HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-6-12Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JUNE 12, 2013
6:00 P.M. - AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. SP-2013-00007. Cingular Wireless/Pace Property Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility (Sign #75). PROPOSED: Request for installation of a 118 foot tall monopole
with 3 antennas and associated ground equipment with fencing within a 1,600 sq. ft. leasing areas
as well as construction of a new access road to the site. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:
RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots); EC Entrance Corridor – Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or
cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access; FH Flood
Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding. Southern Albemarle Rural Historic
District; and Scenic By-ways Overlay. SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 2 -preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre
in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES. LOCATION: 3376 Stony Point Road. TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 04700-00-00-03000. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
10. SP-2013-00008. Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm (Sign #74). PROPOSED:
Special use permit request for a personal wireless service facility including a 129-foot steel
monopole (20 feet above the height of the reference tree) with two (2) flush-mount antennae, each
consisting of three (3) panel antennas. The proposed ground equipment will be located on a 40X40
foot leased compound area. An 8’ tall wooden privacy fence is also proposed to surround the base
of the 40X40 compound. Access to the site is proposed through an access road off Route 627 (Fry’s
Path). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal
wireless facilities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 -
Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO. HISTORIC DISTRICT:
YES. LOCATION: To the west of Fry’s Path (Route 627), approximately one-half mile from the
intersection with Scottsville Road (Route 20). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 11200-00-00-01600.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0612/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/2/2020 4:53:17 PM]
Tentative
11. To receive public comment on the proposed Secondary Six-Year Plan for Fiscal
Years 2013/14 through 2018/19 in Albemarle County, and on the Secondary System Construction
Budget for Fiscal Year 2013/14.
12. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
14. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Glenmore Leake K2 (ZMA-2012-0016) Lots 24-27 & 29, SUB-201-00127 Variation.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.2 2012 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
NEW: CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0612/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/2/2020 4:53:17 PM]
Glenmore-Leake Variation Request
June 12, 2013 BOS
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Glenmore Leake K2 Lots 24-27 &29, SUB 2012-00127,
Variation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Section 8.5.5.3 Variations From Approved
Plans, Codes, And Standards Of
Developments
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish,
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: June 12, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ZMA-2006-0016 (Leake) was rezoned to PRD-Planned Residential Development, with an associated application plan and
proffers, on November 14, 2007 (ZMA2006-0016). A proposed subdivision for a section of this development will require a
variation from the approved Application Plan. This variation is necessary before the final site plan can be approved by
staff. The applicant is requesting the following variations from the approved rezoning plan:
Request to upgrade a section of an existing emergency access to a private road and allow two driveways to
access the upgraded road (and maintain only an emergency access to Running Deer as originally approved).
DISCUSSION:
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
The variation request has been reviewed for Zoning and Planning aspects of the regulations. Section 8.5.5.3(a) authorizes
the Director of Planning to grant variations from the approved application plat and/ or code of development. However, due
to a recent State Supreme Court decision, these variations must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a
Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 33.9
VARIATION - Upgrade a section of an existing emergency access to a private road and allow two driveways to
access this upgraded road:
The applicant submitted the following: The applicant request to upgrade the existing 15’ wide gravel emergency access
between the existing paved Farringdon Road and the existing Running Deer Drive to a proposed 20’ wide gravel private
road meeting current VDOT standards. Please note the applicant proposes to install a fence and gate around the existing
cul-de-sac on Running and along proposed lot 29 (this has already been installed). The proposed variation will allow the
applicant to install a driveway for lots 25 and 29. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The proposed change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The change
provides for safe and convenient access to two lots.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
Glenmore-Leake Variation Request
June 12, 2013 BOS
2
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application. There is no change to the lot layout for
these two lots from that approved in the application plan, Driveway locations were not shown on the application
plan. The original emergency access function for the existing road remains in place and there is no public or
private road connection being made to Running Deer Drive for vehicular or pedestrian traffic . The proposed
private road provides access to lots 25 and 29 only from Farringdon Road.
