-04, An Ordinance
to Amend and Reordain Chapter 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions,
Article II, Basic Regulations and Article III, District Regulations, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, as advertised.
Mrs. Humphris called attention to the language under Section 3.0,
Definitions, referring to an existing parking area used periodically by two or
more farmers only for the seasonal sale of agricultural or horticultural
produce or merchandise produced on their farms. She suggested that instead of
the language specifying two or more farmers, it should instead refer to the
merchandise produced on the farmers' farms.
Mr. Davis responded that the intent of the draft relates to the seasonal
sales of agricultural or horticultural produce only.
Mr. Marshall then seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
000095
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20 (4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I,
GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS AND 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 20, Zoning, Article I, General
Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained by amend-
ing Section 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplementary Regula-
tions, Section 22.0, Commercial, C-I, and Section 24.0, Highway
Commercial, HC, as follows:
3.0 DEFINITIONS
Farmers' Market: An existing parking area used
periodically by two (2) or more farmers only for the
seasonal sale of agricultural or horticultural produce
or merchandise produced on their farms. A farmers'
market shall not include the sale of commercially
manufactured products which the farmers have not grown
or produced on their farms.
5.0
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5.1.36
FARMERS' MARKET
so
A site development plan shall be required, un-
less waived in accordance with section 32.2.2.
bo
Farmers' markets shall be limited to a maximum
of two (2) days per week, during daylight hours,
between May 1 and November 30 only. Days and
hours of operation shall be only those specified
on the site development plan.
Co
The parking area for all farmers' and customers'
vehicles shall not be located closer than ten
(10) feet to any public street right-of-way.
do
The applicant shall make adequate arrangements
for the removal of trash and debris and general
restoration of the site following an event. The
zoning administrator may establish and require
the posting of a bond in an amount deemed suffi-
cient for such purpose.
e. No permanent structure shall be established.
22.0
COMMERCIAL - C-1
22.2.1 BY RIGHT
22.2.1.b 25. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36).
24.0
24.2.1
24.2.1.43
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, HC
BY RIGHT
Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36).
Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-95-05. Commercial Stables. Public Hearing on
an Ordinance to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
oooos¢
Ordinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all necessary
supplementary regulations related thereto. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg explained that ZTA-95-05 has been through three Commission
meetings. The final recommendation is coming to the Supervisors for approval
to allow Commercial Stables by right in the RA district with supplemental
regulations for commercial stables with more than horses or ponies for hire.
He noted that Mr. Davis has a substantive change to recommend regarding a
private road. He added that Mr. Davis is not changing the Commission's
recommendation, but he is trying to make it clear as to how the process will
work.
Mr. Davis referred to Paragraph E in the ordinance and the anticipated
improvements to the road which would be required as part of site plan
approval. In addition, there would be a requirement for a maintenance
agreement for the continuous maintenance of the improved road(s). He noted
that the wording in the staff report varied slightly from the wording in
Paragraph E.
Mr. Marshall said he does not think the Commission did its job as far as
this Zoning Text Amendment is concerned. He finds the amendment to be vague
and unenforceable, and he thinks the Commission needs to develop a definition
of a commercial stable. There is not a good definition in this amendment. He
referred to a study being conducted by state officials relating to the horse
industry in the State of Virginia, and he mentioned the fact that this report
will not be available until January. Without a good definition of a
commercial stable, he cannot vote favorably for this amendment.
Mr. Perkins suggested that the public hearing be held tonight, but the
Supervisors wait to vote until they get the information from the State's
report.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he has no objection to having the public
hearing, but he does not have enough information to vote on this issue
tonight. He reiterated that he does not think the Commission has defined
commercial stables to his satisfaction. He asked if any of the other
Supervisors feel the same way.
Mrs. Humphris concurred that she has also had some problems with this
amendment. She had hoped to be enlightened by this public hearing.
Mr. Perkins then opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to
speak to this amendment.
Mr. Venable Minor disagreed with Mr. Marshall by saying he thought the
staff had done quite a good job in coming to a very difficult type of defini-
tion. He said probably everybody in this room recognizes the fact that the
horse industry in Albemarle County is vital in maintaining this County as it
is known. When a definition is sought for a commercial stable, part of it has
to relate to horses or ponies for hire or for instruction. His only concern
involves the size of commercial stables, and he questioned the proposed
regulation of ten horses. He said this number was taken from Loudoun County
regulations. He knows Loudoun County quite well, and it is great horse
country, but it also has ten-acre zoning. When there is ten-acre zoning, it
is understandable that the level of horses relating to a commercial stable
might have to be lowered. With the size of Albemarle County horse farms, he
would recommend increasing this number to 20 horses. Other than this
suggestion, he thinks everything the staff has recommended defines a
commercial stable well, and he does not see how the definition can be
broadened to clarify commercial stables further.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he is not sure what Mr. Minor is saying, and
he asked if he is in support of the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Minor
replied that he is in support of the Commission's recommendation to this
Board. He also emphasized that he thinks the definition the Commission has
given for commercial stables is a good one, and the only thing he would add is
to increase the size of the stables from ten to 20 horses.
