MARCH 10, 1988
M I N U T E S
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
March 10, 1988
The PUBLIC MEETING of the VIRGINIA BFACH CITY COUNCIL relative the
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE was called to order by Mayor Robert G. Jones in
K W SVILLE HIGH SCHOOL on March 10, 1988 at 7:00 P.M.
Council Members Present:
John A. Baum, Albert W. Balko, Robert E. Fentress,
Mayor Robert G. Jones, Harold Heischober, Barbara M.
Henley, Reba S. McClanan, John D. Moss, Vice Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf and Nancy K. Parker
Council Members Absent:
John L. Perry
- 2 -
Item I.B. ITFPI # 29003
The following spoke relative the COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE:
Rae LeSesne, 5327 Thornburg, Phone: 497-8008, President of the Citizen's Action
Coalition, Inc., advised the Minimum Lot Size should be at least 10,000 square
feet in the City. The requirement of additional parking spaces for housing
units is a must. Additional efforts are needed to beautify the resort area.
Charles Ansell, 1608 Bohnhoff Drive, Phone: 422-8843 (Office), Phone: 496-
0190, spoke relative parking requirements for professional office space and
medical office space. The new zoning ordinance is proposing that these two
uses be combined at the level of one space per 250 cars. Medical Office
Buildings tend to have ample and sometimes excess parking, while professional
office spaces have fewer than are actually required.
Jerry Llaneza, Chairman of the Local Issues and Ordinance Committee of the
Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce, presented a Resolution commending the City
Council, Staff and the Planning Commission for an excellent job in revising
the present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; however, recommended changes to
lot size, parking requirements and setbacks are too stringent and result in
high cost.
Lou Pace, resident of Hunt Club Forest, Phone: 468-0925. Lou Pace requested
guidelines for fencing and supported the 10,000 square foot lot. Lou Pace
suggested a building permit for fences.
Art Zachary, 796 Oriole Drive, Chairman of the Virginia Beach Municipal Fair
Trade of Tidewater Board of Realtors. Art Zachary advised of the three major
concerns: (1) Overall goals for the City are not expressed or referenced. (2)
There is insufficient consideration given to affordable housing. (3) The
impact of the City's ultimate appearance is not quite clear. The Tidewater
Board of Realtors suggested: (1) Defer adoption of the proposed CZO and do
not adopt ordinances which have a negative impact on housing affordability.
(2) Establish community goals with a vision for the City's growth and a
formal goal setting process. (3) Determine the real costs of these new land
use ordinances and (4) Encourage creativity from builders and developers.
Gay Milius, 1416 Rutland Drive, represented the American Amateur Radio Relay
League.
Carey Brown, represented the Virginia Beach Amateur Radio Club and a group
called the South Tidewater Amateur Radio and Emergency Service. Carey Brown
expressed concern relative Section 202, titled Height regulations.
Ron Morrison, 1105 Brattleboro Road, Phone: 490-3141, advised the proposed
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is just a continuation of the program of
denying homeownership to more and more of the citizens of Virginia Beach.
Robert Tyrrell, presented information and sketches to replace the R-8 Zoning
proposal and supported the proposed changes. Said sketches are hereby made a
part of the record.
Naomi L. Kilgere, 505-55th Street, spoke in opposition to wall-to-wall houses.
Richard Corner, 1444 Goose Landing Road, Phone: 428-2468, represented the
Council of Civic Organizations. Richard Corner distributed a position paper
offering endorsements, comments and suggestions. Said paper is hereby made a
part of the record.
M. E. Bowerman, 1820 South Woodside, Phone: 496-9494, represented the Back Bay
Restoration Foundation.
Joseph W. Hood, Jr., Phone: 491-8261, President of the North Virginia Beach
Civic League requested that the allowable lot coverage in the new special
North Virginia Beach zoning catgegory of R-5R be 30% from the existing 40% and
impose a 200% floor area restriction based on the allowable lot coverage.
3
Item I.B.
ITEM 29003 (Continued)
Ron Makela, 2225 Wake Forest, Phone: 481-3183. Ron Makela is Chairman of the
Great Neck Association of Civic League and Vice President of the Second
Congressional District of the Virginia Wildlife Federation. The Federation
supported Back Bay and the stormwater runoff portion of the CZO. Ron Makela
distributed recommendations from the Great Neck Association of Civic Leagues
relative signs. Said document is hereby made a part of the record.
Frank Bowers, represented Cox Cable, and spoke relative communication tower
regulations. Communication towers, if properly constructed and maintained,
are very unlikely to fall.
Bill Schweguer, 203 Little Neck Road, Phone: 340-0740, spoke relative Page 125
of the CZO relating to the resort hotel district. Bill Schweguer considered
this to be detrimental to the conventional aesthetics of the oceanfront.
John Heimerl, WNVZ Radio, 5555 Greenwich Road, Phone: 497-1067, represented the
broadcast community and related communications industries. John Heimerl is a
member of the Board and Secretary of Tidewater Chapter 54 of the Society of
Broadcast Engineers. John Heimerl addressed Article II, Part Z, Section 231.5
Communication Towers.
James Corlew, Southern Tower Service, Phone: 539-8365, spoke relative
Communication Towers and the land space requirement.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor CLOSED the PUBLIC MEETING at 9:10
P.M. and expressed appreciation to all in attendance for their views.
@th Hodges C)mith, CMC
City Clerk
Bevel@ 0. Hooks
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Public Hearing CZO
March 10, 1988
City Council City Staff
Al Balko City Manager
John Moss City Attorney
Mrs. Oberndorf City Clerk
Mayor Jones Planning Staff
John Baum Bob Scott
Nancy Parker DdVid SUIliVdn
Bob Fentress Clay Bernick
Barbara Henley Travis Campbell
Reba McClannan Calvin Jackson
Others
Pam Lingle
McCalli
Gary Fentress
Mayor Jones: Ladies and gentlemen, It is a pleasure to welcome you to
this public hearing, which is the second one that the City Council has
had in regard to the proposed revision to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance. This document is the principdl planning tool of the City as
to how the City will contlnue to develop and has been undergoing extensive
consideration for revision purposes, both by the Planning Commission in
terms of the recommendations that they have made to the City Council.
Now the City Council has had it under advisement for a number of months.
We hdve been fortunate that three of the Council members, Mrs. Henley,
Mrs. McClannan and Mrs. Parker, hdve devoted hours and hours in meetings
twice or sometimes three times d week to help bring into focus the
revisions which will be soon acted upon by the Council. We dre
Pdrticularly interested to hear from the public and to gain the insights
that the public brings as you hdve had dn occasion to review the document
that is being proposed. I think the best order of business is to move
right to the presentation. We do have here available for comment dnd
perhaps review with you, dS you may find it desirable, both the City
Manager, Mr. Watts, and the Planning Director. Mr. Scott. I think I dM
going to hold any possible comments from them dt thls point and move on
to the first person who is on the City Clerk's list.
Mrs. Smith: I would dlSO like to announce that Mr. Heischober called
just as I left the office and said that he hdd a spedking engagement,
that he would try to get here but he would be late. Also, I have
several documents that people whO dre spedking tonight would like me to
distribute to Council. If it is alright with you, I will give it to
you Monday in your package.
Mr. Jones: That would be fine.
Ray LeSesne: I speak aS d long time resident of Kempsville and as
President of the Citizen's Action Coalition, Inc. I would like to
comment City Council for the initiative of starting the process for the
needed changes in the CZO. The staff for its indepth research and the
marked improvement in the format of the proposed CZO. It makes it much
more understandable, the Planning Commission for their efforts and the
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Two
McClannan, Henley, Parker committee for their fine work and
recommendations. There is no need to dwell upon the past because if we
had had what we needed, we would not be here tonight. The problems we
face today are not the same as those we faced a few short years ago.
The pressure for unprecedented growth is housing is easing rapidly. We
have had the opportunity to evaluate the impact on the services. We
cannot turn back the hands on the clock, but certainly we have a much
better concept of what we will need for the future of our City. In
adapting the CZO. the subordinate short term solutions for long range
goals, you will ultimately receive the respect, backing and thanks from
all sections of the community for they are all closely interrelated.
The ultimate goal must be for an attractive, prosperous City. The
economic realities of the present clearly show that continued growth in
housing alone, without...inaudible... in business and industry will not
provide the sound tax base for a prosperous City. We need, therefore,
to encourage, as we can, through the CZO, greater goals in business,
commerce and industry. This need spills over into the area of housing.
If we are to attract industry, we must recognize that pleasing, attractive
housing and styles of living are important factors in decisions made by
industry to relocate. The type of personnel in high-tech industry,
which is most desirable, and that we need to attract, are not going to
be happy with ... inaudible...environment or postage stamp size lots,
not large enough for a hot tub, much less a backyard pool. There is no
question but that the minimum lot size should be at least 10,000 square
feet in the City. Lord knows we already hdve ample supply of affordable
townhouses, apartments and small homes. We will also be seeing a
steadily increasing number of older homes that will be available as
challenging starter homes for young couples. A good start has been
made in the efforts to beautify the resort area but much more is needed
to encourage the growth of tourists for the tourist industry. The CZO
can be used to encourage the construction of the type of hotels to
broaden the industry's base. The ...inaudible...will encourage the
establish of the types business needed, less the unsightly traffic
congestion, strict commercialization that we have seen are much needed.
Conditional zoning is urgently needed to insure that proffers made by
the developers are actually carried out and come to redlity. The
requirement of additional parking spaces for housing units is a must if
we want to avoid the unsightly street and lawn parking that we see
everywhere. One of the residents on our street had 6 cars, including
three trucks. Cars are proliferating everywhere and the fact has to be
recognized. The proposed stormwdter management pldn will certainly
help protect our threatened waterways. A medns to Insure maintaining
their effectiveness is very important. A progrdm to educate the public
to the importance of these measures will possible be a help in increasing
their acceptance and preservation. The importance of protecting Back
Bay Cdnnot be overemphasized. I do not need to dwell on that. In the
interest of time, I will not go into other areas. But the Citizen's
Action Coalition will submlt to Council, in writing, next week, a
series of detailed comments on buffer zones, setbacks, transfer
rights... inaudible... Thank you.