VARIATION #1 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request , with the following conditions:
1. Private Road serves only lots 25 and 29 (and emergency access fu nction).
2. Install and maintain a fence and gate around (or equivalent barrier) between Running Deer Lane cul -de-
sac and new private road.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator
DATE: May 29, 2013
RE: 2012 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full public
record of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body. The full 2012
annual report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance, special use permits for
certain sign types, and appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or her designee. These
appeals can include determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals received in 2012 decreased by 1, from 4 received in 2011 for a total of 3
appeal cases. The Zoning Administrator’s decision was affirmed in two cases and one was withdrawn
prior to public hearing.
While the number of variance applications increased from the prior year, only 3 variance applications
were heard. Staff works with applicants to find options that do not involve a variance. Of the three,
two cases were approved with conditions and one case was denied. Three cases were withdrawn
prior to public hearing and two applications were voided.
The number of special use permits for off-site signs decreased by 1, from 3 in 2011 to 2 in 2012. One
case was approved with conditions and one was denied.
The following Circuit Court case is still pending:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Appeal of use
determination.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2012 ANNUAL REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
Virginia Code § 15.2-2308 requires that the Board of Zoning Appeals submit a report of
its activities to the governing body at least once each year. The following report outlines
the BZA’s activities during 2012.
II. PERSONNEL
The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members appointed by the Circuit Court
for a term not to exceed five years. The Board members during the year 2012 were:
Member _____________Term Expiration
David Bass, Chairman Reappointed June 4, 2012 for a five year term – to
expire May 23, 2017
Lloyd (L.F.) Wood, Vice Chairman Reappointed February 29, 2010 for a five year
term – to expire May 23, 2015
Randy Rinehart, Secretary Reappointed May 19, 2011 for a five year term –
to expire May 23, 2016
David Bowerman Appointed April 22, 2009 for a four year term (to
replace Mr. Kennedy for the unexpired portion of
his term) – to expire May 23, 2013
Edgar S. Robb Appointed May 29, 2012 for a two year term (to
replace Mr. McClure for the unexpired portion of
his term) – to expire May 23, 2014
Regrettably, Mr. McClure passed away October 30, 2011. On March 29, 2012, the
Circuit Court appointed Edgar S. Robb to replace Mr. McClure for the unexpired portion
of his term. Mr. Robb’s term will expire on May 23, 2014.
III. OPERATING PROCEDURES
Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00
p.m. Special meetings may be called when the regular schedule does not provide
sufficient hearing time. These special meetings may begin at 1:00 p.m. The Board
operates with Rules of Procedure which were adopted November 15, 2002.
Board of Zoning Appeals 2012 Annual Report Page 2
IV. EXPENSES
The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and
mileage are included within the budget of the Department of Community Development.
Funding for Board salaries in the fiscal year 2012-2013 was consistent with prior years
and expenses totaled $1496.00. Board members are paid $45 per meeting and are
reimbursed for mileage traveled to the meetings.
County staff working with the Board includes the Director of Zoning (Zoning
Administrator), Chief of Zoning (Deputy Zoning Administrator), Planners, and Code
Enforcement Officers. Support staff includes the Recording Secretary.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The Board of Zoning Appeals held 8 meetings in 2012. The number of submittals and
actions considered by the Board in 2012 are shown in the following tables:
Variances
Seven (7) variance applications were received and three (3) were heard in 2012. One
(1) was approved and two (2) were denied.
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
VA 2012-01 Tip Top
Restaurant
Relief from Code
Sec.4.15.13 to
decrease the
minimum setback for
a freestanding sign
from 5 feet
to 0 inches, a
variance of 5 feet.
(2-2) (2-2) Both motions
failed - not
approved.
VA12-02 Regal Cinemas
The Shops At
Stonefield
Relief from Code
Sec.4.15.13 to
increase the
maximum allowable
square footage of
wall signs on
a building from 200
square feet to 497
square feet, a
variance of 297
square feet.
(4-0)
VA12-03 (none) Voided Application
Board of Zoning Appeals 2012 Annual Report Page 3
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
VA12-04 DS Tavern Withdrawn
Application
VA12-05 Nathan Ryan Voided Application
VA12-06 Windsor Estates,
Lot 29
Withdrawn
Application
VA12-07 Garnett Variation Withdrawn
Application
VA12-08 Fairfield Inn &
Suites
Relief from Section
18-4.15.11 to be
located above the
“cornice line” of a
building as defined in
Section 18-4.15.2,
not to exceed 40’.