Mr. Marshall wondered how the identification of the horses can be
determined, as far as to whom they belong. Mr. Minor responded that he thinks
this part of the amendment is clear. He said, for example, that he has a
horse farm, and he knows his own horses.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
000097
Mr. Marshall remarked that his concern relates to inspectors being able
to determine who owns the horses. Mr. Minor stated that he does not think
this is the intent of the amendment, and he thinks only a commercial intent is
involved. He went on to say that when there are stables with hired horses for
trail rides and riding lessons etc., it is clearly getting into the commercial
area. He mentioned that he has horses of all types, ages and sizes on his
farm, but he does not think his farm activity is commercially related.
Mr. Marshall referred to the supplementary regulation regarding pine
bark mulch being used to minimize dust and erosion. He raises cattle, and he
knows sand should be used instead of pine bark mulch. Mr. Minor concurred.
He said there is a formula to be used in a riding ring to keep down dust. He
is involved with a riding ring, and there is no way during a dry year for
horses not to create some dust. When he first bush hogs his fields, it
creates dust, and when horses run through the fields, they create dust, if
there are dry conditions. This is not the fault of a horse farm. He also
emphasized that pine bark mulch should not be used in a riding ring.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that the regulation regarding pine bark mulch
has been removed from the supplementary regulations.
Mr. Marshall said he understands this, but he was using it as an
example. He repeated his earlier comments concerning the definition of
commercial stables, and he indicated that this document does not have a clear
definition. Mr. Minor inquired if Mr. Marshall has an idea as to a definition
of a commercial stable. Mr. Marshall replied that he does have a definition
in mind. He wants to hear more from the citizens, and he wants to get the
State's information on this issue. He went on to say that the horse industry
is very important to the State of Virginia, and he would love to have a Horse
Center in Albemarle County, such as the one in Lexington. He would hate for
the Supervisors to approve an amendment at this time, and then have the State
Legislature undo everything the Supervisors have done. Mr. Minor remarked
that he has said everything he has to say at this time.
Mr. Reynolds Cowles, Jr., a veterinarian from Free Union, indicated that
he operates a breeding horse farm, as well as a veterinary practice dealing
with horses. He said the definition of a commercial stable is probably
sufficient in terms of the discussions held by the Commission and staff. He
also added that he thinks the staff has done an excellent job of researching
the matter. He called attention to the Right-to-Farm Act passed by the
General Assembly two years ago, and said it is clear that horse farms come
under this Act. Horse farms are an essential part of agriculture, and they
are probably the leading form of livestock agriculture in Albemarle County in
terms of commercial dollars produced. He noted that Albemarle County is
number three in the State of total commercial sales in the horse industry. He
referred to Mr. Marshall's previous comments about a State study which is an
economic impact survey currently commissioned and underway at the College of
William and Mary. This study will not be ready until midwinter, and he does
not believe it will add more definition or light to this issue as it is
presently designed. He suggested that the Board members not wait for this
report, as far as acting on this amendment. He also agreed with Mr. Minor's
request that the size of commercial riding establishments be increased to 20
horses. He indicated that this would reflect reality as it exists in
commercial stables in this County today.
Ms. Sue Hubbard stated that she has lived in Albemarle County since
1979, and she loves Albemarle County. The dictionary defines farming as
attractive land usually with a house or a barn on which crops, and often
livestock, are raised for livelihood. It also is defined as land or water
devoted to the raising of animals or fish such as a pig farm, a chicken farm,
horse farm or an oyster farm. She commented that this is not being debated
tonight, and a commercial stable is none of these things. When a person
enters into a commercial stable situation, they become involved in commerce,
which is an interchange of goods or commodities on a large scale such as a
trade or a business. She said a stable is defined as a building for the
lodging and feeding of horses, cattle or a collection of animals housed in
such a building, and boarding is defined as being supplied with food and
lodging for a fixed price. The number of horses boarded at a stable cannot be
equated just to the number of horses used for hire or to give instructions for
riding° All horses boarded for a monetary provision should be included in the
definition of a commercial stable.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
000098
Ms. Hubbard emphasized that horses are a major industry in Virginia, as
well as other places, and should be treated as such. She inquired if the
Supervisors know of any major industry which is not regulated. She commented
that all tracts of farming land are not appropriate or fitting for commercial
stables and should be regulated and inspected. She said whether riding
lessons are being given or horses are being boarded, the total number of
horses has to be considered because this all has an effect on the traffic and
the land surrounding the commercial endeavor. She asked if the County
officials are prepared to verify and enforce the regulation as proposed by the
Zoning Department.
