Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800020 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2019-02-01COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 02-01-2019 Greg Duncan 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: SP2018-20 WVIR TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Dear Mr. Duncan: Staff has reviewed your recent submittal to replace an existing tower with a like facility in the same location. Staff feels this proposal is ready to schedule for Planning Commission public hearing at their March 5' meeting. Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees are needed. Please pay the fees no later than loam on Friday, February 8t1i to proceed: 356.00 Cost for newspaper advertisement $215.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (+ actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $571 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $356 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $927 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cperez@albemarle.org. Sincerely, ma� Christopher Perez Senior Planner, Planning and Community Development Page I of I Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 3:15 PM To: 'gregdun@ntelos.net' Cc: Pam Riley; Rick Randolph Subject: SP2018-20 WVIR —TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Mr. Duncan, SP2018-20 WVIR — TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower It was nice meeting you last night at the community meeting. As discussed I'd like to setup a site visit with you. I am available anytime between 9am — 1pm on January 8th or 9th. How does Jan 8t' at loam work for you? What entrance should I access the site from? I ask because I have concerns that the public access to the apple orchard from Thomas Jefferson Parkway will be locked as it usually is in the morning. Also, please send me your group's Power Point presentation from the Community meeting for the official file and for my review. Because this project is on such a tight time frame I have conducted a preliminary review of the proposal, these comments should not be considered final review comments; rather, they are what I have been able to identify to date as items needing to be addressed. Final review comments will be sent to you by Feb 1, 2019 to include all other reviewer comments (Fire & Rescue, VDOT, ACSA, Engineering, and any additional comments from myself (Planning) that arise during the full review. I offer the following: 1) [4.10.3.1, 33.33(K), Mandatory pre application letter] General Regulations/Height/Setbacks. The proposed tower shall not be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure. The facility shall be relocated to allow for 314.25 feet setback from all property lines OR an approved special exception to these provision is needed. The SP application submitted requests a special exception from the BOS to this provision of the ordinance. To facilitate the review of this request please submit the required waiver application request (LINK to application) for staff and Board of Supervisor consideration, the review fee of $457, and an explanation of how the proposal is consistent with the factors outlined in Section 4.10.3.1(c). If you have written permission OR an existing offsite fall zone easement from the adjacent owner (TMP 91-18A) to allow the fall zone of this tower to encroach onto their property, please provide this documentation w/ the waiver request. 2) [33.33(K), Mandatory pre application letter] Photo simulations. Provide the requested photo simulation of the proposed facility utilizing the same picture provided in the application. Ensure the tower being replaced is labeled. Also, provide an exact location on where the photo was taken from (a map marked with the area will suffice). Please label roadways. Additional photo simulations from other locations may be requested by staff after the field visit is conducted. 3) [33.33(K), Mandatory pre application letter] Visibility Impacts. Provide a graphic with the construction design of the proposed facility. Ensure the graphic is scaled. Provide dimensions for the width of the proposed facility at the bottom, middle, and top of the tower and antenna. The proposed tower design provided is that of a triangular stick figure and gives no insight into the true design of the structure (lattice). Also, provide a design graphic or graphic representation of the existing tower for comparison. Provide dimensions for the width of the existing tower being replaced at the bottom, middle, and top of the facility and depict the guy wires. Ensure the graphic is scaled. 4) [33.33(K-), Mandatory pre application letter] Visibility Impacts. Please state the color of the proposed tower and existing tower being replaced. If possible provide an electronic or physical sample of the colors. The following comment should not be addressed till after all other reviewers have provided their review comments (Feb 1) as they and I may have additional requests for modifications to the concept plan: 5) [33.331 Concept Plan. Revise the concept plan to depict, label, and dimension the access road serving the tower. Also, provide the address of the existing block building. On the concept plan depict and label all critical slopes within the lease area. 6) [Comment] The Feb lst review letter will list all PC and BOS public hearing fees. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 GREGORY S. DUNCAN Attorney at Law 222 Court Square telephone(434)979-8556 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 January 3, 2019 Christopher P. Perez. Senior Planner Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 Re: WVIR-TV Replacement Tower SP2018-20 Dear Mr. Perez: I am in receipt of your December 21, 2018 email containing your initial comments regarding the above project. You requested a copy of WVIR's Power Point presentation from the community meeting for your file. It is contained on the enclosed flash drive. Also contained on this drive, as best as we can provide, are the other items mentioned in your recent email. The color of the new tower will be the same as the existing self-supporting tower. The FAA regulates and mandates the color scheme of towers. It will be red and white. A sample of the shade of red is contained on the enclosed flash drive. Hopefully, WVIR's engineer has provided sufficient information and photographs on the attached flash drive to address your comments numbers 2 and 3. If not, please let me know. An application for a special exception related to the lot line setback requirements will soon be filed with the County. Thank you for the link to this application in your recent email. Thank you again for your assistance. Very Truly Yours, Grego Duncan Christopher Perez From: Amelia McCulley Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 9:14 AM To: Christopher Perez Cc: Bart Svoboda; Andrew Gast -Bray; Rebecca Ragsdale; David Benish; Amelia McCulley Subject: RE: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Chris, Rebecca and I met just now to go over this. I concur with her that the location of the new tower, even at a reduced setback, does not impact the setback per the zoning ordinance for structures on adjoining property. Let me know if you need further. As always, thanks for the full background to assist in making this decision. From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 9:56 AM To: Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org> Cc: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Andrew Gast -Bray <agastbray@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org> Subject: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Amelia, RE: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Last night at the PC public hearing for the above ref project the Planning Commission requested that the Zoning Administrator write a "note to the file" as a sort of assurance that by approving a Special Exception to reduce the 1 to 1 setback to the adjacent lot that this special exception for the tower will not prohibit the adjacent property owner from building a home within the 1 to 1 setback. I had already received an answer from Rebecca to this question, see below highlighting from her January 14, 2019 email, which is in the file and was relayed to the PC; however, they wanted the Zoning Administrator to get involved and acknowledge her guidance was correct. Below is a snip from my staff report which explains the requested Special Exception and a diagram as to what is being discussed. Can or will you be able to do this? I believe a reply to this email may suffice, but if you want to write something more formal I'd be ok with that too. Let me know if you have any questions. 1� N.51a 4 •+llY { 7!\M 9 }}trig!1� ' ■a rta ■ r,r4a- ai iil • y!t �53, 11{!+�#1Qi411 �y t��� 115I`II5 39 r l+a rr Y ] it F,F ru.,•y' i,l, �a ~ LEASED PIaGP'EF"Y i AcAt i t41�i lk 1 Z SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST: The applicant has requested a Special Exception pursuant to Counter Code Section 33.49, to modify County Code § 18-4.10. _1(b) to allow the replacement tower to be built in the same location as the existing tower; which is closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure- The proposal is to reduce the required setback from 3 14-5' to no closer than 30' to the properly line. Staff Anaiysis County Code § 13-4-10.3-1 requires that communication towers be located no closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure. County Code § 18-4-1 D-3.1(c) allows waivers or modifications to the setback to be considered. The existing tower is currently located approximately 35` from the adjacent property line of TM 91- 1BA- The replacement tower is proposed to be located in generally the same location as the existing tower. The applicant has requeste-d a slight inc rease in setback reduction from the current 35' to a proposed 30' from the property line to ensure the builder has enough wiggle room (if needed) to rotate the placement of the tower to ensure the antenna is placed in the same location as currently is with the existing tower. The base of the tower will be located no closer than 30' to the adjacent property line - The location is expected to be located as depicted in the Lease Area Survey by Tomas Lincoln contained in Attachment B. Requests for modifications must be reviewed under the criteria established in County Code 15-33.49(a), taking into consideration the factors, standards, criteria and findings for each request, however no specific finding is required in support of a decision. The public health, safety, or welfare will be equally served with the reduced setback, which is the material criterion in County Code § 18-4.1D-3.1. ItC,1M no residences near the tower, the closest residence being addressed structure 1539, which is located 3,000' from the proposed