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Three
Charles Ansell: I am a local archltect who the zoning ordinance will
have an impact on both positively and negatively, professionally.
There is one aspect of the proposed change that I would like to speak
to personally. That is the change in parking requirements under 0-1
zoning. Presently one space is required for each 350 square feet of
professional office space land one SPdce for each 150 square feet of
medical office Spdce. The new zoning ordinance is proposing that these
two uses be combined at the level of one space per 250 cars. Riding
around the City and gldncing more than caSUdllY at different buildings,
which have specific uses, one notices that the medical office buildings,
which are solely medical office buildings, tend to have amply, if not
excess pdrking, while the professional office Spdce, those spaces which
organizations such as mine are involved in, tYPiCdlly have fewer than
are required. This adjustment, bringing these two uses into aligrnent,
will better address the parking needs of the Cities and the communities
of these buildings go into. It will disturb some of my clients and
please some of my others. But I think it is in the best interest, the
best long term interest of the City of Virginia Beach and the development
of the medical business community. Thank you.
Jerry LaneZd: I serve as chairman of the Local Issues and Ordinance
Committee of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce of Virginia Bedch.
The Chamber hdS passed d resolution, and I would like to read it to you
for your considerdtion: Whereas, the Hampton Roads Chdmber of Commerce
of Virginia Beach, through its Local Issues and Ordinance Committee,
has thoroughly reviewed the proposed improvements to the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance currently being studied by City Council and staff dnd
the Planning Commission of the City, and whereds, the Chamber of Commerce
supports the concept of choice in the marketplace, believing that a
free dnd open economy which prompts choice. is the bdSiS for a free
enterprise system that has produced econornic prosperity in our Nation,
State and in our region, and, whereds. importdnt dnd crucial element in
the economic development of our City is the availability of well designed,
constructed, dfforddble houses, for all of our citizens and especidlly
for those seeking homeownership, and whereas, the Chamber commends the
City Council, staff, and the Planning Commission for an excellent job
in revising the present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, but suggests
that recommended changes relative to lot size, parking requirements and
setbacks are too stringent and will resolve in high cost, thereby
pricing Mdny potentidl buyers out of the market. And whereas many
communities have been successful in developing single family houses at
densities as high as 8 an acre, with wider lots offset rear lot lines,
and whereas, innovative solutions are dvaildble to lessen the iMPdCt Of
high density, dnd to create homes with curb appeal, and now therefore,
be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Hampton Roads Chamber
of Commerce of the City of Virginia Beach, that we support efforts to
simplify and update the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Let the proposed
changes, relative to minimum lot size, setbacks and requirements for
lot coverage, should be held in abeydnce until more information or
innovative design solution can be developed. Thank you.
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Four
Lou Pace: I addressed this last week so I am going to cover some of
the same grounds for you, but about half of you weren't there last week
so I thought I would let the other half find out what I had tO SdY last
week. In particular. one of the items was the fencing, which is on
page 32 or 33, I believe. I read through that and I couldn't see where
you had a requirement that said that fencing had to have a zoning
permit. Even if you don't charge for the zoning permit, I think you
should have to have a zoning permit. So everybody knows what the fencing
ordinance should be and how you can or can't build them. A lot of
fences gO Up dnd they are built bY d fencing contractor and he doesn't
know what to do with it. Then we go bdck aS d CitY and sdY " well,
that is wrong" and he says "well, the contractor put it up". That
isn't the way to handle it. I think we hdve to hdve d building permit
for fencing. The other thing about fencing, I think we should do
something about the effects it has on our mdjor streets. It creates
that tunnel effect. If you go on Birdneck Road, on one side you have
dn 8 foot fence going right down to the sidewalk and on the other side,
the houses front the street. I will tell you, the left hand side of
the rodd going north is better than the right side with those fences.
In some parts of the country, particularly down in Texas, the way that
they do it, the front row of houses on a major street, there are no
curb cuts. You go in from edch end of the block, come bdck dnd you
have dn dlleywdy behind you. Thdt is where you park, thdt is where you
put your trash, barbecues, everything in the back yard. The f ront
yard, everybody makes look nice. They put trees dnd grass and all
that. They actually have a green belt running down your Mdjor streets.
No one partiCUldrly objects to having the front of their house with no
driveway. I always thought that was a good idea, having the garage and
driveWdy in the bdck instead of the front. I think it would make it d
lot prettier City if we did things like that. The other thing I addressed
last week was the traffic, as far as, whenever we have a rezoning, it
seems like if it is on a two lane or four ldne or whatever, we never
insist upon hdving a right turn or left turn lane. Whdt I am tdlking
about is a deceleration or acceleration lane to get in and out of some
of these offices or commercial developments, etc. I think it is crazy
to have a four lane highway that is going 45 miles an hour and the guy
comes down the street and decides tO Mdke a right turn into d 7-11 dnd
there is no deceleration. So he stops and stops everything behind him.
... lnaudible... said that the way we build our Mdjor streets is not the
proper way. I remember seeing one up on First Colonial where they had
an angle cut coming off First Colonial. One came in like this so you
could basically just make a slight turn right in and decelerate as you
are coming into the parking lot. If you wanted to take off from the
office, you could come down dnd angle into First Colonidl, which medns
you could accelerdte into First Colonlal rather thdn coming up and
making d 90 degree turn. I don't know how practical that is for the
City but it looked pretty good to me at the time I saw it. The only
thing about having an alleyway behind the first row of townhouses or
apartments on a Mdjor street is you can also put your trash cans back
there. One street I was on toddy, the trash cans were on the front of
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Five
a major street, over into the street. It looked tacky and I think it
was dangerous for moving traffic on that major street. So I don't
think that is the safest way to do it. Which brings up townhouses. I
think townhouses should always have the front of the town house as a
green belt on the street. Put the parking back behind the townhouses.
It always looks better. I like grass and trees. A lot has been brought
up about affordable housing. I guess page 77 fills dll the lot sizes.
I feel that 10,000 square feet is an adequate lot for the City of
Virginia Beach, particularly where we are in our involvement now.
Sometimes you have to make some kind of a compromise. So it seems to
me that your specifications should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet
unless some client is going to make it attractive enough to have a
smaller lot, rather than allowing smaller lots without something that
is going to control it. I have seen this City develop on small lots
and the next developer comes in and he does something a little different
from the other guy. I actually had a house in Green Run and we used to
pass the dishes bdck and forth between our dining rooms when we were
eating, we were that close. I think we have to consider the standard
as 10,000 if we are going to devidte, there had better be a darn good
reason. So if that allows you the ability to have d compromise, there
is a good plan that is going to create a quality of that particular
neighborhood with a smaller lot. Just say you can build on 5,000
square foot lots, then everybody will try to do thdt and not be credtive.
...indudible... compromise. Unless there are any questions, I think
that is all I have to say.
Art Zachdry: I aM d resident of Virginia Beach and also here as the
Chairman of the Virginia Beach Municipal Fair Trade of Tidewater Board
of Realtors. With me is Ron Ripley, who is also Chairman of the Government
Affdlrs of Virginid Beach of the Tidewater BOdrd of Realtors. We are
here only tO dddress the published CZO and not the proposed amendments
to it. None of the changes are very good. However, there are several
major concerns that will present it. 1. Overall gOdlS for the City are
not expressed or referenced. 2. There is insufficient consideration
given to affordable housing. 3. The iMPdCt Of the City's ultimate
appearance is not quite clear. The CZO .... relationship to goal setting.
We believe the adopted CZO. prior to established long rdnge broad based
many gOdlS, premature. A Comprehensive Zoning Ordindnce should be the
final step in goal setting. Proper pldnning requires established
brOdd goals that reflect the citizens, what they want and for the City
of the future. The Czo is merely d tool for shaping those goals. It
is our opinion that the proposed CZO applies a bandaid to the old
reference in a patchwork fashion. It is an attempt to justify
:,,indudible... that concerns Virginia Beach today. If the proposed CZO
is to survive the next 20 yedrs, could we actually say thdt it is going
to accomplish what we want for our City. Is it really going to solve
our problems? Our alternatives that could not affect the housing
affordability. Has anyone really looked into what Virginia Beach Wdnts
for the 21st century? Expend the time and resources necessary to
define d long term gOdlS for Virginia Bedch. Virginia Beach needs to
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Six
develop a collective sense of purpose, a vision among its leaders, it
citizens working together collectively for it to become a reality.
Impact on affordable housing. We believe that several proposed changes
will have a negative impact on affordability of new and existing homes.
Homeownership is a goal of most Americans. Home ownership also Increases
the City's tax base. Virginia Beach's new resident survey of 1987 from
Old Dominion, shows that a growing percentage of renters are coming
into Virginia Beach, versus people who are buying homes. Analysis also
reported that the incomes in Virginia Beach are in a situation that is
simply getting out of the reach of those home buyers. The boating
industry estimated that a proposed change would add 20 to 25 percent of
the certain types of homes. Is the City of Virginia Beach to put
housing out of their reach? Current citizens wanting to own their
homes?...inaudible... that would accomplish the desired changes for the
City for less dollars dnd to draw citizens. Recommendations seek to
avoid an ordinance that would have a major negative housing affordability.