Ms. McCulley remarked that this definition is consistent with what she
has seen in most of the definitions she has examined in other zoning
ordinances. Anytime a number is put on something it is difficult to enforce.
In this case, the horses will have to be counted. Inspectors will have to
base their inspections on records and honesty, and it is going to be
difficult.
Ms. Hubbard agreed with Ms. McCulley that it will be difficult to
enforce the regulation dealing with the number of horses. She also agreed
with Mr. Marshall as far as there not being a clear definition of a commercial
stable in the document as proposed. She does not see a time limit recommended
for the operation of commercial stables, and she informed the Supervisors that
such an operation goes on after dark, as well as 7:00 a.m in the morning. She
speaks from her personal knowledge as far as how she and her neighbors are
affected. She knows all situations are not the same, and she is not against
racing horses, breeding horses or stables. She does not believe commercial
stables fit into this category.
Mr. Mike Sharp stated that he has a farm in Keswick. One of the
perceptions is that people who have a fair amount of land devoted to anything
are trying to find a way to perpetuate it. The situation is very simple, and
if he is going to devote a fair amount of land to having horses, then he is
going to try to realize a small return. Everybody would like to do this by
right, but there has to be some sort of definition allowing more than the ten
horse limit, because it is quite a way from reality. Once the situation is
tampered with, it is very hard to put things back the way they were. He
mentioned that perhaps the ten horse limit in Loudoun County would work,
although he also believes the Loudoun County officials would have allowed the
cellular tower without the tree limbs (a request on the agenda earlier
tonight). He suggested that Albemarle County officials will have to proceed a
little differently from the officials in Loudoun County. He would love to
have the by right regulation approved, but he thinks the ten horse limit is an
unrealistic number at this particular point. He feels the number should
definitely be higher.
Ms. Malloney, from Free Union, reminded Board members that she has sent
all of them letters. She has ten horses on her property, five of which are
boarders. None of the five boarding horses can be ridden, and three of them
are there to spend their remaining days. Under the new regulations, if she
had five additional boarding horses, it would bring her total to ten, and it
would be considered a commercial situation. Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. Malloney
would have to have six more horses to put her over the limit.
Ms. Malloney stated that she likes her situation, because the people are
not around, it is quiet, and it is the type of boarding activity she enjoys.
At sometime in the future she would like to have more boarders, and she would
like to give riding lessons. If she had six more boarders and if she gave one
lesson a day it would put her into the commercial category. She does not see
how her activities could cause anybody any hardship, because there will not be
any traffic, etc, and she does not see why someone in her position should have
to go through all of the financial hardship and burden if this regulation is
approved. She agreed that the definition has to be made clearer. She said
the number of people traveling back and forth needs to be considered, because
the horses themselves, are not causing any problem. She suggested that
perhaps the regulation should pertain to the number of people involved in the
activity, instead of the number of horses.
Mr. Cilimberg said the information pertaining to this amendment is a
little misleading. He explained that provision is made for more than ten
horses or ponies for hire or instruction in riding, or for boarding when the
horses or ponies are also used for hire or instruction. Mrs. Thomas clarified
Mr. Cilimberg's explanation by saying if there were five horses for
000099
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
instruction and six horses being boarded, it would not be over the limit. She
said, rather, there would have to be 11 horses, all of which are being used
for hire or instruction, even though they may not be owned by the person who
is offering these services. Mr. Marshall wondered if this regulation can be
enforced.
Mr. Herbert Addington stated that he lives on Route 616, Mechunk Acres
Road. There is a horse farm or polo club down this road, and there are many
trailers and cars traveling there. The people come every day to see or ride
their horses, and they also haul hay, etc. It is a dusty situation. He
thinks the limit of ten horses would be too many, and he asked the Supervisors
not to make this regulation by right. He said the regulation should stay as
it is.