(5-0) X
Appeals
Three (3) appeal applications were received and two (2) appeals were heard in 2012.
Two (2) appeals were affirmed.
Application # Appellant or Project
Name
Affirmed, Modified,
Reversed ZA (Zoning
Administrator) or DZA
(Deputy Zoning
Administrator)
Issue
AP11-06 Re-Store’N Station
Affirmed DZA (4-0);
McClure absent:
Determination of general
accord as called for in the
Board of Supervisors’
conditions of approval.
The submitted
preliminary site plan
for the proposed Re-
Store ‘N Station dated
December 13, 2010 is
in general accord with
the preliminary site
plan dated December
6, 2009.
Board of Zoning Appeals 2012 Annual Report Page 4
Application # Appellant or Project
Name
Affirmed, Modified,
Reversed ZA (Zoning
Administrator) or DZA
(Deputy Zoning
Administrator)
Issue
AP12-01 Castle Hill Cider Untimely
Application – No Action
Taken by BZA
Was not appealed
within 30 day appeal
period
AP12-02 Backyard Hobby Chicken
Affirmed (5-0)
Determination of violation
Use established at
Tax Map 60A, Sec 1,
Blk C, Parcel 14 is not
permitted use in the
R4 zoning district.
AP12-03 Crown Orchard Withdrawn Application Appellant worked with
staff and abated the
violation
Special Use Permits
Two (2) special use permit applications for off-site signs were heard in 2012. One (1)
was approved with conditions and one (1) was denied.
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
SP12-15 The
Independence
Off-site Sign
To replace the
existing subdivision
sign for Wilton Farm
apartments with a
new monument sign
in the same location
on Rt. 20.
(4-0)
SP12-22 Rivanna Plaza
Off-site Sign
Erect an off-site
freestanding
directional sign to
serve Kegler’s of
Charlottesville
(5-0) X
VI. COURT ACTIONS
The following court actions involving the Board of Zoning Appeals are pending or have
been recently resolved:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Petition
for writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2004
Board of Zoning Appeals 2012 Annual Report Page 5
decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that Planned Parenthood's use of the
property is a professional office use. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the
Court on the County’s motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the
petitioners failed to add Planned Parenthood as a party to the case and it can no
longer be involuntarily added as a party.
2. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2005 decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals that the use of the property by Watkins & Co.
Landscape Contracting constitutes a contractor's storage yard which is not a
permitted use in the Rural Areas District. The applicants have pursued a
different location. The applicants have obtained rezoning and final site plan
approval from the County. Because the appeal has neither been actively
pursued nor withdrawn for over three years, the Circuit Court discontinued the
case pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-335 at the County’s request.
3. Ellen Hawkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2007 decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals that keeping 27 adult dogs and seven puppies, portable cages,
portable kennels, fixed kennels, bulk amounts of dog food and related material
on site is not a permitted use in the R2, Residential District. Because the appeal
was neither actively pursued nor withdrawn for over three years, on January 10,
2013, the Circuit Court entered an Order discontinuing the case, at the County’s
request.
4. HE&J, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals (Preliminary Site Plan): Petition for writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2011 decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals that the submitted preliminary site plan for the
proposed Re-Store ‘N Station convenience store and fuel sales establishment
dated December 13, 2010 was in general accord with the preliminary site plan
dated December 6, 2009, as called for in the Board of Supervisors’ conditions of
approval. On February 7, 2012, the Circuit Court granted the County’s Motion to
Dismiss this appeal. The parties later agreed to a Consent Order, which the
Circuit Court entered on September 29, 2012, resolving the appeal involving the
preliminary site plan.