Impact on the City's ultimate appearance. We believe the CZO focuses
on detail zoning, regulations, exclusion of concern of the City's
overall long term appearance. Zoning regulations are the means. not
the end, for accomplishing aesthetically pleasing Virginia Beach. For
years to come, your ordinance will dictate the overall ... inaudible...of
the City of Virginia Beach. It is our opinion that the proposed CZO
does not allow ... inaudible...and innovation in the design of a required
future demands for both affordable housing, as well as an attractive
City. For example, Kings Mill in Willidmsburg. There is a possibility
rightnowthatparticularcommunity,whichisnaturally... inaudible...could
not be built here in the City of Virginia Beach. The issue should not
be lot sizes, setbacks, gdrage credits, rdther than introduction, the
home. The realtors, too, want the City to be proud of. We are investors
of the City of Virginia Bedch. We are in the marketplace daily, selling
the City of Virginia Beach. We are taxpayers, we are parents, we are
drivers, and most of all, we are voters. Recommendations to develop an
ordinance that will encourage creativity, not rigidity, for the builders.
The Tidewater Board of Realtors have members of professional expertise
that are willing to share their expertise with the City. In summary,
we want all to build d City that we are proud of... inaudible... We are
extremely fortunate to have the expertise of the Planning staff, dedicated
Planning Commission, interested civic leagues, active Base leaders, and
also responsive City Council. Our present CZO definitely needs updating.
We do not believe, however, the document that is addressed under my
concerns and needs of citizens regarding the quality of life our future
development. In summary, we suggest the following: 1. Defer action
of the proposed CZO and do not adopt an ordinance that will have a
negative iMpdCt on housing affordability. 2. Establish community
goals as a vision of part of a former goal setting process. 3. Determine
the real cost of these land use ordinances. Lastly, encourage
inaudible... of builders and developers. Mr. Ripley, do you have
;,n,ything to add? Lddies and gentlemen, you also will receive d packet
of my notes this evening. Thank you.
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Seven
Gay Minius: I am the representative, I live here, of the American
Amateur Radio Relay League and I have asked Mr. Carey Brown to say a
few words to you, which are entirely different from what you have heard
tonight and won't here again. Thank you.
Carey Brown: I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to
bring up just a small insignificant matter that may be very significant
to my particular interests. Mr. Minius and I share a hobby called
amateur radio. We are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission
to enjoy this hobby. It allow us, not only to just enjoy the radio
communications for our own benefit, but also to serve the community. I
am a member of the American Relay League, the Virginia Beach Amateur
Radio Club, and a group called the South Tidewater Amateur Radio and
Emergency Service. Our purpose is to provide emergency communications
when we have a situation such as a hurricane, thdt type of thing. As a
matter of fact, about a year and d hdlf ago, I spent the evening here
in the Kempsville High School doing Just that, with my own radio equipment
and then went on back to work in the morning, as an example of how we
can serve the City. The City has recognized the hobby, recognized the
need for antennds. In section 202, titled Height regulations, I believe
that is on page 33, they make a very reasonable stipulation for amateur
radio antennds. Unfortunately, I think there iS d choice of words
there that I would like to ask you to reconsider. Specifically, if I
can paraphrase a little bit, it states various limitations and regulations.
It says "if they do not exceed in height, further provided that one
antenna for the purposes of an amateur station operdted, may extend the
unsaid height limit but shall not exceed 90 feet in height above ground
elevdtion." We think that 90 feet is a very redsonable figure. The
only thing that we would like you to consider changing is the wording,
one antenna. Because in most cases, when a person invests in a tower,
which is what we are tdlking about here, it economically is a smart
thing to mount more than one antenna at the top of that tower. I can
see where the wording might lead to a misinterpretation down the line
or a misunderstanding. I would be very upset if I spent $4,000 to put
a tower up and was not able to put an arrdy Of dntennas dt the top of
that tower. The City itself does that at Plaza Trail. They just put
one up at Pungo. So simply chdnging the wording so that it leads, let
me find the wording here, "further provided that antennas, for purposes
of operating an amateur radio station, may extend" etc., iS dll that we
request that you consider in your working there. We did ask that the
American Radio Relay Ledgue's legal counsel, Mr. Christopher Imway,
write to Mr. Bimson about this. The letter, I believe, has been
distributed to you and that is the thrust of what we were requesting in
that letter. Thank you.
Ron Morrison: Sitting here watching, I don't know who has the most
hazardous duty, you all trying to get up these steps or keep on a
makeshift PldtfOrm. I Stdnd before you tonight aS d concerned citizen
of the City of Virginia Beach. As most of you know, I am a real estate
broker. I want all of you to know that I am involved in the sale of
Publlc Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Eight
commercial real estate, not houses. My remarks are not motivated by
business interests, but by my concern for the future of Virginia Bedch.
Do we want the City of Virginia Bedch to become a City that is made up
mostly of renters? I am sure that the answer to that question is no.
Why would I even pose such a question to the City Council? It is well
known that the goal of individual home ownership is the most desirable
gOdl in the City of Virginid Beach. We all know that home ownership
improves neighborhoods ..... (change tape, missed some) ... quality of life
of all the City's citizens. I pose this question to the City Council
because of a recent study that has been alluded to earlier, by the Old
DominionUniversityGraduateSchool of Business and PublicAdministration.
It indicates that Virginia Beach is on the road to becoming a City with
an increasing percentage of its citizens being renters, instead of home
owners. In a census of 1980, the 68.6% of Virginia Bedch residents
live in their own homes. Only 31.4% were renters. According to the
ODU study, new residents moved to Virginia Beach in 1986, only 38.5%
purchased their homes. About 61.5% becdme renters. Why this drastic
reverse of home ownership versus renters? I suggest that it is because
the cost of purchasing a home in Virginia Beach has been driven up by
the Council's land use policies, much faster than the increases of
incomes of people moving to Virginia Beach. The ODU study indicated
that 61.9% of the new households that moved to Virginia Beach in 1986
earned less than #30,000 a year. What home can you purchase in Virginia
Beach today with a household income of only $30,000? My friends in the
mortgage business tell me that basically you could qualify for about a
$70,000 loan at 10% interest, fixed rate per year. Further, the ODU
study indicated thdt only 8% of the new residents in 1986 made more
than $50,000 per year. This amount of income would qualify a household
for a 30 year fixed rate loan at 10% interest in the amount of $90,000.
If you check the closed trdnsactions dt the City Clerk's Office, in
1987, you will find that the average prlce Of d new single family
detached home in Virginia Beach was $119,595. The average price Of d
resale home was $97,184. If the above information is as reported, then
it is edSY tO understand why new residents moving to Virginia Beach
becdme renters instead of homeowners. They couldn't afford to purchase.
Council can explain to the public that it has elected not to be concerned
dbout the effect of its land use policies on new residents in Virginia
Beach. Council can explain that it is only concerned with the quality
of live of its present citizens and that its land use policy is designed
for both its present citizen's quality of life. If this is the goal of
Council, dnd I think it is, I still don't understand the Council's
actions. The Tayloe Murphy Institute's projections of Virginia Income
indicates that only about 10% of all households of Virginia Beach can
dfford to purchase a new home at the 1987 average price of $119,595.
Only about 20% of the households of Virginia Bedch could afford to
purchase a resale home at the 1987 average price of $97,184. Are we,
the citizens of Virginia Beach, to believe that our quality of life is
improved by the City's land use policies dnd other policies such dS
housing inspections that prevent existing homeowners from moving up to
d more desirdble home? Are we supposed to believe that today's renters
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Nine
are never to be dfforded the opportunity of becoming homeowners as a
means of improving their quality of life? Finally, do you expect young
couples to believe that renting fair housing is really a better life
style ln which to raise their children thdn owning a home and if they
should thdnk the City Council of Virginia Beach for preventing them
from being able to succumb to the mundane notion of owning their own
home, ever? I suggest to you that the ldnd use policies adopted by the
City Council of Virginia Bedch, since 1980, are the reasons why more
and more families dre having to rent Instead of own their own homes. I
suggest to you that the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is just
a continuation of the program of denying homeownership to more and more
of the citizens of Virginia Beach. If this is the goal of the City
Council, I congratulate you and tell you thdt your program has been
working. If it is not the goal of Council to have Virginia Bedch
become a City of renters, Council should STOP dll consideration of the
proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, set the goals of what it Wdnts
the City of Virginia Beach to be in the yedrs of 2000, 2025, and then
draft a CZO, a Master Street and Highway Plan, a Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Idnd all the other pldns required to enable the City to meet its
established goals. Hopefully, before too many meetings will go by, my
message will get across. The citizens of Virginia Bedch need to understdnd
that by using the land use controls to price out new home construction,
they are possibly pricing out their children and the new home that they
might desire for themselves in the future. Also, they need to understand
that if they use ldnd use control to price out new home owners, they
tend to lend nO dlternative to many households other than to become
renters. If this is the desire of citizens of Virginia Bedch for
Virginia Beach to become a City of record, rRy informdtion tells me that
your progrdm is working. Thank you.
Robert Tyrell: In due process, I announce again that I consider a good
size three or four bedrooms, two and a hdlf baths, the total SqUdre footage
on thdt is just over 2000 squdre feet. The lots I would like to address
in the R-8 zoning, I chose the 7500 squdre foot lot size because that
represents about 90% of the lots In that zoning. Under the present
rule, the area inside the setbacks is 4080 square feet. At present,
under the present zoning ordinance, 30% of that ared Of the 7500 square
feet that Cdn be used, equates to 3000 squdre feet. Under the proposed
changes, which I would like to support, the maximum coverage would be
30% or 2200 square feet. If I can reldte those back to the illustrations
I gave for a generous four bedroom house or a generous duplex or townhouse.