Mr. W. D. Abbott informed the Board that he also lives on Mechunk Acres
Road. He has horses, and he travels with his horse trailer approximately 500
miles per year. He thinks commercial stables are completely different from a
brood mare farm or a pig farm. If people are raising horses to sell, it falls
into the agriculture and farming category. With a commercial operation,
riding lessons are given and horses are rented. A tremendous number of people
come to see their horses two or three times a day, and they bring all of their
friends with them. No farming is being done in these situations. When these
people have polo games on their places, they invite their friends and have 100
people gather there. He does not think the number of horses has anything to
do with a commercial stable. If riding lessons are being given and people are
learning how to ride and play polo, as well as renting horses, then this is a
commercial stable.
Ms. Christy Bolender stated that she owns the farm to which the other
speakers are referring. She is in a rural agricultural area, and, as far as
she knows, there is no supermarket or bowling alley or any other commercial
area around her farm. She is in the country where she belongs, as most of the
other horse farms are. When she moved from New England, they had only heard
the reputation of Albemarle County as being horse country. They heard that
this is where a person comes to do every kind of horse pursuit. Hey did not
know it was not permissible to operate on a farm the way they wanted to do,
because there might be complaints from the neighbors about dust on the road.
She said dust is an act of nature, and it is not the issue tonight. The issue
is the definition of a commercial area, and to her this means supermarkets,
bowling alleys, yogurt places, etc. She said the definition of agriculture
applies to the country where there are hog, horse and cattle farms. This is
where the farm belongs, and it should be protected by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bill Terrance, also of the Mechunk Acres area, said the word
"commercial" just means there will be a lot of people coming and going. If
the word "farming" is considered, it means there will not be a lot of people
coming and going. Commercial means a lot of people will be coming and going
whenever they want to or whenever the providers tell them to do so. He
understands that with horses there are daylight hour situations in reference
to riding, but the actual upkeep and maintenance of the activity may not have
the same hours. He commented that at all hours of the evening, as well as
late at night and early in the morning, large horse trailers are going up and
down the road with six and eight horses in them. They come for polo matches,
etc., and the trucks are always moving back and forth. Hay is brought in, and
people who are coming to ride the horses are traveling the road. These people
don't have any regard for the road on which they are traveling.
Mr. Terrance said the Board needs to be careful about these situations.
If a horse farm is on a state route and there is direct access without
bothering the neighbors, this is one situation, but if vehicles have to go
through an area where other people live in a nice quiet residential setting,
this needs to be considered. To say these people can start this operation by
right and without having the neighbors come before this Board to express their
concern is not fair to the neighbors who have to bear the burden of the
traffic. The neighbors are told dust is an act of nature, but this is not
always true. With a gravel road, there will be dust, but when there is a lot
of traffic on a gravel road created by people who weren't invited, the
neighbors have to bear the burden. Clearly, he thinks the definition of a
commercial horse farm should involve the number of people who come to use the
facility, rather than picking a number of horses such as ten or 20 as the
limit. The biggest complaint in his particular neighborhood is the volume of
traffic and the speed at which it travels. There is a long history before the
Commission and Zoning Department relative to the problems in this neighborhood
O00iO0
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
as a result of this one particular thing. It is a nice farm, and he thinks
Ms. Bolender runs a nice operation. He respects her for this, but by the same
token, he feels she is taking advantage of the neighbors on the road. He
asked the Supervisors to think about this, even though he knows it is a unique
situation. He said the Supervisors are being asked to consider a broad issue,
but he believes there are several other situations in the County where the
same type thing occurs. Sometimes there are private driveways, accesses or
rights-of-way impacting surrounding neighbors relating to commercial horse
operations. He suggested that this matter needs to be studied further, and he
recalled Mr. Marshall's remark about not being sure of the definition of
commercial stables.
Ms. Bertha Durbin commented that she moved to Albemarle County because
it is horse country. They live in the country because they can keep horses
there, which is a natural use of the land and very complementary to the
County's program of preserving the rural character. In some cases there is
not much else that can be done with the land because their land is in the
watershed and chemicals can't be used, etc. She said keeping horses is very
natural, and it is a productive use of the land. One of her concerns is the
definition of commercial stables. She would hate to feel as though this
situation is being over regulated. Ms. Durbin said she has a number of
horses, and she is a 4-H leader. Even though she hasn't advertised, through
the years a number of people have asked to have their horses boarded on her
farm. They have lots of land, and it seemed appropriate, so she has let them
do this. Sometimes she has done this for money, and sometimes in exchange for
work. She gave an example of some people involved with the 4-H Club who
couldn't afford a big stable, so she has let their horses stay at her place
for free.