5. HE&J, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals (Final Site Plan): Petition for writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2012 decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals that the submitted final site plan for the proposed
Re-Store ‘N Station convenience store and fuel sales establishment dated July
14, 2011 was in general accord with the submitted preliminary site plan dated
December 6, 2009, as called for in the Board of Supervisors’ conditions of
approval. Following a hearing, on December 17, 2012, the Circuit Court ruled
that the Board of Zoning Appeals erred in affirming the Deputy Zoning
Administrator’s determination that the proposed final site plan for Re-Store ‘N
Station was in general accord with its application plan. The Court’s ruling
Board of Zoning Appeals 2012 Annual Report Page 6
effectively denied a 1,915 square-foot second floor proposed in the owners’ final
site plan.
6. Dominique and Rachel Kostelac v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2011 decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals that the use of the property by Arganica Farm Club
is not a use permitted by-right in the Rural Areas District. The court issued a writ
of certiorari on October 11, 2011 and the Board of Zoning Appeals filed a
complete record of its proceedings. The Circuit Court dismissed this appeal on
January 7, 2013, ending the case.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 4, 2013
Valerie Long - Williams Mullen
321 E. Main St.
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: SP201300007 Cingular Wireless/Pace Property Tier III Personal Wireless Service
Facility
TAX MAP PARCEL: 04700000003000
Dear Ms. Long:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 2013, by a vote of 6:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is based on the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's
request and site plans, entitled “CV372, Parcel 47-30” with a final zoning drawing
submittal date of 05/06/13 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director
of Planning and Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made
to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
In addition, to Planning Commission by a vote of 6:0 recommen ded approval of the special
exception for the modification to Section 5.1.40(d)(6): Modification of requirement that facility extend
no more than 10 feet above the reference tree, to permit it to extend 20 feet above the reference
tree.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 12, 2013.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Sarah Baldwin
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc Pace, Montie R Sr or Teresa S C/O Park Hill Farm
3376 Stony Point Rd
Charlottesville, VA. 22911
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201300007 – Cingular Wireless “Pace”
Property Tier III PWSF
Staff: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
May 21, 2013
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Pace, Montie R. Sr. or Teresa Applicant: Valerie Long, Williams Mullen
Acreage: 115.73 Acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 47 Parcel 30
Location: 3376 Stony Point Road
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas, and EC Entrance
Corridor
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for installation of a 118 foot tall
monopole with 3 antennas and associated ground
equipment with fencing within a 1,600 sq. ft. leasing
area as well as construction of a new access road to
the site.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
Area 2.
Character of Property: This property is zoned Rural
Areas and contains an existing dwelling unit with several
outbuildings and is located on a wooded parcel.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family residential containing both wooded
and open areas.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal will provide improved 3G and 4G
wireless service for the surrounding area.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval of the proposed monopole
and associated ground equipment stating that the
location is expected to sufficiently minimize its
visibility such that no negative impact on the
Entrance Corridor is anticipated.
3. The proposal meets all of the requirements of
5.1.40.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included is a modification for Sections 5.1.40(d)6. Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff
recommends approval of SP2013-07 with a condition and the waiver (special exception) request.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 21, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201300007: Cingular Wireless “Pace” Property Tier III
PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Montie R Sr. or Teresa Pace
APPLICANT: Valerie Long, Williams Mullen
PROPOSAL:
This is a request for installation of a 118 foot tall monopole with 3 antennas and
associated ground equipment with fencing within a 1,600 sq. ft. leasing areas as well as
construction of a new access road to the site. The 115.17 acre property, described as
Tax Map 47, Parcel 03, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is zoned Rural
Areas (“RA”) and Entrance Corridor (“EC”) (Attachment A).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is zoned Rural Areas and contains an existing dwelling unit and is located
on a wooded parcel. The site is on a mostly wooded parcel. The surrounding areas
contain both wooded and open areas.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
N/A.
DISCUSSION:
The PWSF Ordinance states that facilities should be located at least 200 feet outside of
a scenic highway or by-way which are designated as avoidance areas. This parcel
fronts on Route 20, which is designated as a Virginia byway. Based upon the plans
submitted, the proposed tower is sited to be located over 200 feet from the byway. A
portion of the site borders the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District which is
considered an avoidance area under the Ordinance. The proposed tower will be
approximately 20 feet taller than the reference tree. The tower height renders that the
tower be processed as a Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility requiring a Special
Permit (“SP”).
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the planning commission and board of
supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting
upon an application for a special use permit:
3
The proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots.