The coverage drea on the single family house, ground floor drea, that
is, is about 2100 square feet, less than the 2200 square feet proposed
for the R-8 zoning. For a duplex or townhouse, the ground floor coverage
ared was less then 900 square feet, which is considerably less thdn
half the 2200 square feet proposed or chdnged. I might dlSO ddd, in the
bottom of this, parking areas, which generally, although not required in
R-8 zoning, to hdve off street parking, generally it is advisable. dt
least from a sales point of view to have a minimum of one and probably
two parking spaces provided on street. That adds about another 400
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Ten
square feet of property, which is not included in the 2200 square foot
proposed limitation. A lot of numbers, but I hope to relate them to
soinething that you are familiar with. On the second page, I laid out
graphically and to the same scale, the lot size of 50 by 150 feet and
then I drew on it plans of each building. My illustration of the four
bedroom, single family house with a garage. Next to that I have a 3000
square foot area which is what is allowed in the present zoning ordinance,
which I might note, almost fills up the setback area allowed on this
7500 square foot lot. Next, I show a 2200 square foot area and then a
3 story example. which is only 1500 square feet of ground cover. The
reason that can only be 1500 square feet under the proposed change,
which I support, is that the total floor area that can be built is only
200% of the lot coverage drea. So twice times 2250 is 4500 square
feet, which again is more than what a generous 2 story house would be
but since there is that total limitation, then if someone would choose
to build a 3 story house, they would have to cut down the dmount of
coverage area on the lot, which is significantly different from what it
is now. Now, they are dllowed 3000 square feet of coverage and if you
consider the 35 foot height limitation, 3 stories, which is normal,
they can go 3 times 3,000 square feet. So they would have 9000 square
feet of building on a 7500 square foot lot. I think it is excessive.
I dlSO give you a few little illustrations of elevations and whatnot.
On the third page, I drew the same areas that I just talked about in a
volume. I think the volume is the thing that really is the key to what
is happening now, in particular at the north end of the Beach, where
very large structures are being built next to what I would call average
houses, nice houses, certainly adequate houses. I think that under the
present ordinance, because of the fact that there is no limitation on
total squdre footage, we were allowing excesses which are being exploited.
As a quick suninary, if you will, the reasons I favor the changes to the
ordinance, is a number of things. The corner lot, for instance, for
those who have raw land and they are concerned about the value of that
lot. The corner lot, because of the building restrictions, would now
be on an equal claim with an inside lot. In other words, you couldn't
build more on a inside lot than you could on a corner lot. That is a
little different from what it is now. I think that existing small to
medium sized homes would be more competitive with the new buildings
because since you limit newer buildings in size, they would therefore
be more comparable. Also, I think that since they are more competitive,
it would promote renovation. Again, I am thinking particularly of the
North End of the Beach. Of course, you take away the threat of the
s m a 1 1 to m e d i u m s i z e d house bei ng threatened w i t h
new...inaudible...buildings, and I think the overall effect of what
would be achieved by this change is that the scale in any neighborhood,
be it at the North End or any other, the scale would be more uniform.
The scale is an expression that an architect uses and I will relate
that d little bit to you. YOU tdlk about SCdle, you are tdlking about
things being of somewhat the same size, the same type, maybe the same
volume. If you think about Washington, DC, or a British village of
maybe Paris, those are areas that appeal to everyone and one of the
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
reasons they appedl to everyone so much is that things are generally on
the same scale. But they are not monotonous. That is what I think
this pdrticular chdnge promotes. ...inaudible... but not monotony.
The redson I believe it doesn't result in monotony is beCdUse since the
setback rules remain the same, it allows for the buildings thdt are
placed on the lots to be moved dround in Vdrious ways. You can place
them different places on the lot. You can bury the size. Not everything
has to be all 3 story or dll 2 story. It can be a mix of 1 and 2 in
the same house. I think that promotes variety. I think if forces a
certain amount of choice. In other words, YOU Cdn go 3 stories and
have a small coverage area, two stories ... I think that enhances the
overall appearances of an area. Not to mention, we would be allowed
more ground area for drainage, which I think is critical in a lot of
areas. I don't think by any means that it will discourage individual
owner/builders. It mdy discourage some speculative builders beCdUse in
speculdtive building, the person who is building makes his money on the
"perhaps" not on the land. I think generdIlY. we will get an updating
of the whole area and dn upgrading of property Vdlues, I think for
everybody, not only the new homeowners but the existing homeowners.
Unfortunately, higher taxes. Thank you.
NdOMi KigerL: I am here to promote the welfare of Virginia Bedch. I
am here to oppose wall-to-wall houses. I think, in the long run, and
in our place, the short run, it wlll lower property values in Virginia
Beach. I am thinking Of d case I know of first hand. 5500 and 5502
Meer Road, they built 2 duplexes, right up to the line 8 feet on the
side. I never realized how far a distance that was, ten feet in the
back and the front... inaudible...the thirty foot setback for pdrking.
They came down to the Wdter. TheY dre on a canal. The house at 405
55th Street, Rick Galliford had just bought that house and was in the
process of remodeling it. He did a beautiful job, all the fixtures,
insulation, storm windows, deck everything and those went up. It took
him three yedrs to sell thdt house and he lost $20,000. He lost everything
he had put in for profit. Sold it for $98,000. This is a house four
blocks from the ocean. The other 5506 Meer Road, Jim Jangle. They
moved out, he did not want to be living next to them. He was completely
in their shadow. He had a house thdt had just been renovated, new
everything, he let that go for $117,000. Mr. Sellinger in the next
block sold his house for $165,000. Hudgins across the street have
built two beautiful duplexes, real nice. He left some yard and it was
most attractive. To this day, he still hasn't sold one of them. That
was 3 years ago. They don't want to look at these places. All they
dre looking at is a parking lot. When I received my latest appraisal,
I knew my property had gone down $20,000. I knew I wouldn't have paid
as much for it as I would before those duplexes were there. I made an
appointment with Mr. Love dnd I explained the whole situation. Of
course, at first he explained to me how they Mdde their dppraisdls and
I didn't disagree with that, but I said in a particular case, it was a
little different. The average one Wdsn't looking dt those. Next door,
all house no lot. So he had made an appointment to bring Mr. Bannigan
out, I believe who is the head dpprdiser. When we went bdck and looked
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Twelve
at those from our backyard and said he did not believe, he would not
have believed you could put that much house legally on a lot. These
were built with no variances, cornpletely legal, believe me, we measured
every inch. This is all documented at City Hall. The builder of the
duplex, by the way, went bankrupt. He planned to sell a couple of them
to pay for finishing the rest. Mr. Smith, who bought it at dUCtion,
lost his shirt on them. There were three years before they finally
sold all of them, not only the people who lived next to them, across
the street from them. they didn't want to live there. The thing is,
can you imagine blocks of these? I can't believe that anyone would
think it is possible, that it won't lower our property values dll over
Virginid Beach if this hdppens. Thank you.
Richdrd Corner: I am spedking tonight on behalf of the Council of
Civic Organizations of Virginia Beach. We have prepdred d position
pdper. I have made copies dvailable to Mrs. Smith and will see to it
that she gets them. I would like to Just go ahedd and read our position
Pdper. "Members of City Council, members of the Planning Commission,
Mr. Aubrey Watts, City Manager, Mr. Robert Scott, Director of Planning,
Mr. Don Trueblood, City Engineer, Mr. Patrick Janezeck, Zoning
Administrator, Mr. Oral Ldmbert, Director of Public Works, Mr. Jack
Whitney, Director of Envirorinental Management. With respect to the
magnitude of the undertaking, in admirdtion of those who participated
in the Pldnning process, the Council of Civic Organizations of Virginia
Beach is pleased to endorse the Planning Commission's drdft of the new
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and development ordindnce revisions. We
offer the enclosed summaries, specific endorsements, comments and
suggestions and urge that they be given your utmost consideration.
Managing the growth and quality of new development, while preserving
and enhancing the existing natural and marmnade environment, is of great
interest to all the residents of Virginia Beach. The CCO looks forward
to the enactment of these ordinances, to accomplish those ends. Part I
- new development regulations, minimum lot size. The CCO regrets that
the wave of higher density, lesser quality residential development.
Affordable housing need not be congested, impermanent and unattractive.
We urge the adoption of the 7500 square foot minimum lot size for new
development to encourage more open space in these neighborhoods.
Setbacks - the CCO recomends the minimum front, side, and rear yard
setbacks adjacent to any street be 30 feet. Additional, when abutting
a major arterial roadway, as defined by the Master Street and Highway
Plan, the minimum front, side and rear setbacks should be 50 feet.
This will promote greenbelts around our streets and provide greater
opportunities for buffering. Gross lot area computation - When determining
the gross area of a zoning map lot, the CCO feels the following areds
should be excluded: floodway portions, bodies of water and man-made
drainage areas, including borrow pits, wetlands, public or private
utility easements whose width exceeds 20 feet. Small lots - the CCO
endorses the elimination of zero lot line development. The CCO further
endorses further efforts to encourage more off street parking and to
promote more dttractive townhouse development. Apartments - the CCO
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Thirteen
supports the deletion of public open space and recreation space definitions
and further supports provisions for greater parking allowances. Planned
Unit Development Districts - The CCO applaud the PDH-2 zoning for
residential development and urges scrutiny for compliance with the
zoning ordinance for those districts already approved and presently
being planned. Part II - Preservation and Enhancement - Conditional
zoning - The CCO strongly endorses the concept of conditional zoning
and the strict procedures established to make this zoning practical and
beneficent. Furthermore, we urge similar strict policies be established
and enforced for all site plan and subdivision approvals. Adequate
penalties should be proscribed to ensure cornpliance with the accepted
proffers and approved plans. We believe this zoning law is the most
flexible method of balancing private interest with other concerns. We
urgently stress the need for affective policing to prevent any misuse
of this sound plan concept. Aesthetics - The CCO is pleased to see the
requirements for landscaping and buffering, fencing and such. Progress
in improving these areas is already apparent in many areas of the City.