Ms. Durbin reported that over the years she has had as many as 11 or 12
animals on the property. She would hate to feel as though someone could come
in and say she cannot do this, or that certain aspects of the use of her land
would be regulated because she has 12 horses. She does not know what is
involved in terms of the regulation once it has been defined as a commercial
stable because it doesn't seem appropriate, yet she can see herself fitting
into this category. The horses on her farm belong to other people, and other
people take lessons with the horses, although she doesn't necessarily give the
lessons herself. People come into her farm and give lessons with the boarders
on the land, and people come and go, yet she doesn't feel as though this, in
itself, should be regulated. She reiterated that it seems a natural use of
the land and a natural sharing of the land and her right to use her land in
this way. It bothers her about the definition of a commercial stable and how
it will impact the way she uses her land. She explained that when she moved
to the country, she expected to have horses around her and to have
agricultural uses of the land, and horses were included in this definition.
If she didn't want horses, or dust or people coming to look at the horses, she
would have lived in town. She doesn't see a big problem in terms of being out
in the country in a rural area and using her land to have horses.
Mr. Venable Minor commented that he is sympathetic to the people from
the Mechunk Acres Subdivision, and he understands their problem. It is
clearly a problem, but he doesn't think it has anything to do with regulating
horse farms in the County. It is a unique situation, and it needs to be
addressed. He feels the problem relates to the road, and he doesn't think it
has a lot to do with whether or not the farm is in a commercial stable
category. He thinks the problem is with the road and needs to be addressed on
a different level. He would not mind volunteering to help get everybody
together to discuss this problem. He trusts the Board will take the
Commission's and staff's recommendation.
Someone from the audience, who did not give her name, stated that the
only people she can speak for are from her neighborhood, and it is represented
here tonight. She said the neighbors live on a private road, and the Bolen-
ders have a right to use the road for farm activities. She said homes are
lined up on either side of a small gravel, private road. She referred to the
homeowners' deeds where there is an agreement to maintain the private road.
They did not.agree to maintain the farm and the traffic associated with it.
She brought with her a letter that Ms. Bolender and her husband sent to every
neighbor in the neighborhood. It plainly states what they intended to do, and
it was not farming, and it is still not farming. It is a polo field
operation, and Ms. Bolender has made this plain in her own words and in her
own writing. She went on to say that the land has been used as a polo field
for eight years, and the neighbors have been subjected to the traffic for
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 54)
000 0
eight years. The Bolenders also board horses and do some farming. This does
not create a problem for some people, but for some of the homeowners it
creates a large problem. Her family cannot even sit on their deck and have
brunch on Sunday morning, because of the dust from the road.
This lady said the Bolenders did own another parcel of land with a road
on it going to Route 250, but they sold that land. She explained that, now,
the only entrance to the neighbors' homes and Ms. Bolender's farm is this one
private, gravel road. She said unless a commercial stable can be defined, the
Bolenders will be able to continue to use the land as they are using it now.
She reiterated that the land is now being used as a polo field with regular
meetings on Saturdays and S~ndays at any time of the day. She does not
believe this is what farming is about.
An unidentified gentlemen questioned the need for the amendment. He
said it sounds to him as though there is a local dispute and every legitimate
horse person in this County will be imposed upon. It may be a very legitimate
dispute, but he urged the Board to be very careful as to how they impose on
every single horseman in this County the need to be approved by the Health
Department and the need to have entrances approved by VDOT, etc. If the
neighbors have a dispute, it is up to them to settle it. He thinks this will
impose on the rest of the people, and he noted that there is no one else from
anywhere else in the County arguing about this issue.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, at 1:04 a.m., Mr.
Perkins closed the public hearing.
Mr. Marshall stated that he stands by his original recommendation.
Mrs. Thomas said she was going to make an alternative motion, but first
she would like to say she does not own a horse stable. She lives next door to
one of the most disreputable horse stables in this entire County, and she
emphasized that the owner has been in prison for murder. She thinks the
entire industry is being regulated because of one or two unfortunate
situations. She pointed out that a polo field actually doesn't fit into this
category. A polo field is relatively unique by the fact that people bring
their horses to play polo as opposed to almost all other commercial stables
where it is rare to actually have horse trailers going in and out. A farmer
would have more horse trailers going in and out if there were a boarding and
breeding operation, than if there are commercial stables. There is car
traffic where people are bringing their children to take lessons, but it is
not truck traffic.
Mrs. Thomas said it is a major sport for young people, and she recalled
that last week there was a request before this Board for more sport fields in
the County. It is a major way of teaching responsibility and getting good,
healthy outdoor exercise for lots of children in this community. If small
commercial stables are regulated out of existence, horse sports will be made
the sort of thing that some people think of as being only for the wealthy. In
this county, horse sports are not only for the wealthy because there are lots
and lots of small stables. It is a major way of preserving agricultural land.