The monopole is proposed to be 118 feet AGL in a largely wooded area. A reference
tree is identified as a 98 foot AGL white oak. The Applicant has requested a waiver
of the reference tree requirement as the monopole will be 20 feet taller than the
reference tree. (Attachment B). It is not anticipated that the proposed monopole will
be of any detriment to the adjacent properties, aside from limited temporary
construction activity. The new tower will not substantially change the visual impact of
the existing area since the property is wooded. Additionally, viewing the proposed
tower location from various points on Route 20 was minimal due to the surrounding
properties which are heavily wooded with varying topography.
The character of the [zoning] district will not be changed by the proposed
special use.
As mentioned above, no substantial changes will occur with construction of this tower
aside from limited construction activity associated with the change. Although the
tower as proposed will be 20 feet taller than the reference tree visibility is limited. A
balloon test was performed on April 09, 2013 and at a few vantage points it appeared
that the facility would be skylighted; however the foreground is densely wooded, so
the lack of backdrop is minimized. Additionally, at most sites it was significantly
camouflaged by trees, elevation changes and the winding nature of Stony Point Road
(Attachment C).
The use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning
ordinance.
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set
forth in Sections 1.4. of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified
in the Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is
consistent with both sections.
The use will be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district.
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated, since visibility is limited. Additionally,
Staff has not received any negative comments from citizens.
The public health, safety and general welfare of the community will be
protected if the use is approved.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through
the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use
permit are appropriate in the location requested. The proposed tower will provide
more reliable access to the wireless communication market, to include schools,
travelling public and residences. This can be seen as contributing to the public
health, safety and welfare. Otherwise, no change to the public health, safety and
general welfare is expected.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40(e)
4
are addressed as follows [Ordinance sections are in bold italics]:
Section 5.1.40(e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon
approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 33.8 of this chapter,
initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a)
and section 33.4, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter and the following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c )(2)
through (9) and subsection 5.1.40(d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the
board of supervisors during special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 33.8 special
use permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning
Ordinance: The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section
5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows:
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable:
Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to
all applicable regulations in this chapter.
The site drawings, antennae and equipment specifications have been provided to
demonstrate that personal wireless service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any
relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have
been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2)-: The facility shall be designed, constructed and
maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for
the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the
lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by
section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the
existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s
landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may
exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height
shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in
diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility
or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation
of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted
with any whip antennas at this time. All other requirements have been met.
5
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure
only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing
structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached
under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application,
which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square
inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum
required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and
(iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the
existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes
regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.
The Application plan depicts 3 antennas that will not exceed 1152 square feet. The
antenna will not project more than 12 inches and will be painted Java Brown. The
proposal meets all criteria of this subsection.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be
submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable
requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods
and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the
installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions
surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may
identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area
to be included in the plan.
The Applicant has acknowledged that a tree conservat ion plan will be submitted and no
significant trees will be removed within the lease area or 100 feet in all directions. The
facility will be sited on the property 302.9’ from the eastern property line (Stony Point
Rd./TM 47-29A) and 445.52’ from the western property line (TM 47-11F).
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5) The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility
shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and
dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the
tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by
the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall
submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the
proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from
any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to
assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
6
The Applicant has acknowledged that the installation, operation and maintenance of the
facility will be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the
site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is
required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may
require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check,
a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety
guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In
determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the
following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being
used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed;
(iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable \
regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower
or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the
agent.
Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the
future, Cingular Wireless and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility
within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the
agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report
shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing,
photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or
operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single
tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user
acquiescing in the report.
The Applicant acknowledges that an annual report must be submitted at the required
time.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility
and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining
walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county
engineer are employed.
The Application plan shows that no 2:1 slopes will be created with installation of this
facility.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing
building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the
7
fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of
vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from
livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and
(iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The Applicant is proposing to construct a six (6) foot board on board wood fence around
the tower. Staff has determined that a fence will protect the tower area from vehicular
and pedestrian traffic and will otherwise not be detrimental to the area. is. Additionally,
the fence will not be visible from adjacent properties or Route 20.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening
and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and
streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be
visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of
whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its
visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands
subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that
it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The tower will be located in a wooded area and is adequately screened. The adjacent
parcel is heavily wooded and the alternating topography of the general area provide
additional screening.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in
the county’s open space plan.