Outlawing billboards and creating parking lot landscaping will further
beautify our City. The CCO recommends including the landscape, screening
and buffering specifications and standards with the 8 categories of
screening in the development ordinance. Making our City an attractive
place to live, work and visit is of interest to all citizens of Virginia
Beach. It will aid in luring tourists and new industry to our area.
Parking - The CCO is extremely concerning about inadequate parking
throughout the City, particularly in business and office districts,
especially those adjacent to residential areas. We recommend adoption
of 1 parking space per 200 square feet of office area. The CCO also
urges closer study of the increased parking demand and its impact
created by accessory uses in the Resort/Tourist District. Traffic-
With considerable zoning or conditional zoning, the City is urged to
consider carefully the future impact upon traffic of adjacent land uses
presently undeveloped, particularly those already rezoned, but not
included in recent traffic studies. The CCO further recommends limiting
curb median cuts wherever possible as they tend to complicate
intersections and congest traffic. Stormwater Management - The CCO
strongly supports the adoption of the proposed Stormwater Mdnagement
Ordinance. The need for such an ordinance is critical to slow the
rapidly progressing degenerdtion and nutrification of the City's lakes
and waterways. Whereas the proposed ordinance applies to new development,
it is equally important that the City adopt a broader Stormwater Management
policy to proscribe definitive measures of maintaining and upgrading
existing stormwater drainage systems. The CCO urges Council to pursue
the 1995 ... inaudible ... recommended by the Virginia Beach Tomorrow Task
Force to retrofit storrriwater detention bases CdPdble of filtering
pollution for remOVdl. The CCO suggests authority to grant waivers
rest with the CitY Mdndger instead of the City Engineer under Section
5, paragraph C. in order to allow other pertinent City staff participation
in the Wdiver apprOVdl Process. To try to impose stormwater runoff
into out City bays, lakes and Wdterways is imminent and begs for solution.
Findlly, date of effect - baring any unforeseen legdl or bureaucratic
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Fourteen
technicalities, the CCO recommends that the new Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance and development ordinance revisions go into effect immediately
upon ratification by City Council." Thank YOU dnd we will be sure to
see that you get plenty of copies.
M. E. Bowerman: (some speech was missed when changing tapes) that this
Council and Planning Commission, that the planning staff has been
holding hearings for input on these ordinances, has been working on
them, hds been revising them dnd has been considering them. I would
suggest that this Council has a more familiarity with the problems and
approaches particularly in the two categories that I am addressing you
on, that any Council in the recent past has had dnd that dny contemplated
Council with chdnged membership in the future is going to have. The
Planning Department staff has done an excellent job in drafting these
ordlnances. I would urge the Council to seriously consider passage of
theM dt the appropriate time in the near future. Thank you.
Joseph W. Hood, Jr.: I am president of the North Virginia Bedch Civic
Ledgue and will summary again tonight what I said last week and what
two of our members said to you this evening. We dre asking that you
reduce the allowable lot coverage in our new special North Virginia
Bedch zoning category of R-5R to 30% from the existing 40%. We dre
also asking that you impose a 200% floor area restriction based on the
allowable lot coverage, meaning if you could have a 1000 square foot
building on the lot, have a 2000 square fOOt MdXiMUM floor dred on that
building. Lastly, to increase the minimum lot size. North Virginid
Beach and the bay area beaches thdt R-5R applies to are all fully
developed. There is no reason on the face of the edrth to hdve a 5000
square foot minimum lot size there. The only thing that would enable
someone to do is to divide two larger lots and resubdivide. There is
no need for that anywhere in North Virginia Beach or on the bay area
bedches. Reducing the size of the structures thdt can be built in
these fully developed areas, is not going to reduce anybody's property
value there. It is going to result in dn overall increase of quality
in the neighborhood, which will result in dn increase of local property
Vdlues. As Mrs. Kigerl mentioned earlier, the immediate neighbors of
these gargdntuan structures that are shoehorned into those Virginia
Beach lots experience a reduction of their real estdte assessment.
I put to you that hers is not an exception. This is going to be the
rule dnytime you have these enormous buildings going into established
neighborhoods. We ask very much that you protect us from our neighbors
who would like to profiteer at our experience by building structures
that do not fit the neighborhood. We could hdve brought down dozens of
speakers to speak on this Pdrticuldr subject but in the interest of
legislative econoMY, we hdve not done so. WE have only had a couple of
other people speak to it. LdSt week two people said that the North
Virginia Beach Civic League did not speak for all of Virginia Beach.
Thdt is true, but it does speak for the VdSt overwhelming majority. I
would like to give Mrs. Smith our petition of our 750 members who
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Fifteen
support our position. A maximum of 30% lot coverage, a restriction of
200% Of dllowable floor area based on lot coverage and an increase in
the minimum lot size. Thank you.
Ron Makela: I am going to speak In behalf of two different groups
here. One briefly dnd one more extensively. As vice president of the
second congressional district of the Virginia Wildlife Federation, we
would like to put our support behind Back Bay and the stormwater runoff
portion of the CZO. Now I want to speak as chairman of the Great Neck
Association of Civic Leagues. I had a handout that I hope I could have
you referring to but it is virtually being held captive by the City
Clerk. so I will hdve to wing this d little bit. It is obvious that a
lot of time dnd effort has gone into this document and we would like to
compliment all those individuals that took the long hours and put in
the time to make it what it is. We have studied it and there is room
for improvement in one particular area that we dre concerned with.
That is the, not that we are not concerned with other areas, but I Wdnt
to deal with this one particular area. Thdt is the sign ordinance
portion of it. Basically we see three problems that are aSSOCidted
with the sign ordinance the way it is being written. The first is, it
is too permissive as to the size and number of the signs. The second
one is thdt the present ordindnce dnd the draft ordinance, which pretty
much duplicate each other, are not clearly written and they dre really
quite hard to understdnd. The third one is that the Department of
Permits and Inspections and particularly the zoning department redlly
doesn't enforce these sign ordinances presently. If we are going to
hdve a sign ordinance, it certainly makes sense that we enforce it. So
I will go into d little bit of depth in these three areas. Specifically,
what the recomendations would be in the size of the signs, one of the
big problems that we see is in the real estate signs. The ordinance,
in most cases, allows up to a 32 square foot sign, which is 4 x 8 cheap
plywood. This is a big sign and we hdve a lot of property for sale in
this City, which Mdkes for a lot of sign pollution, as far as this type
of sign goes. Therefore, we recomend, in most cases, that these signs
be reduced to 16 squdre feet, which would be bdsically 4 x 4. There are
illustrdtions in the bdck here that show you a 4 x 4 sign will do
exactly the same job ds a 32 square foot sign. This is just a small
area and I personally picked this OUt ds a member of your local fire
department. That is thdt there is a 1 square foot minimum on the dred
that you can put the address on your house. This is not much space and
particularly in the county areas, if you live back off the road or
whatever, and you Wdnt to be found, you would like to be legal and put
larger letters on your house so we know where you are. According to
the way the ordinance is written right now, this would be illegal.
There dre in fact, numerous examples in the City that I could point out
where the people have done this. They are, in fact, in violation of
the zoning ordinance by doing it. As I said, this is not going to work
out real well because I don't have anything for you to refer to. As
far dS the wording of the various references to the sign ordinance, let
me Just briefly redd a portion of part of the reference to the sign
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Sixteen
ordinance in here. The question that I had posed in the handout was
the fact that if you are getting ready to open up a pet store in a B-2
strip shop, what size signs can you use, where can you put them, do you
need a permlt, all these questions that a small business owner might
ask. If he takes the trouble to go down and gets a copy of the zoning
ordinance and proceeds to redd it, this is what he is going to read.
"For each 40 feet of frontdge and for each 80 feet of lot line adjoining
a street and not constituting frontage, not more than one sign and not
more than 60 square feet of surface area of signage shall be permitted,
provided, however, that no establishment shall have more than 3 signs,
of which one may be a free-standing sign and provided further that no
establishment having frontage less than 100 feet shall have a free
standing sign. No establishment having a frontage of at least 100
feet, but less than or equal to 200 feet shall have a free-standing
sign exceeding 32 square feet of surface area per base. No establishment
having a frontage of more than 200 feet, etc, etc." You read it and
you read it and you read it and you still can't decide what size sign
you should have or where you should put it. We recommend that they
possible go through in the manner that they hdndle the different
requirements in the different zoning areas, that they do the same thing
to signs so it will be a little bit easier to understand. In another
area, going back to the size of the signs, there are references in
here, particularly in the industrial park areas and whatever, where
businesses can have up to 200 square foot sign. We don't really need
these types of areas for signs this large. Most of these are just
identification signs. They are really not sale signs or anything
because these are not really, the industrial parks themselves are not
points of sales as they are points of manufacturing or whatever. The
need for the large signs in these areas, we really don't see the need
for that. Now the final area I want to deal with is the enforcement and,
basically, that is what got me into the studying of this portion of the
ordinance. Several years back it started out with an attempt to get rid
of one small real estate sign in the public right-of-way. It became
quite a project. It took approximately 90 days to have this sign
removed, although it is clearly stated In the ordinance that there was
a violation. The problem is, it may have to do with the wording in
the ordinance, which is also confusing to the inspector. But it also
is the fact that the zoning inspectors themselves tend to work on a
violation basis or a complaint basis only. They would drive by six
violations to get to the one that has been reported and not do anything
about the one's that they have passed by. In December, I wrote a
letter to the zoning admininstrator asking that approximately 30 some
signs be removed from the Great Neck area. My letter was dated Dec. 4.