tower- The proposed tower site is within an existing antenna farm atop of arteras Mountain surrounded by 200+ acres of orchard. The only structures near the proposed tower are those of other towers and associated equipment. The only p-oueit;- impacted by the setback modification is TM 91-18A. The owner of T M P 91-18A (Hunter '-;'.,"ccc;:: -s;;as notif Vd of the proposal and we have received communication from his represVnta-iv e. stating --e is --ot opposed to the tower unless the fall zone would restrict a building per --nit -or t-is lot. The approval of the S E will not restrict a building permit for this lot. Add itionaIIV there is an exist nq T,I tower on TM 91-18A within the required setback of the proposed tower. RECOMMENDED ACTION — SPECIAL EXCEPTION: In consideration of the information provided by the applicant, as well as the staff analysis identified in this report, the special exception request is acceptable - Therefore; staff recommend approval of the requested Special Exception to modify the required setback specified in County Code 13-4.10.3-1(b), with the following conditions: 1- The tower shall be built no closer than 30' to the adjacent property line (TMP 91-18A)- Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 From: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 5:01 PM To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org> Cc: Nena Harrell <ulcwww@embargmail.com> Subject: RE: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Chris, When you and I discussed this last week, I said I would address this in the Zoning comments for the SP. The only way this would affect Wendell's property is if an actual fall zone easement was required and recorded as part of review of the waver. A fall zone easement is not required by ordinance and it was not a recommended or required condition of approval when a similar special exception request was processed last year for another tower. Rebecca From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 3:38 PM To: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org> Cc: Nena Harrell <ulcwww@embargmail.com> Subject: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Zoning, RE: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Wendell and Nena are asking whether they can build a new home on their property within the 1 to 1 setback of the TV tower on the adjacent lot. The adjacent lot would need a waiver to the setback provisions to be built. But does this waiver effect Wendell from building within the 1 to 1 area? I prev ran this by Zoning but I wanted a final answer about it. Thanks Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 From: Nena Harrell <ulcwww@embargmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 3:28 PM To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: SP 2018 00020 Hi Chris, In re the above SP, currently we are not opposed to the tower unless the fall zone would restrict a building permit for the lot owned by Hunter Wood. Please advise. Thanks, Nena Harrell United Land Corporation Vice President PO Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905 434-975-3334 Fax 434-975-0267 Non. fir- Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 8:14 AM To: Rebecca Ragsdale Subject: RE: SP201800020 Rebecca, See my responses below in red: From: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org> Sent: Friday,January 25, 2019 6:14 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject:SP201800020 Chris, I was working on completing comments for this project, looking in CV, you have addressed 95%of any comments I would need to make. I saw your note about the shot clock.This is not a wireless facility and not subject to the shot clock (unless someone told you otherwise?). No, that musta been an old note...where is it at, CV?The hard copy file? Let me know and I'll delete the note. This is not subject to 5.1.40. Also, I'm wondering why you sent review comments ahead of the timeline for review? I had done a preliminary review of the proposal seeking to reject it; however, Francis review it and overruled me and deemed it complete. He told me those comments could be review comments. Being I had already done them and I know the applicant is on a tight review frame based on when the FCC needs this to be built, thus I went ahead and sent him the review comments I had so far.Ya know, to give him advanced warning. You mentioned a tight timeline?The applicant's time frame to build the tower based on FCC regs. Have they resubmitted any of the information or have questions about it?They resubmitted me some items in a flash drive; however, I have yet to review the documents be I have not jumped back on that item yet. I plan to do it this week for sure. I would emphasize for the special exception and the concept plan,that you also cite what we asked for in the mandatory preapp letter in terms of the concept plan details. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3226 E-mail:rragsdale(a�albemarle.org 1 NW' wee Of A �r,li fEre V416iih0' County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Chris Perez, Senior Planner(Planning) From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner (Zoning) Date: January 25, 2019 Subject: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower As noted in the comments you sent to the applicant in an email dated December 21, 2018, required items per the mandatory preapplication meeting letter were not provided. In addition to the items outlined in your email, I'd like to emphasize that the concept plan provided is inadequate and does not address the following items we felt were necessary to review the application (below). The concept plan must also show all boundaries of the property and adjacent parcels, with distances to all property lines. Plans and supporting drawings, calculations, and documentation. Except where the facility will be located entirely within an eligible support structure or an existing building,a scaled plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawings,calculations,and other documentation required by the agent,signed and sealed by an appropriate licensed professional. The plans and supporting drawings,calculations,and documentation shall show: (a)Existing and proposed improvements. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements on the parcel including access roads and structures,the location and dimensions of significant natural features,and the maximum height above ground of the facility(also identified in height above sea level). (b)Elevation and coordinates. The benchmarks and datum used for elevations shall coincide with the State Plane VA South US Survey Feet based on the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83),and the benchmarks shall be acceptable to the county engineer. (c)Design. The design of the facility,including the specific type of support structure and the design,type,location, size,height,and configuration of all existing and proposed antennas and other equipment. (d) Color. Identification of each paint color on the facility,by manufacturer color name and color number.A paint chip or sample shall be provided for each color. (e) Topography. Except where the facility would be attached to an eligible support structure or an existing building, the topography within two thousand(2,000)feet of the proposed facility,in contour intervals not to exceed ten(10) feet for all lands within Albemarle County and,in contour intervals shown on United States Geological Survey topographic survey maps or the best topographic data available,for lands not within Albemarle County. (f) Trees.The caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located within fifty(50)feet of the facility.The height,caliper,and species of any tree that the applicant is relying on to provide screening of the monopole or tower. The height,caliper and species of the reference tree.The caliper and species of all trees that will be adversely impacted or removed during installation or maintenance of the facility shall be noted,regardless of their distances to the facility. (g)Setbacks,parking,fencing,and landscaping. All existing and proposed setbacks,parking,fencing,and landscaping. 1 (h)Location of accessways. The location of all existing vehicular accessways and the location and design of all proposed vehicular accessways. (i)Location of certain structures and district boundaries. Except where the facility would be attached to an eligible support structure or an existing building,residential and commercial structures,and residential and rural areas district boundaries. Regarding the special exception request, a fall zone easement is not required per Section 4 but may be requested as a condition of approval of the special exception by the Board. Unless a fall zone easement is recorded on adjacent property, it does not affect that adjacent property's ' ability to build on their property. 2 ��of ALik it iiiIlll JT County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Chris Perez, Senior Planner(Planning) From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner (Zoning) Date: January 25, 2019 Subject: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower As noted in the comments you sent to the applicant in an email dated December 21, 2018, required items per the mandatory preapplication meeting letter were not provided. In addition to the items outlined in your email, I'd like to emphasize that the concept plan provided is inadequate and does not address the following items we felt were necessary to review the application (below). Cl , The concept plan must also show al oundaries of the property and adjacent parcels, with distances to all property lines. s, Plans and supporting drawings, calculations, and documentation. Except where the facility will be located entirely within an eligible support structure or an existing building,a scaled plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawings,calculations,and other documentation required by the agent, signed and sealed by an a..ropriate licensed professional. The plans and supporting drawings,calculations,and documentation shall show: so,,.s _ 1Existing and proposed improvements. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements on the parcel including access roads and structures the location and dimensions of significant natural features,and the maximum height above ground of the facility(also identified in height above sea level). > J"77y''4,,1,S Elevation and coordinates. The-hem....rks and datum used for elevations shall coincide with the State Plane VA South US Survey Feet based on the.