This proposal does not substantially change the visual impact of the proposed tower
and does not adversely impact any resources in the open space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or
more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an
area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of
two hundred (200) feet.
There are no other PWSF within 200 feet of this tower.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty
(30) inches and the maximum diameter of the top of the monopole shall be
eighteen (18) inches.
The application plan lists the base of the monopole as 34 inches and the top at 18
inches. Tier III towers are not subject to the requirements of this subsection.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean
8
sea level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved
height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within
twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or
grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation;
provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet
taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the
visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7)
feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse
impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the
monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a
modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement as the tower will be
approximately 20 feet taller than the identified reference tree, which is a 98 foot AGL
White Oak. Although the height is being increased, the lot is wooded and the
surrounding topography adequately screens the tower. This proposal does not
substantially change the visual impact of the tower and does not adversely impact any
resources in the open space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood
color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to
blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all
other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches
that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and
the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole,
provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a
color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or
fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is
consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment
and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or
private street.
The application plan shows that the proposed tower, antennas and ground equipment
will be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown (#6090).
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables,
wiring and similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to
the antennas are placed on the pole to face the interior of the property and away
from public view, as determined by the agent. Metal monopoles shall be
constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments are contained
within the monopole’s structure.
The application plan states that all cables will run inside of the t ower.
9
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the
special use permit.
The facility will comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section
31.6.3).
Section 704(a) (7) (b) (I) (II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in
part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I)
shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC
guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health
and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the
provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies
and regulations for the sighting and design of wireless facilities. The proposed facility
and mounting structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless
communication services. The applicant has not provided any additional information
regarding the availability, or absence of alternative sites that could serve the same
areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna additions at this site. Therefore,
staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor the denial of this
application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal
wireless services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavora ble to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The proposal will provide improved 3G and 4G wireless service to the
surrounding area.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval of the
proposed monopole and associated ground equipment stating that the location
is expected to sufficiently minimize its visibility such that no negative impact on
the Entrance Corridor is anticipated.
3. The proposal meets all the requirements of 5.1.40 (with a waiver that is
supported by staff).
10
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. None identified.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance if recommended for
denial, the Planning Commission is required to provide the applicant with a statement
regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each
requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Tier III personal wireless
services facility based upon the analysis provided herein.
Special Exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance:
Request for modifications must be reviewed under the criteria established in Sections
33.5 and 33.9 taking into consideration the factors, standards, criteria and findings for
each request; however no specific finding is required in support of a decision. The
proposed modifications are to waive the ordinance requirements with respect to the
reference tree. Staff is able to support the recommended modification described in the
staff report. The recommended modification is for requirements of the ordinance that
are generally meant to aid in the determination of whether a new tower is appropriate in
the proposed area. Staff is supportive of the modification that is listed below:
1. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-Modification of the requirement that the facility extend no
more than 7 feet above the reference tree, to permit it to extend 20 feet above
the reference tree.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff
recommends the following condition:
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in
the applicant's request and site plans, entitled “CV372, Parcel 47-30” with
a final zoning drawing submittal date of 05/06/13 (hereafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator.
a. Height.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements
above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
11
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201300007) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve or deny the modifications for
Sections 5.1.40(d)(6) under the special exception criteria of Section 33.9.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the
modifications Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of the modifications for SP 201300007-
Cingular Wireless “Pace” Property Tier III PWSF as outlined in the staff
report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of the
modifications of this Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of the modifications for SP 201300007-
Eastham Cingular Wireless “Pace” Property Tier III PWSF (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial).
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201300007) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier
III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20130007- Cingular Wireless “Pace”
Property Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201300007- Cingular Wireless “Pace”
Property Tier III PWSF (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for
denial).