There are lots of young people who can afford to live on a piece of
agricultural land if they can run a stable. There will be a time in the
future when there will be trouble getting people who can afford to, and who
will keep land in, agricultural activities. She acknowledged that horses are
not particularly good for the land, because they don't eat a lot of the grass
and it turns into weeds, but they consume a lot of hay grown on other pieces
of land. She recalled being told that someone from Southern States has said
that Albemarle County people are the biggest buyers of horse food anywhere in
the State. There are a lot of thriving businesses because of the big horse
industry in this County. She noted that most of these horses are the riding
sort and are not for breeding. Stables are discriminated against in the land
use assessment program because land use assessment indicates that there has to
be a stallion and horses have to be produced. She emphasized that people who
have stables can't always get into the land use program. She mentioned that
Loudoun County has a limit of ten horses, but it has no supplemental
regulations. She asked Mr. Cilimberg if she is correct.
Mr. Cilimberg read from a Loudoun County document that in the 825 and
850 districts, lots must be a minimum of 50 acres, and the facility must be
located on a state maintained road. He said the regulation defines having
more than 20 boarding horses and three or more active riding instructors.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(PaHe 55)
Mrs. Thomas said she was misinformed. She went on to say that
commercial stables were operated in Albemarle County by special use all of
these years, but there were few owners of stables who came in to get special
use permits, so Albemarle County has essentially had an unregulated industry.
This has worked fine, except for one or two neighborhoods. She pointed out
that no matter what this Board does, the stables may have to go out of
existence anyway, because liability and insurance problems are growing. She
mentioned that when her girls were little, her family liked to go riding when
they took a vacation. Many times they would drive into a farm, and they would
be told that the farmers used to have such an operation, but they couldn't do
it anymore because of the liability issues. These situations are shoestring
operations for the most part, but they are really important for carryinH out
the County officials' goals of maintaining rural and agricultural industry in
the County, which supposedly is the main basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Thomas next indicated that she would like to raise the limit in the
definition relating to the number of horses to 20 and keep the regulations the
County has had for all of these years. She was glad pine bark mulch has been
removed from the regulations. She also included the two regulations requiring
that the riding rinH to be maintained to minimize dust and erosion and,
secondly, that fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be
maintained at all times. She pointed out that there is no other regulation
requiring people to maintain their fences, but liability and concern for the
animals will, for the most part, cause people to do this anyway. The owner of
the stables she has lived next door to for many years has very little concern
about whether or not his animals get out on the road. This can be a life
threatening situation for people, as well as for the animals. She emphasized
that this is all she thinks needs to be done in terms of regulating commercial
stables in this County based on the past, future and the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman wondered why there has to be a limit on the number of
horses. He said the term "commercial stable" could be defined without a limit
on the number of horses.
Mr. Marshall commented that he still stands by what he said.
~Commercial stables" has not been defined, and he wondered how the law can be
enforced.
Mrs. Thomas stated that if her motion passes, the definition would
relate to a stable with 20 or more horses or ponies for hire or for riding
instruction.
Mr. Marshall said there are a lot of other issues involved with commer-
cial stables.
Mr. Martin suggested that Mrs. Thomas' motion be considered without a
public hearing at the next meeting. He said staff input is needed as far as
the meaning of the motion. There are reasons this matter is being considered,
and the regulation regarding the number of horses is one of them. He said it
was this Board's thought that perhaps these stables should exist by right. He
went on to say that the motion would put everything back to the way it was
always done before, except for the limit on the number of horses. He said his
mind cannot follow all of this tonight, and he suggested the matter be tabled
at least until the next meeting.
Mrs. Thomas agreed. She said she does not think the Supervisors make
good judgments at 1:15 a.m.
Mr. Marshall asked, since the next meeting will be held on November 1,
if this would allow enough time for the Commission and staff to come up with a
better definition of commercial stables. He reiterated he will not vote on it
until he knows the definition.
Mrs. Humphris asked which of the supplementary regulations were included
in the motion. Mrs. Thomas answered that supplementary regulations a) and b)
were included. Mrs. Humphris stated that she would need to know why Mrs.
Thomas left out the other supplementary regulations before she could decide
whether or not to support the motion. She said she does not want to know this
tonight.
At this time, Mr. Marshall made a motion to table ZTA-95-05 relating to
commercial stables until this Board can get further information from staff.
He is not sure if November 1 would give staff and the Commission enough time
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 56)
000 0.
to study this matter. Mr. Cilimberg said there is not much the staff will
have to prepare. Mr. Marshall remarked that he wants to have this discussion
at a night meeting.