�1 ►,�lmeric Datum of 1983 (NAT) 81),and the benchmarks shall be accepta. e to the county engineer ((t 3 s•-4 triVaTesign. T e desi n of the facility,including the specific type of support structure and the desi n t e location, ize,hei ht nd confi uration of a existin and ro osed antennas and other equipment.ii.. ‘¢-,/ 'd olor. Identification of each paint color on the facility.by manufacture for name and color number.A paint tch' or sample shall be provided for each color r-i e. �� opography. Except where the facility would beiittached to an eligible support structure or an existing building, the topography within two thousand(2,000)feet of the proposed facility, in contour intervals not to exceed ten(10) ,.� feet for all lands within Albemarle County and, in contour intervals shown on United States Geological Survey lie tcAt ographic survey maps or the best topographic data available,for lands not within Albemarle County. 0 rees.The caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located within fifty(50)feet of the facility. The elf ght,caliper,and species of any tree that the applicant is relying on to provide screening of the monopole or tower. The height,caliper and species of the reference tree. The caliper and species of all trees that will be adversely w impacted or removed during installation or maintenance of the facility shall be noted,regardless of their distances to the facility. -_,,\ 0g Setbacks,parking,fencing,and landscaping. All existing and proposed'setbacks,parking, fen 'ng,and Tandsc g. ( ___1,__>, / (h) ocation Th location of all existin 'cular accessways and a loca ' d design of all ro osed vehicular accessways. '(i oca ton o certain structur ies. Except where the facility would be dttached to an eligible support structure or an existing buildi 'dentiaLan es and residential and rural areas distiictt oundaries. Regarding the special exception request, a fall zone easement is not required per Sectio - but may be requested as a condition of approval of the special exception by the Board. Unless . fall zone easement is recorded on adjacent property, it does not affect that adjacent property's a i i y fo build on their property. ' l CK 2 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 8:54 AM To: 'gregdun@ntelos.net' Subject: FW: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Greg, I received Zoning's answer on the question about setbacks. See highlighted email below. From: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday,January 14, 2019 5:01 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda @albemarle.org> Cc: Nena Harrell <ulcwww@embargmail.com> Subject: RE: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Chris, When you and I discussed this last week, I said I would address this in the Zoning comments for the SP. The only way this would affect Wendell's property is if an actual fall zone easement was required and recorded as part of review of the waver.A fall zone easement is not required by ordinance and it was not a recommended or required condition of approval when a similar special exception request was processed last year for another tower. Rebecca From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday,January 14, 2019 3:38 PM To: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org> Cc: Nena Harrell <ulcwww@embarqmail.com> Subject: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Zoning, RE: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Wendell and Nena are asking whether they can build a new home on their property within the 1 to 1 setback of the TV tower on the adjacent lot. The adjacent lot would need a waiver to the setback provisions to be built. But does this waiver effect Wendell from building within the 1 to 1 area? I prey ran this by Zoning but I wanted a final answer about it. Thanks Christopher Perez Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 1 401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Nena Harrell<ulcwww@embargmail.com> Sent: Monday,January 14, 2019 3:28 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: SP 2018 00020 Hi Chris, In re the above SP, currently we are not opposed to the tower unless the fall zone would restrict a building permit for the lot owned by Hunter Wood. Please advise. Thanks, Nena Harrell United Land Corporation Vice President PO Box 5548 Charlottesville,VA 22905 434-975-3334 Fax 434-975-0267 2 Christopher Perez %m/ From: Richard Nelson<rnelson@serviceauthority.org> Sent: Thursday,January 17,2019 10.47 AM To: Christopher Perez Subject: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing Television Broadcasting Tower Chris, 5P201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing Television Broadcasting Tower is outside of the ACSA Jurisdictional area. There are no comments. Thanks, Richard Nelson Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22911 (434)977-4511 1 <bsvoboda@albemarle.org> _ �� Cc: Nena Harrell<ulcwww@embargmail.com> Subject: RE:SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Chris, When you and I discussed this last week, I said I would address this in the Zoning comments for the SP. The only way this would affect Wendell's property is if an actual fall zone easement was required and recorded as part of review of the waver.A fall zone easement is not required by ordinance and it was not a recommended or required condition of approval when a similar special exception request was processed last year for another tower. Rebecca From:Christopher Perez Sent: Monday,January 14, 2019 3:38 PM To: Rebecca Ragsdale<rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org> Cc: Nena Harrell<ulcwww@embargmail.com> Subject:SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Zoning, RE: SP201800020 WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Wendell and Nena are asking whether they can build a new home on their property within the 1 to 1 setback of the TV tower on the adjacent lot. The adjacent lot would need a waiver to the setback provisions to be built.But does this waiver effect Wendell from building within the 1 to 1 area? I prey ran this by Zoning but I wanted a final answer about it. Thanks Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Nena Harrell<ulcwww@embarqmail.com> Sent: Monday,January 14, 2019 3:28 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject:SP 2018 00020 Hi Chris, In re the above SP, currently we are not opposed to the tower unless the fall zone would restrict a building permit for the lot owned by Hunter Wood. Please advise. Thanks, Nena Harrell United Land Corporation 2 Review Commeri,,r,,: for SP201800020 Special Permits W Project Name VIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Date Completed: Monday. January 14, 2019 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer!Michael Dellinger " ; CDD Inspections I I See Recommendations Approved however full structural analysis needed for any additional equipment installed since original installation. Review Commer for SP201800020 !Special Permits • Project Name WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Date Completed: Fnday January 25 2019 Department/Division/Agency Review Status: Reviewer'Frank Pohl • CDD Engineering No Objection • VSMP permit required if land disturbances exceeds 10,000 sf[17-302]. Review Commer4,3 for SP201800020 4, Special Permits Project Name WVIR-TV Replacement of Existing TV Tower Date Completed: Monday, January 14 2019 Department/Division/Agency Review Status: Reviewer'Shawn Maddox v ' Fire Rescue 'No Objection Fire Rescue has no objections. SNM I Now, • Immo • R / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296.5875 April 1, 1992 Sid Shumate Director of Engineering WVIR-TV Channel 29 P. O. Box 769 . Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Proposed transmitter building replacement on property of Crown Orchard Company (Tax Map 91, Parcel 28B by lease line; Tax Map 91, Parcel 28 parent parcel) Dear Mr. Shumate, This is to confirm in writing for the record, that which we have discussed verbally several times. The proposal to build a new enlarged transmitter building on Carter's Mountain may be approved without a special permit or a site plan. A building permit will be necessary for the purpose of zoning inspection and approval. According to Jay Schlothauer, Deputy Director of Inspections, this use is exempt from the BOCA Code. Your proposal has been submitted to us with your computer-generated "working sketch, " which is attached. The proposal as I understand it is as follows : * The existing transmitter building will remain for the purpose of storage. * The new building will be more than twice the size of the existing one, and will measure approximately 50 ft. x 50 ft. This building will house a new transmitter, which is significantly more technologically advanced than the current one. * The antenna on top of the existing approximately 250 foot tall tower will be replaced. The new antenna will be within 1 foot or so of the height of the existing antenna . The tower will not be replaced, and no substantial structural changes or changes in lighting, and the like, will be made. * The transmission line in the area of the building will be replaced . ,/ WVIR Transmitter Building Page 2 = April 1, 1992 * Limited earth disturbance will be necessary for this construction. This area is somewhat level, and no mature woods will need to be removed. 2 This is proposed on property which is leased from Crown Orchard Company. It is an approximate 1 acre lease site on a parcel of 234 acres . Several other towers and utility structures exist on this property on Carter's Mountain. The tower has existed on this property since about 1973 . There are several special permits on this property, none of which include the WVIR use. (These include SP 91-23 , SP ' 90-74 , SP 80-02 , SP 79-76, SP 78-42 . ) It is my opinion that a special permit is not necessary for this proposal. This is based on the following: • 1 . There are no zoning approvals, such as special permits, which would require amendment with this proposal, or which regulate it in any manner. 2 . The proposed building will meet yard setbacks for the Rural Areas district. • 3 . The proposal does not in and of itself necessitate a permit. 4 . The proposal is the continuance of a nonconforming use. It does not involve a change in degree or in kind. The proposal does not require a site plan. By Section 32 . 2 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, it is exempt from the requirement of a site plan. In the formulation of my determination, I consulted Bill Fritz , Senior Planner, who discussed it with the relevant Planning staff . In addition,. we met with you onsite on March 12th. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Please inform me if I have made an error in fact within this letter. This determination is based on the zoning regulations in effect at this time. If some time passes prior to construction, it would be advisable to again consult this department. Sinceer,•ely, Ct". 4Yt.PAge - Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator amp/st cc: Reading File Wayne Cilimberg Robert Brandenburger