Return to PC actions letter
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources May 3, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
1018 ft
View from entrance to parcel
CV372 Parcel 47-30, 3376 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, VA
Proposed AT&T
118’ monopole
after installation
before installation
View from 3261 Fosters Branch Road
CV372 Parcel 47-30, 3376 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, VA
Proposed AT&T
118’ monopole
(not visible)
after installation
before installation
View from 3365 Stony Point Road
CV372 Parcel 47-30, 3376 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, VA
Proposed AT&T
118’ monopole
after installation
before installation
View from 3404 Stony Point Road
CV372 Parcel 47-30, 3376 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, VA
Proposed AT&T
118’ monopole
after installation
before installation
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 12 MEETING
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 21, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, May 21, 2013,
at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlo ttesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair,
and Calvin Morris, Chair. Absent was Richard Randolph. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Sarah Baldwin, Senior
Planner; Chris Perez, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing:
SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace Property Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a 118 foot tall monopole with 3 antennas and associated ground equipment
with fencing within a 1,600 sq. ft. leasing areas as well as construction of a new access road to the site.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor – Overlay to protect properties of historic,
architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along ro utes of tourist access; FH Flood
Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding. Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District; and
Scenic By-ways Overlay.
SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 2 -preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: 3382 Stony Point Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04700-00-00-03000
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Sarah Baldwin)
Sarah Baldwin presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report, as described above.
This property is zoned Rural Areas and contains an existing dwelling unit with severa l outbuildings and is located
on a wooded parcel. The surrounding area contains single family residential with both wooded and open areas.
This is a request for installation of a 118 foot tall monopole with 3 antennas and associated ground equipment wi th
fencing within a 1,600 square foot lease area with the construction of a new access road to the site.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the reference tree requirement since the reference tree is a 98 foot White Oak
and the tower will be approximately 20 feet taller. Staff is supporting the waiver as the lot is wooded and the
surrounding topography mitigates the view. With the recent ordinance changes a 10-foot tower above the reference
tree is allowed by right.
Staff attended a balloon test on April 9th. The tower is visible on site. The applicant did provide some photo
simulations. She pointed out on a slide one of the areas on Stony Point where the balloon was briefly visible. It is
very difficult to see. Again, the applicant did provide a photo simulation of that same general area.
Staff found the following factors favorable:
1. The proposal will provide improved 3G and 4G wireless service to the surrounding area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 12 MEETING
2
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval of the proposed monopole and
associated ground equipment stating that the location is expected to sufficiently minimize its visibility
such that no negative impact on the Entrance Corridor is anticipated.
3. The proposal meets all the requirements of 5.1.40 (with a waiver that is supported by staff).
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. None identified.
Staff recommends approval of this Tier III personal wireless services facility with a condition as well as the
requested modification based upon the analysis provided herein.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. He asked how many motions were being requested.
Ms. Baldwin replied two motions were needed for the modification of the reference tree requirements and for the
special use permit.
Mr. Lafferty noted for future applications it would be good to see the difference between 10 feet and 20 feet in the
coverage. He asked if the neighbors have been contacted on this.
Ms. Baldwin replied yes, the neighbors have been contacted.
Mr. Lafferty said he assumed there were no adverse comments.
Mr. Morris pointed out that was not quite correct.
Ms. Baldwin replied that she did not know that it was so much adverse as they did hear from one adjacent neighbor
across the street, which she believed comments were sent out to the Planning Commission on.
Mr. Morris noted that the comments were sent in a very timely manner. There being no further questions, he opened
the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Preston Lloyd, attorney with Williams Mullens, represented AT&T and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Pace . At
the outset they held the typical balloon test at the property and did that in connection with staff. After they received
notice that there was an adjoining neighbor who had some concerns, which was circulated to the Planning
Commission, regretfully they did not have time to get them to a subsequent balloon test. They did extend that
invitation, but understand it was short notice. So it is certainly unde rstandable that it did not accommodate their
schedule. However, Mr. Morris was able to attend that. They look forward to hopefully addressing some of the
concerns that the neighbor addressed in their correspondence to the Commission . He presented a PowerPoint
presentation to explain the proposal, as follows.