Mrs. Humphris reminded Mr. Marshall that there will not be any more
public hearings on this matter. Mr. Marshall said he understands this, but he
wants to talk to a lot of people before he makes a decision. He has an
election on November 7, and it is keeping him busy, and he won't have time to
talk to a lot of people before the next meeting. He wants to have time to
visit with certain people and find out what they think about the matter. Mr.
Martin suggested that the matter be discussed on November 15. He does not
think it will hurt anything to delay the matter another month. Mr. Marshall
agreed to include this date in his motion.
Mr. Perkins asked if there was a second to Mr. Marshall's motion. Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Perkins announced to those citizens remaining at the meeting that
ZTA-95-05 has been deferred until November 15, 1995.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adopt Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Bond
Resolution approving issuance of school bonds of Albemarle County in the
estimated maximum amount of $7,850,000. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2, 1995.)
At 1:18 a.m., Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
adopt the Virginia Public School Authority Bond Resolution approving issuance
of school bonds for Albemarle County in the estimated maximum amount of
$7,850,000.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$7,850,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, SERIES 1995A,
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary
and expedient to borrow not to exceed $7,850,000 and to issue its
general obligation school bonds for the purpose of financing certain
capital projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on
October 11, 1995, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) in
accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-227.8.A, Code of
Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution,
requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as
hereinafter defined) and, consented to the issuance of the Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds The Board hereby
determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell
its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal amount not
to exceed $7,850,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain
capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 57)
000 04
issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms
established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best
interest of the County to accept the offer of the Virginia Public School
Authority (the "VPSA") to purchase from the County, and to sell to the
VPSA, the Bonds at par upon the terms established pursuant to this
Resolution. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such
officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby
authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of
October 17, 1995, with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to
the VPSA in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this
meeting, which form is hereby approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement") with
such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent
with this Resolution as the Chairman of the Board or the County
Executive may consider appropriate. The Chairman of the Board or the
County Executive shall make such completions, omissions, insertions and
changes in the Bond Sale Agreement not inconsistent with this Resolution
as are necessary or desirable, the execution thereof by the Chairman of
the Board or the County Executive to constitute conclusive evidence of
his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes.
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of
issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General
Obligation School Bonds, Series 1995A"; shall bear interest from the
date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and
July 15 beginning July 15, 1996 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), at
the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution;
and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment
Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto (the
"Principal Installments"), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of
this Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County
Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates
on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate
shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest
rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date
of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of
the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided
further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed eight
percent (8%) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments are subject to change at the request of the VPSA. The
County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in
the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request
of the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds
shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution. The
execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof
shall conclusively evidence such interest rates established by the VPSA
and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments requested by
the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. For as long as the VPSA is the registered
owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in the form of a single,
temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit A. On twenty (20) days written notice from the VPSA, the County
shall deliver, at its expense, the Bonds in marketable form in
denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof, as requested by the
VPSA, in exchange for the temporary typewritten Bond.
6. Payment; Paying.Agent and Bond Registrar. The following
provisions shall apply to the Bonds:
a. For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds,
all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds
shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at, or before
11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment
Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not
a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia,
then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such
Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
000 1.05
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 58)
b. Ail overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted
by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or
rates on the Bonds.
c. Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia., is designated as Bond
Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the
Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2006, and the
definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged
that mature on or before July 15, 2006, are not subject to prepayment or
redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments
of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2006, and the
definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged
that mature after July 15, 2006, are subject to prepayment or redemption
at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or
in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2006, upon payment of the
prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal
Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be
redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for
prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15, 2006 to July 14, 2007, inclusive ........... 103%
July 15, 2007 to July 14, 2008, inclusive ........... 102
July 15, 2008 to July 14, 2009, inclusive ........... 101
July 15, 2009 and thereafter ........................ 100
provided that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or
redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without
first obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the
Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by
the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more
than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed
for prepayment or redemption.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the
Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to
execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County
thereto.
9. Pledqe of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of
the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as
the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are
hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds
shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance
with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the
County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the
payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the
Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due,
which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in
addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the
extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and
appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage.
The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or
officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds
Certificate each setting forth the expected use and investment of the
proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary
in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations
relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and
on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (I)
the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested
and expended as set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such
Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the
other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the
County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on
the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income
for Federal income tax purposes.