There were 35 violations sited, today 11 of them are gone. I am not
sure whether they were removed as a result of the part of the zoning or
whether some of them, particularly the real estate signs, were removed
because the property had been sold. But I never received an answer
from the zoning office as to the possible violations. I want to pass
one other thing on to you because it was right frustrating to me in
trying to solve this problem as chairman of the Great Neck Association.
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1999
Pdge Seventeen
is thdt in talking to a zoning inspector, I ended up being on the
defensive. It started out having to do with billboards but in reference
to this letter, I made reference also to the vast number of illegal
construction signs in our area. The comment from the zoning inspector
was that "well, there are hundreds of these violations all over the
City". I have a hard time accepting that, in that if the ordinance
says there is supposed to be a 32 square foot sign, there should be a
32 square foot sign dnd no more and it is their job to go out and see
that this ordindnce is enforced. This is not being done. He also made
comments to the fact that, particularly in the Shore Drive area and
Aragona Village area, that he didn't understand. People over there
must not get along too well because they were always receiving so many
complaints on zoning violations in those areas and it was really making
his job hard. I had a little trouble accepting that one. The third
comment, and these all point to the enforcement problems we have with
the ordinances, he indicated that the population didn't seem to understand
that the zoning inspectors had to be able to bend these ordinances at
times or whdtever. I also didn't feel that you, as a Council, in
writing this new draft or the old draft had implied that that was going
to be the job of the zoning inspector, to bend these ordinances to be
particular needs or desires. I believe that is the Board of Zoning
Appeals that is supposed to do that. I just wanted to bring it to your
attention as a part of zoning and that we spent a lot of time on this
ordinance but it is not going to be worth any more than the paper it is
printed on if it is not enforced. In the City of Norfolk, I check
today, they are spending approximdtely 5 to 6 million dollars a year
now in their urbdn redevelopment progrdm to rid themselves of the
results of not enforcing the zoning, basically. If zoning is enforced,
your buildings are, to a gredter extent, going to be Mdintained in d
manner that you are not going to have to come in 20 or 30 years down
the rodd and spend massive amounts of money to tedr down whdt is there
and put up something new. So this is something that I think really
needs to be looked at In regards to the new draft zoning ordinance.
Thank you.
Frank Bowers: I am representing Cox Cable and would like to present a
viewpoint on the proposed comunication tower reguldtions covered in
the CZO. Communication towers, if properly constructed and maintained,
are very unlikely to fall. Certainly no more often than dny other
structure under similar enviromnental circumstdnces. It is assumed
that the setback requirements of 110% of the height of the tower are
based on this concern. There are instdnces when d tower must be built
in d residential area in order to provide the necessary service, such
as cable TV or cellular phone. Without the... inaudible.... is expected
to fall or failure, would be contained in a relatively SMdll area
around the tower bdse. It's mode of collapse will often be dCCordion
like action with sections falling on one another in the vicinity of the
tower. Because of the multiple guy wire, 5 cables, it is almost impossible
for the tower to fall in a straight line. For this to happen, dll 5
cables would have to be cut at the same time. Self supporting towers
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Eighteen
are designed to be structurally stronger than guy towers beCdUse they
primarily support heavy microwave dishes. These towers are designed to
withstdnd high wind levels. However, if a failure should occur, d
self-supporting tower frequently will twist and fold over at the top,
one third of the tower. Other community recommendations had based d
condition on special exceptions for guy supported towers, which specifies
a fall radius. Tower developers have been required to own and control
that area within a radius equal to one third the height of the tower.
Since guy supported towers do fold and fall, this is considered adequate
fall radius. No fall radius is usually required of self supporting
structures since these are very stable and have little likelihood of
failure. The request to eliminate towers for joint use, other items
such an noncompatible uses, competition and future use by the owner
need to be considered. Noncompatible uses of towers is going to create
problems. The same frequencies can be used for different applications.
For example, 800 megahertz two-way comunication systems and cellular
radio telephones could frequency confluence if on the same tower. Towers
constructed for use by cable television, for micrO-Wdre relay could not
withstand the load a large telephone transmitter does or the wind blow
of wave guide for several ITFS transmitting antennas. With regard to
another concern of the new zoning over microwave radiation, it should
be noted that in order to receive hazardous doses of radiation from a
transmitting microwave antenna, one would have to stand directly under
the bedm in the immediate vicinity. Usually relay towers are not
accessible to the general public and are located so that the beam is
unrestricted by buildings or by a ground where people could be affected.
We agree with the general intent to insure that safe towers are
constructed. It is our suggestion that no setback greater than 50 feet
be required for self supporting towers and for guy towers, an additional
setback equal to one third the tower height be acceptable. Thank you.
Bill Schweguer: I came here to speak basically about page 125 which
has to do with the resort hotel district, In which basically what the
Planning Commission or the CZO here is recommending, is a basic downzoning
of the hotel district for lots that are 20,000 square feet less. I
consider this to be detrimental to the conventional desthetics that I
think the City Council wants to see down at the oceanfront. This
downzoning basically will make it unprofitable for an existing owner to
renovate his existing lot. Right now, I am a local architect lnvolved
with one of these. We have a very nice plan with a zoning density of
160 units to the acre. At 140, it would be able ... inaudible ... I think
it can only lower the tax base there, lower the aesthetics. I think
the basic ...inaudible... that are given to you, the 20,000 square foot
lots and the 30,000 square foot lots are fair. But I don't think a
downzoning of these existing lots ought to occur. Most of these small
lots are old family owned businesses that have stuck with you all these
years. It is just a reduction of the tax base. I don't think that is
what we all want. Thank you.
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Nineteen
John Heimerl: I am here tonight to speak on behalf of the broadcast
community and related communications industries. I am a member of the
board and secretary of Tidewater Chapter 54 of the Society of Broadcast
Engineers and I am also an employee of Capitol Broadcasting Corporation,
specifically, Chief Engineerof radiostationWNVZ, perhapsmoreinfamously
known here in the City as Z-104. I would like to address Article II,
part Z, Conditional Uses and Structures and specifically Section 231.5
Communication Towers, of course. You heard from the amateur folks
earlier and I wish it was as easy to address our concerns as simply
making one word a plural. We find ourselves in the awkward position of
having to work with a necessary evil in order to reach the public,
whether it is the means of a comercial broadcast facility, through a
cellular telephone system, which may be installed in any one of your
vehicles, or through emergency operating systems, such as the EBS
system designed to protect all of us in the event of the failure of the
Surrey input reactor system. For this, unfortunately. we can't operate
with 90 foot towers, like our friends in the amateur band. When we
look at the total scope of 231.5, we have to commend you on taking
steps to be more specific to insure that people do not build unsafe
facilities or facilities that are not in the public interest. We hdve
no desire to see that occur in our industry. At this point, the growth
of lndustry in the Tidewater area. be it broadcast or be it any other
of the related areas like cellular, or cable television, we have to
cooperate on a professional basis. We cannot afford to have a tower
fall down. As a broadcaster, I can't afford tO dllow any time off the
air when we dre depending on the input of every minute of air time to
operate. Obviously, cellular operators depend on you being able to
pick up your telephone and make that call back to the City Hall, to
make sure d change is made, to change an dPPOintment schedule or whdtever
is necessary. We dre concerned about d couple Of dreas which I will
address. First, let me state that items 1 and 2, Section A, are, by
our standards, fine. We would expect to qualify both of those when
applying to you for a new facility. Item 3, I Will tdke somewhat of a
devil'S ddVOCdte stance on this and recornmend to you that you clarify
"statement from engineer" does not tell us specifically what kind of
engineer, a registered professional engineer or field engineer coming
to a site to make a measurement to make sure that we have no rddiation
dt a residence in the neighborhood that exceeds any limits. So here,
clearer wording would help us understand how to approach Item 3.
Specify specifically the engineer thdt YOU wish to have certify the
site dnd specify whether it should be certified before we build it, via
Planning dt that time or after it has been constructed and is operational.
On the other hand, Item 4, puts us in a very awkward position. Right
now, to my knowledge, dnd that is bdsed on 23 years of broddcast experience
and also being a native of Tidewater, I can't tell you of any avdilable
space for Mdjor installation of any kind in the City of Virglnia Bedch
on existing towers. Two things have caused this. One, it is already
tough enough to build a broadcast or a comercial tower facility.
There are a minimum number of them out there right now. Secondly,
recent Stdnddrds chdnges of the Pdrt of the structurdl Stdndards used
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Twenty
nationwide to deal with wind loading for towers have made most of our
existing towers grandfathered, unable to add more antennas. This may
be true of your own City facility if you go back and look to add another
antenna to it. The result is, if I had to apply today, I could fill
out a form that said nothing is available and the man behind me would
have the same form and it is going to go on that way. Specifically,
item 4 is almost a moot point because the truth is, there is no space
available. I would not expect to see much change in the future. A
proliferation of towers is not something that generally happens because
it iS SO dwkward to put together a facility that works for a wide
variety of people. As stated by Cox Cable, you can't all live together
on the same tower. A large FM fdcility, for example, would make it
impossible for Cox Cable to receive a lot of television stations off
the dir. It would be impossible to operate. We had numerous cases
proven across the country where cable "head ends" as they call them
are badly interfered with by FM radio stations. So they have to be
spaced apart. In addition, FM radio stations are interfering with
themselves now. If you have driven in from Virginia Beach into Norfolk,
many of you may have noticed that your FM reception becomes garbled and
in some cases, flat intolerable, depending upon which station you are
listening to. Right now, amongst the stations, we dre involved in long
term fighting to clear up this reception problem in downtown Norfolk.
It is not neceSSdrily reldted to the fact that there are 5 towers
outside of Norfolk as much as the frequencies of the stations are
poorly planned, put 2 .... together dnd the combined frequencies overload
the rddios. Planning frequency coordination is more important, almost
thdn planning the tower coordination. By restricting the number of
sites we can work with, it may be impossible for us to solve our
interference problems. Where in the future we may be able to determine
that taking a radio station from point X where it is interfering and
relocating it point B (some speech lost during changing of tape)
you to reconsider item 4 first because I doubt sincerely that you will
find extra space available that wi 1 1 work i n any case f or new app 1 i cati ons.
