Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/15/2011 - MinutesVWAIV 7A oA � �1 z PLANNING COMMISSION f8} WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 15, 2011 Commissioners Present: Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Gary Jarrell Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. Jason Peters Mr. David Radford Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Mr. John Murphy Ms. Megan Cronise Ms. Tammi Wood Ms. Nicole Pendleton Ms. Amanda Micklow Call to Order: Mr. Jarrell called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. Radford made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5 -0. Zoninq Ordinance Amendments Proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments to Articles II (Definitions), III (District Regulations), and IV (Use and Design Standards) would incorporate regulations into the county's zoning ordinance dealing with large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems continued from March 1, 2011. Mr. Thompson provided a brief history of the proposed ordinance amendments. Mr. Thompson and commissioners discussed amendments including definitions, districts, and design standards. Mr. Peters inquired about General Standards. Mr. Thompson noted the board would have the opportunity to change color and consider impact to viewshed. Mr. Thompson requested input from the commissioners regarding setback regulations. Ms. Hooker suggested increasing setbacks. Mr. Radford concurred stating the World Health Organization suggests one mile setbacks. He stated a system needs to be considerable distance from property line. He requested to visit a system. Mr. Peters discussed the importance of viewing a system. Mr. McNeil suggested increasing setback distance if near residence. Mr. Jarrell discussed recommendations from citizens. Mr. McNeil discussed the importance of having an ordinance to set standards. Mr. Peters discussed recommendation of 1750 feet from nearest residence. Mr. Obenshain explained as part of the ordinance, the board needs Page 1 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 15, 2011 to have the ability to `modify' the ordinance by increasing or decreasing the setback. Ms. Hooker noted 110% is not enough distance. Mr. Peters discussed possible setback difference if adjacent property is non - participating. Ms. Hooker discussed usability of property. Mr. McNeil suggested leaving setback at 110% and one -half mile from nearest residence. Mr. Jarrell stated setbacks should be increased. Ms. Hooker discussed the importance of protecting the community. Mr. Radford stated health issues decrease with distance from system. Ms. Hooker discussed making sure to carefully place use of property. Mr. Peters stated making setbacks too large may be waste of property. Mr. McNeil stated it is important to protect developers also. Mr. Jarrell suggested using property lines for setback measurement. Mr. Peters and Mr. McNeil discussed difficulty of basing measurement on future development. Mr. Peters stated the commission and board will have ability to increase setback requirement in future if needed. Mr. McNeil discussed the importance of developing guidelines. Mr. Jarrell discussed the importance of protecting property. Mr. Radford and Ms. Hooker concurred. Mr. McNeil stated a percentage amount should be used in the ordinance. Mr. Radford discussed possibility of a system being in a valley. Ms. Hooker discussed importance of citizen protection, noting the county can revise the ordinance if needed. Mr. Peters discussed setting restrictions too high and suggested setting a standard percentage based on structure height. Mr. Radford suggested that the setback should be 550 %. Mr. Jarrell suggested a compromise. Mr. McNeil suggested 350 %. Mr. Peters noted the setback could be adjusted during Special Use Permit (SUP) process, suggesting a setback of 400 %. Mr. Jarrell noted the setback could be adjusted specifically for each site. Mr. McNeil suggested 400% from property line and modify if needed. Mr. Peters suggested removing term non - participating from ordinance. Mr. Obenshain explained this issue. Mr. McNeil made a motion require a setback to be 400% from all adjacent property lines and change increase to modify setback in Section A(5). Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (3 -2) with the following vote: AYES: Jarrell, McNeil, Peters NAYES: Hooker, Radford ABSTAIN: None Mr. Thompson asked about separation. Ms. Hooker stated multiple towers synchronized can compound noise. Mr. Jarrell suggested addressing this issue during SUP process by requiring information with application. Mr. McNeil stated information would be acquired from manufacturer. Ms. Hooker stated regulation of separation could cushion effect. Mr. Thompson inquired about noise. Mr. McNeil suggested allowing 60 decibels. Mr. Radford suggested requiring that the developer perform a test. Mr. Peters referred to the GE website noting lowest sound produced is 55 decibels. Mr. Radford suggested using 40 decibels at 1800 feet. Ms. Hooker stated multiple towers may synchronize and discussed importance of protecting community. Mr. Radford discussed the need to readjust decibel level. Ms. Hooker and Mr. Radford suggested performing a noise Page 2 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 15, 2011 study. Mr. Peters stated 60 decibels was noise level adopted for the small wind systems amendment. Ms. Hooker stated noise is magnified with multiple turbines. Mr. Peters discussed the difficulty of determining the difference between wind noise and turbine noise. Ms. Hooker made a motion requiring noise level of maximum 40 decibels from property line. Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (3 -2) with the following vote: AYES: Jarrell, Hooker, Radford NAYES: McNeil, Peters ABSTAIN: None Mr. Thompson inquired about shadow flicker. Mr. Radford discussed the chart which showed shadow effect 3 -5 miles from system. Mr. Jarrell suggested acquiring an engineering report at different times of year. Ms. Hooker discussed mitigation of noise. Mr. Jarrell stated this issue could be addressed during the SUP process. Mr. McNeil suggested using development which is in area now not future development. Mr. Thompson stated the applicant could be required to submit impacts during SUP process. Mr. Obenshain stated the burden would be on the applicant. Mr. Peters suggested setting a baseline with amendment and adjusting regulations during SUP process. Ms. Hooker reiterated importance of protecting community. Mr. Thompson stated impact information can be required from applicant for consideration during SUP process. Mr. McNeil discussed the need for a baseline document. Mr. Peters discussed regulations being too restrictive. Mr. McNeil concurred. Mr. Peters requested additional discussion regarding low frequency noise regulation. Ms. Hooker discussed importance of providing distance from system, noting lowing decibels will lower effects of low frequency noise. Mr. Peters stated low frequency noise travels farther. Mr. Radford suggested adding language regarding measurement of low frequency noise. He suggested forwarding this issue to staff to determine how to measure. Mr. Thompson inquired about Electromagnetic Communication Interference. Ms. Hooker stated they have not received parameters or timeframe for this issue. Mr. Obenshain discussed county leases and antennas. Mr. Thompson stated the FAA may request additional documents. He stated analysis would determine disruption of signal. Ms. Hooker discussed economic viability and potential damage to the viability of our airport. Mr. Peters discussed approach minimums for commercial aircraft are due to the presence of mountains. Mr. Radford stated it would be up to the FAA and would be site specific. Mr. Peters noted that the FAA is the expert regarding these issues. Mr. Thompson and the commission discussed advertising limitations of turbines. They also discussed manufacturer speed control information which would be submitted by the manufacturer. Page 3of5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 15, 2011 Mr. Thompson and commissioners discussed land clearing. Mr. Radford noted DEQ regulations would apply. Mr. Peters expressed concern regarding debris dumping. Mr. Thompson and commissioners discussed Monitoring and Maintenance of systems. Mr. McNeil stated it would be in accordance with the zoning ordinance and fire marshal. Mr. Murphy stated the fire marshal regulates this issue. Mr. McNeil inquired about use of term "County" in ordinance. Mr. Obenshain discussed this issue. Regarding 15 (b) (viii), Mr. Peters suggested using the "County" in lieu of the "applicant." Mr. Thompson and commissioners discussed several suggestions made by the National Park Service /Blue Ridge Parkway. Ms. Hooker requested that modeling for flickering be included under additional requirements. Mr. Radford expressed concern regarding the viewshed issue. Ms. Hooker concurred, noting it is a high priority. Mr. Jarrell made a motion to postpone any action until the Planning Commission Work Session on April 19, 2011. Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (5 -0) with the following vote: AYES: Hooker, Jarrell, McNeil, Peters, Radford NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None Peters Creek /Hollins Community Plan Mr. Patriarca provided a PowerPoint presentation and update regarding the progress on the plan. He stated public meetings and stakeholder interviews have been conducted. He stated citizens discussed transportation and housing issues, expressing concern regarding maintenance of properties and development of commercial property. He stated they discussed economic development of the area, as well as preserving natural resources. He reviewed plans for future community meetings. Urban Development Areas (UDAs) Ms. Cronise provided a PowerPoint presentation which included a review of UDA components, zoning districts, future land use designations, projected growth, water and sewer availability, and transportation infrastructure. She provided a progress update regarding input from VDOT, RVARC, Economic Development, and WVWA. She reviewed characteristics of these areas and potential financial incentives. She reviewed maps regarding UDA analysis and potential locations for this designation. She reviewed the timeline regarding the development of this designation. Other Comments Ms. Hooker reiterated importance of protection of area viewsheds and ridgetops, suggesting the commission revisit this issue. Page 4 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 15, 2011 Mr. Thompson noted that a meeting regarding widening of Route 11/460 is scheduled on March 31, 2011, at the Glenvar Library from 4:00 p.m. — 6:00 p.m. With no further business or comments, Mr. Jarrell adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Susan Carter Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Tho pson Secreta , Roanoke County anning Commission Approved: G ry Jarrel Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 5 of 5