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 59)
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program: proceeds Agreement. The Board
hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to
authorize and direct the County's Director of Finance to participate in
the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The
Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers
of the CoUnty as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed
to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit
and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the
other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the
investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form
submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board,
the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as
either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a
Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond
Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the
County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to
show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 15c2-12, with such completions, omissions, insertions
and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as the Chairman of the
Board or the County Executive may consider appropriate. The Chairman of
the Board or the County Executive shall make such completions,
omissions, insertions and changes in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement
not inconsistent with this Resolution as are necessary or desirable, the
execution thereof by the Chairman of the Board or the County Executive
to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes.
13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of
the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy
of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County.
14. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers,
employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such
action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in
connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action
previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately.
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TR-1 $
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
General Obligation School Bond
Series 1995A
The COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value
received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of
DOLLARS ($ ), in annual installments in the amounts set forth
on Schedule I attached hereto payable on July 15, 1996 and annually on
July 15 thereafter to and including July 15, 2015 (each a "Principal
Payment Date"), together with interest from the date of this Bond on the
unpaid installments, payable semi-annually on January 15 and July 15 of
each year, commencing on July 15~ 1996 (each an "Interest Payment Date";
together with any Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the
rates per annum set forth on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to
prepayment or redemption as hereinafter provided. Both principal of and
interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States
of America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner of this Bond, , as bond registrar (the
"Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of principal, premium, if
any, and interest on this Bond, without the presentation or surrender
hereof~ to the Virginia Public School Authority, in immediately avail-
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 60)
O00 t07
able funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Payment Date or
date fixed for prepayment or redemption. If a Payment Date or date
fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a business day for banks in
the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then
the payment of principal, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond
shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on
the business day next preceding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed
for prepayment or redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of
this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest,
written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to
the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its
obligation on this Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon
final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar for
cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged
for the payment of the principal of and the premium, if any, and
interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the Board of Supervi-
sors authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and Section 15.1-
227.25 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, requires, that there
shall be levied and collected an annual tax upon all taxable property in
the County subject to local taxation sufficient to provide for the
payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as
the same shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as to
rate or amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to
be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not
lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and
pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 5.1, Title 15.1, Code
of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutions duly adopted by the Board
of County Supervisors of the County and the School Board of the County
to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost at the office of the Bond
Registrar for an equal aggregate principal amount of bonds in definitive
form having maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to
the maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of princi-
pal of this Bond then unpaid, issuable in fully registered form in
denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof. On twenty (20)
days written notice from the Virginia Public School Authority, the
County shall deliver, at its expense, this Bond in marketable form, in
exchange for the temporary typewritten Bond.
This Bond is registered in the name of the Virginia Public School
Authority on the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar, and the
transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this
Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner.
Upon receipt of such assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond
Registrar shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove
provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on such registration
books in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before
July 15, 2006, and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be
exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2006, are not subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The princi-
pal installments of this Bond coming due after July 15, 2006, and the
definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature after
July 15, 2006, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of
the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any
date on or after July 15, 2006, upon payment of the prepayment or
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal installments to
be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set
forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or
redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15, 2006 to July 14, 2007, inclusive .......... 103%
July 15, 2007 to July 14, 2008, inclusive .......... 102
July 15, 2008 to July 14, 2009, inclusive .......... 101
July 15, 2009 and thereafter ....................... 100;
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 61)
Provided that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or
redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without
the prior written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice
of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Regis-
trar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety
(90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
Ail acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed
precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and
have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and
this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the County, is within
every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman or
Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the
signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be
dated , 1995.
ATTEST:
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle,
(SEAL)
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
Virginia
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers
unto
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF
ASSIGNEE)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE:
the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints
attorney to exchange
said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is issued and
to register the transfer of such definitive bonds on the books kept for
registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Date:
Signature Guaranteed:
(NOTICE: Signature(s) must be
guaranteed by a member firm of
the New York Stock Exchange or
a commercial bank or trust
company.)
Registered Owner
(NOTICE: The signature above
must correspond with the name
of the Registered Owner as it
appears on the front of this
Bond in every particular,
without alteration or change.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: June 7 and September 13,
1995.
Mr. Perkins had read September 13, 1995, and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
the minutes of September 13, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
Approved
by Board
Date
Inmtzals~
000109
October 11, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 62)
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Cancel Regular Meeting of October 18, 1995. Motion
was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to cancel the regular
meeting of October 18, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD. It being 1:19 A.M., there were no other matters brought up by Board
members.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn to October 30, 1995, 5:15 p.m., McIntire
Room of the Main Library Building.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adjourn
this meeting until 5:15 p.m. on October 30, 1995, at the Main Library on E.
Market Street in the City of Charlottesville.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.