Secondly, because we are in a situation where we need some flexibility
to try to serve the public better. Looking under B, special requirements,
you heard before, the concerns about the setbacks. We share those
concerns. It is our experience, thdt of the towers in the Tidewater
area, only 2 towers have fallen within the last 30 years. Both of
those were guy towers. One of them fell because it was pulled down as
a result of a guy wire being snagged by a hunter's truck, which hopefully
is not too likely in a residential area in Virginid Bedch. The other
one fell because it was aged and in need Of Mdintenance. Part of this
code would address that the City help inspect sites and prevent that
from happening and we commend that. We would like to see all sites
being kept to a good standard. The second problem with a large setback,
110% for a guy tower, for example, 500 foot in height, approximate
cost, $80,000. Unfortunately, the land required for this tower would
probably be a minimum of 6 acres in any case, to build a safe tower.
Now we are talking about a lot of money because you know what an acre
of land in Virginia BedCh goes for now. So the averdge broadcast will
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Twenty One
have a tough time building d tower for whatever amount of money after
he has bought all that land. After that, required landscaping and so
on will become a burden for us to be able to do any relocations in the
public interest. A self supporting tower, on the other hand, is much
more expensive. Typical 500 foot self supporting tower, $300,000,
minimum. That is before we even put anY dntennas on it. That is just
the tower standing there. In the spirit of the CZO review here, a self
supporting tower will stand on a much smaller piece of land. It will
be also less likely to fall over, the falling records of self supporting
towers are much better. No one can come up with a pair of volt cutters
at night and make this tower fall over. They will have to drive up
with a welding truck, cut it down and it would take them most of the
night to get that to occur. We would recommend that you reconsider
item 1, and as a matter of fact. all of the setbacks, in reference to
whether the structure is a self supporting tower or a guy tower. Self
supporting should require no more than a 50 foot setback in any case.
Guy towers, again, have shown, as they fall studies are available to
give you more data on this, but guy towers as they fall, do collapse
upon themselves. In all the cases available in Tidewater, they have
collapsed under 50%. Typically, 30% has been the standard across the
country. Certainly 110% is a far removal from this. I recommend that
you bring that down to something more in line with what experience has
been In the area. Finally, on item 8, the landscaping requirements.
We empathize and agree with the need for building these facilities so
they are envirorvnentally coordinated with whatever area, be it an
industrial section already zoned N-2, C-2 or be it adjoining a residential
area. As a resident, I would be concerned if I heard that there was a
tower being built in my backyard. I would probably first be concerned
that it fall down in my backyard because I wouldn't be an expert on
towers and would not know what its chances of standing up were. The
second concern would be, do I want to look at this all the time. Well,
we will have to address that in every case on a specific basis. But,
if you consider the amount of acreage required to build a guy tower,
which again, could range up to 12 acres, certainly would be 6 acres,
following your recommendations in item 2, Of d minimum caliper tree at
2 and 112 inches at the time of planting spaced not more than 40 feet
apart within 25 feet of the property line, if that surrounds the entire
property line, then you can imagine the amount of planting that would
have to be done. You would be screening a large dmount of area, much
larger than necessary and the tower will be clearly visible above the
screen. I would recommend that you consider more screening of the
buildingS dnd the base of the tower. The building is generally for a
communications facility, whether it is cellular or whether it is a
broadcast facility or cable television, a rather small, 20 x 40 feet,
is a maximum. Sometimes there may be three or four. But again, the
number of people that can live on that tower without interfering with
edch other, limits the number of transmitter pads at the bottom. We
would certainly confer with screening the facilities themselves. As
far as the perimeter, the larger tower facility, the burden of having
to plant all the way around that perimeter would be enormous on
Public Hearing
March 10, 1988
Page Twenty Two
constructing the site. Our corporate facility in Raleigh is sornething
I would like to refer to as a model of being able to work together with
the City and provide a broadcast facility that helps the public out.
On the outskirts of Raleigh, Capitol Broadcasting has a 2000 foot
broadcast tower. If contains 2-way radios, television, FM radio,
cellular and trunking c(xnmunications and point to point studio transmitter
lengths and microwave. All of these are, of course, located a good
ways off this tower. On the grounds of the tower, 285 acres of land.
What Capitol has done with that land is turned it into a park in
corroboration with the City of Raleigh. This includes land for growing
plants, 5000 azaleas a year are donated by Capitol to the City of
Raleigh to be used to beautify the areas of the City that the Council
deems necessary. People from Raleigh are able to freely go to the
site. They have a lake, paddle boats, picnic tables. etc., all of
which allows land which otherwise would be abandoned underneath the
tower facility to be used by the public. There is no danger for anyone
using the facility. The radiation standards are all well, well below
the minimum requirements, as well as safety which was met in building
the tower. It is possible to work with you, use these facilities as
other kinds of public usage where the land will otherwise end up abandoned
around it. I hope you will write something into your report here that
will allow us to work with the City and build some facilities of this
ndture in the future, for both of our benefits. Thank you.
Mr. Balko: I have a couple of questions. Do you think that you could
get permission for a 2000 foot tower in Virginia Beach? You said you
lived with that in Raleigh.
Mr. Heimerl: That is correct. I doubt sincerely in Virginia Beach
because of NAS, for example, towards one end of Oceana towards the
other. Generally, in our area, 500 feet is the limit that the FAA will
allow. mostly because the Navy and Air Force, as well as our comercial
airways. In Suffolk, obviously, the ceiling is higher. But for d 500
guy tower, you would be looking at 6 to 8 acres of land which, within a
City confine, especially one as developed as some portions of Virginia
Beach, is precious commodity and it is sad to waste it for nothing more
than a field to mow three times a year land stand underneath a tower.
Mr. Balko: Do you think you could get permission from the FCC to put
up the 500 foot tower in Virginia Beach?
Mr. Heimerl: Absolutely, if the interference contour is above the
radio stations that met the requirement, yes.
Mr. Balko: Frequency allocations, you alluded to that. Who makes that
assigrvnent?
Mr. Heimerl: It is done jointly between the Federal Communications
Commission and now frequency coordinating committees on the local
levels. Generally that is handled by the Society of Broadcast Engineers
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Twenty Three
local chapter.
Mr. Balko: One other question. You allude to towers that you can't
possibly put any more antennas on existing towers. That may be so.
HOW dbout the condition where if you had a high rise building. Is
there any problem there of going to a high rise building owner and
saying "I would like to PUt dn antenna up on top of your building"?
Mr. Heimerl: Actually, the only problem that exists in that case, is
one in dedling with the NC standards for radiation. ExdMple: If you
hdd a high rise building, occupied on the top floor, dnd you had low
Wdttage trdnsmitters, 10 watts, 20 watts, maybe even 100 watts, and
those were removed by, say, an elevator penthouse, 30 feet from the
nearest occupied floor level. There would be no problem whatsoever.
On the other hand, if you were to place d 50,000 watt FM radio station
on the top of that building, you would have to evacuate the top four
floors, generally, for example, a 500 foot broadCdSt tower for FM
requires that the upper 250 feet of it go within the ionizing rddiation
zone. That is easy for everybody on the ground because YOU dre well
below the zone. But once you send a maintenance man up, you have to
reduce power after he climbs above 250 feet.
Mr. Balko: Thank you.
Jdmes Corlew: I own Southern Tower Service IOCdted in Suffolk, Virginia.
As you might well suppose. I am here for the same subject, the towers.
I am here because a number of people that I nOrmdllY work for,
communication fdcilities asked me to come and speak on their behalf
concerning the matter of the ldnd space requirement. Of course, from
what we have already heard about individuals talking about the costs of
building here, the cost of land and the use of ldnd for housing, I Cdn
already appreciate why the cost of land is so expensive. I appreciate,
of course, particularly, this is the first time I have ever come to a
Council meeting and don't quote me about this, but it is nice to see
that a City is concerned about building towers. Believe me, Ihave
worked on towers in many cities and I wished that the city had set some
standards because I felt thdt the towers were not safe. I felt that
the individual owning the tower, in fdct, was adding things to it that
shouldn't be done. So it Is good that you are setting these standards.
But this Mdtter of the land is really of concern here. Of course, I
can see your concern. Like you say, if you have d 500 fOOt tower and
it falls straight out, why it would hit anything at 500 feet. But it
has already been pointed out by individuals before me that this is
highly unlikely the case. As far as the land requirement is concerned,
first of all, it almost requires, or eliminates the possibility of
anybody coming in to build dn additional tower. Towers are needed.
Communication facilities dre needed in any growing city. You hdve
individuals, for example, a small one man operation will by a beeper,
subscribe to an answering service and he is tied into a communications
facility somewhere. Large businesses have extensive communication
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Twenty four
facilities to the extent that they have their on telephone systems,
their own microwave systems, they are tied in to other offices, their
computers are tied together by systems that must always work. Railroads,
electric companies and other large corporations, such as this, use
systems like this. So it is necessary to allow for additional towers
to be built. I will take exception to Mr. Heimerl's land space that he
mentions, at least 6 acres for a 500 foot tower. According to your
standards now, 200 foot tower would take about 5 acres. If a person
only put up a 200 foot tower, he would cover a minimum amount of area
with his communication facility. But he would require 5 acres of land.
This would mean that he would have to put the tower right in the middle
of the area that you wanted to cover. Right in the downtown business
area or whatever expensive land with such a short tower. But if he
can't afford 5 acres in such a place, then he has got to move the tower
out to where the land is a little cheaper. He is caught because now he
has to put up a taller tower to cover the area back to where all his
business people are. So if he goes to a 400 foot tower, according to
the 110% requirement, now he needs 19 acres. So he has moved out of
town but the ainount of land he now requires takes up a huge chunk of
property and the only thing he can put there is that 1 400 foot tower
on 19 acres. As you can see, this means the cost of building a tower
now is almost impossible. What is going to happen then, existing
towers, existing facilities are going to become overloaded. Rental of
tower space is now a big business among people that own towers, large
size towers. Just a small example, we recently put up a 1200 foot
tower in Baltimore. It is the tallest structure there. The owner paid
about 3 million dollars to build it. He expects, by antenna rental, to
get it all back within 5 years. There are companies out there that are
willing to pay highly for antenna rental space. So what is going to
happen is, they are going to approach anybody with any kind of tower
and the price that they will offer will go up and up. They will try to
put antennas on every kind of tower. So what is going to happen is,
instead of a safe situation where you can have a tower that can fall
over and not hit anything, you are going to have your present tower so
overloaded that it will create a hazard or a dangerous situation. Of
course, I can appreciate that with the type of cover, you have tried to
cover that in the inspection matter that is brought up. It is one of
the things that is required. In reality. does any building permit
office or inspection office have the men that will truly inspect the
tower? I have never seen one yet. I have put up towers in downtown
Atlanta, downtown Baltimore, big towers. No city has ever sent a man
out to inspect any of those towers. They will come out and look at the
footer and make sure that they poured the right concrete. That is as
far as they go. They are not going to climb that tower. The most that
you can expect out of an inspector, unless you employ someone especially
for that purpose and tell him beforehand that he has got to cllmb every
tower in town, he may walk up to the bdse of the tower and look around,
but that will be a poor inspection. He might be able to determine if
an additional antenna can be put on the tower, but mostly likely he
won't. Some of them will say that it is al electrical Cdble run up
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Pdge Twenty five
there or something like that. He is not going to tell you different.
He will walk dway dnd leave. Or someone will take down a small antenna
and put up a much larger one the tower shouldn't have.
Mayor Jones: We will see if Pat Janezeck will inspect these personally.
Mr. Corlew: In reality, the inspection Mdtter is going to be about as
difficult as what was said up here before dbout the signs being the
proper size and kept in order. It is just not going to be a redlity.
Mdyor Jones: Mr. Corlew, I wonder if I might interrupt for jUSt d
minute. Mrs. Henley has an observation about the actual langudge of
the proposed ordinance and I would like to see if you have some coynment
back.
Mrs. Henley: Since we have had several speakers to address the setback
issue, there are actually 3 of the subsections to Section D thdt address
setbacks. I have the feeling that perhaps the first one stumbled
everybody so much that they didn't get down to part 3. The first
requirementdealingwithsetbackssaysthdtthemaximumsetbackrequirement
from the base of the tower to any property line abutting a residential
use, shall be equal to 110% of the height of the tower. To move on to
part 2, it says that the minimum setback requirement from the base of
the tower to any property line abutting d right-of-way of any street,
office or park use shall be at least 50 feet. So you see it is reduced
abutting any street, office, or park use, unless a greater setback is
specified due to other circumstances, as a condition Of dpproval. Then
when you move down to part 3 it says "for property lines not abutting
the dbove uses, that is something other than a residential use, a
street, an office, or a park use, for any other uses, the minimal
setback requirement shall be at ledst 25 feet, unless a greater setbdck
is specified due to other circumstances as a condition of approval".
So that condition requiring 110% of the height of the tower only dPPlies
if it abuts a residential use. Was that your cledr understanding?
Mr. Corlew: Yes, I did understand that to be true.
Mrs. Henley: I think you mentioned that you may have to acquire property
in the middle of a business/commercial use to have it 110%. In the case
of a business, abutting a business use, then the requirement would only
be 25 feet.
Mr. Corlew: Okdy, I can appreciate that. Of course, if we were only
mentioning this because, as the way Virginia Beach is ldid out, in many
business areas, quite often housing areas approach on one side or
another. It is possible that the only land obtdinable might be something
that would also have one residence, one side, and then it would require
the 110% setback. The point that we dre trying to make, though, the
persons before me, is thdt these towers do not fdll straight out. They
mentioned tWO Cdses of towers falling before. This is certainly not
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Twenty six
the case. I have been building towers for about 28 years. I don't
know of any towers that have ever fallen straight out other than when I
was hired to drop the tower, an unsafe tower, something like that.
Then I caused it to fall in that direction. So what we are basically
saying is that, still, in the case of residences, that other options
are available. For example, a few years ago we put up a tower right
next to some apartments in Baltimore. What they determined that needed
to be done, the tower was a little over 400 feet tall and the apartments
were only about 150 feet away on one side, was that the anchorages
opposite the apartments was increased in size. The safety factor was
increased on that side of the tower so that, if anything ever occurred
to cause, beyond that tower's capability of standing, to cause it to
fall, that side would be the last side to let go. Anything else would
let go first and the tower would fall in the opposite direction. In
other words, we are saying that engineeringwise, this matter can be
much better considered. We don't want to build a tower that is going
to fall at all. A tower properly built will stand here as well as any
of the other buildings in town. Just as an example, when Gloria, the
worst hurricane that ever came up in the Gulf, winds of 200 miles an
hour, a tower 1500 feet tall, designed for 150 mile hour winds, stood
through it. It stood 200 mile per hour winds because the engineers
design a safety factor. The tower will not come down at 150 miles an
hour. It stands there comfortably at that speed and that wind, holding
everything it is supposed to hold, because it was designed to do it.
Only at some extreme beyond that would the tower begin to collapse. Of
course, a particular manufacturer advertises his tower all over the
place because it withstood 200 mile per hour wind. In another case, in
Atlanta, we put up a 476 foot tower downtown, right in the middle of
all kind of businesses. On one side was apartment houses, but it was
permitted to be done because the tower met the structural things required.
The engineer from the manufacturing firm met with the engineers of the
City of Atldnta and satisfied them that there was nothing that was
going to bring that tower down that wasn't golng to bring anything else
down that WdS standing around it as well, tornados, edrthquakes. What
we are saying is, do the right thing, make the manufdcturer meet the
standards, require that an engineer licensed in the State of Virginia
stamp those drawings, approve them, require that a responsible contractor
build the tower, a contractor licensed in the State of Virginia. Quite
often what happens is that a contractor tower erectors move through the
country. They are on the go all the time. They are building towers
here dnd there and everywhere. They are gone, you don't know who built
it sometimes. Even it can happen with a licensed contractor in the
State of Virginia. He can sub out the job to another licensed contractor.
He comes and he is gone. Is his work up to par? Who knows? So that
is what is one of the major contributing factors of a COlldPSing tower
in Suffolk. It is a matter of poor engineering standards. It survived
the first hurricane that came along but it didn't survive the second one
because an additional antenna had been put on it and that combined with
a poor standard of engineering brought it down. We appreciate that you
are concerning yourself with these things. We would just to suggest
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Twenty Seven
that by dealing with your local engineers, that people who need to
build towers will still be permitted to build them, but with a code
that will require them to put up a tower that will stand as well as
anything else that you permit to be built in the City.
Mr. Balko: The person that owns the tower, do they insure these towers?
Mr. Corlew: They are supposed to.
Mr. Balko: Do they?
Mr. Corlew: We think that most all of them do. I don't know of anybody
that has any towers up that are not insured. I don't ask an indivldual
whether they are insured or not but I am aware that many are insured.
However, there is a deficiency on the part of the insurance company.
They don't inspect the towers either.
Mr. Balko: I was going to ask whether they do inspect.
Mr. Corlew: Only on extremely large towers and maybe with large companies
like, for example, the company Mr. Heimerl works for, Capitol Broadcasting
that may own a number of large towers. They may require a certified
engineer to go and inspect that tower. When that is done, we find out
that that is done by an engineer who is not an office man. He climbs
the tower (some speech lost in changing the tape) that insurance
company insures that tower, of course, just like the company that
builds abuildingfireretardant tocodes, he savesmoneyonhis insurance.
But it does need to be done. The inspection thing does need to be
worked out and done by someone responsible.
Mr. Heimerl: I neglected in looking at item 1 under special requirements
to mention the fact that this doesn't clearly state whether this is an
occupied residentidl Use or simply a zoned residential use, which would
have some bearing on the planning of any site, obviously. Perhaps some
language should be added there. And as Mr. Corlew mentioned. yes, we
were aware of the other two. Our concern is that there is so much
property ln Virginia Beach thdt ddjoins commercial, manufacturing zone,
Up dgainst residentidl, where one simple property bdrrier, one property
line on one side of the proposed site might make the site unusable. If
we Cdn have some flexibility there where we can work with the City in
each specific case, it would help us.
Mayor Jones: It would be my interpretation, it SDYS that it is measured
from the property line. You are suggesting something like a residential
structure?
Mr. Heimerl: Yes, in this case we hdd d residentidl use but were
unable to determine whether that use is simply a zoning of R-1 or
whatever or actual occupied usage of existing apartment buildings or a
single residence or agdin, a lot of these kind of properties, which are
Public Hearing - CZO
March 10, 1988
Page Twenty Eight
particularly occupied, adjoin the commercial properties. That is what
makes it tough. Thank you.
Mrs. Smith: Your honor, all those who registered have spoken.
Mayor Jones: Are there any other persons who want to comment at the
hearing, before we conclude. Are there any members of Council who
desire to make a comment before we conclude the evening? If not, on
behalf of the City Council, let me thank each of you for coming and for
sharing your coments with us. We will take all of these seriously and
look at the proposed CZO in light of the public cornments and hopefully,
through our usual efforts, we will make an even finer document than has
come to us from the Planning Commission. Thank you.