This request requires the Tier III review because it adjoins the Scenic Byway of Route 20 and not because
of the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. As staff mentioned the property is approximately 117
acres. The proposed site is located reasonably far into the property about 250’ to 300’ in from the right-of-
way. That area is heavily forested area as shown on the slide. The forestation follows a hillside so that
there is actually some rolling topography, which is difficult to make out from this particular view. The
topography adds to very effectively screen the proposed facility when traveling in a car down Route 20.
They took a number of pictures and had staff in the car when they did both balloon tests. The first balloon
test was done before the leaves had come out on the trees. In the pictures staff presented, even when there
were no leaves on the trees, it was still a very effective mitigator of those visual impacts. The site plan
shows the proposed location 302.9’ away from the property line along Stony Point Road and the monopole
20’ above the reference tree for a total tower height of 118’.
Mr. Lloyd noted the ordinance originally was the result of the work of this body and the Board in
developing the Albemarle County’s Wireless Policy in 2000. He thought it was interesting to note on the
very first page of that the most important principle for siting personal wireless service facilities in
Albemarle County is visibility, which is the primary consideration when determining whether a location is
appropriate for a wireless facility. The ordinance standards for design of these facilities prescribe to help
mitigate the visual impacts. They have been designed to be monopoles with flush mounted antenna at the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 12 MEETING
3
top, do not have arrays that extend far beyond the pole, have a limited size of diameter of the pole, and
must be sited an appropriate distance from certain critical areas such as a Scenic Byway in this case. The
ordinance really reflects the work that was done in that policy initially. However, he returns again to that
primary consideration for the Commission, which is to determine whether or not this proposed site
effectively mitigates any adverse visual impacts of the proposed facility.
Being a visual person Mr. Lloyd said he was going to take a step through the various sites since the map
helps get a better feel from where each picture was taken. Heading south on Route 20 if they begin north
of the property and look up briefly for a split second at the house that is one down from the proposed
property one can barely make it out through the trees. Continuing down if you then turn around in your car
and look back up at the property from the other direction, again while ther e are no leaves on the trees, it is
visible but it blends in with the surroundings. The standard is not invisibility, but whether the visual
impacts have been mitigated. That is an important distinction. Even though the tower was visible it may
still be an appropriate site because those visual impacts have been effectively mitigated.
Again, moving further down Route 20 at its intersection with Fosters Branch Road one can see there is no
visibility over the ridge. This gives a nice sense of the rolling nature of the topography in this area. Taking
a look at the County’s GIS Website at the approximate distance from the proposed facility to a few
residences it seemed to have more of an open nature to them and not as much close in wooded natural
features adjacent to them. While they don’t have photo simulations from these residences he thinks from
the distances they can get a sense that even if the tower is visible that it will be mitigated by the distance
from the proposed facility. In these cases the residences are 2,300 feet, over one-half mile, and about 3,000
feet from the proposed facility, which are rough approximations using the County’s website.
As with the last one, he would note the propagation comparisons of this facility. He pointed out the
location of both the existing and proposed wireless facility. At the apex of the bend in the road by giving it
that extra 20’ it has a very effective coverage area. As seen in the slide it really makes for continuous
screen coverage up Route 20 filling in a major hole with the addition of just one tower facility. They think
this is a good site selection. As always they have worked hard to find a site that mitigates those visual
impacts. He welcomed any questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Smith questioned on the map when it says outdoor best signal level indoors.
Mr. Lloyd replied the green is signal sufficient to give consistent coverage within a building and the yellow out of
doors but not indoors.
Mr. Smith asked how about sitting in a car.
Mr. Lloyd replied that is typically something they provide. However, they did not have that available on this
particular slide. If it is sufficient for indoor coverage it will certainly be sufficient for within a vehicle . However, if
it is outdoor coverage it may not be quite strong enough to give you consistent coverage in the car. So green is what
they look for to provide the consistency of coverage in terms of radio strength.
Mr. Dotson said like the previous application this is for 20’ above the tree line. In reading this it looks like this is
just a single antenna not the second one below the top one. He was curious why the difference. If they wanted to
add a second one would that mean they would have to come back and get that approved again?
Mr. Lloyd replied the ordinance does provide for a collocation, which is a less intense process. This is a special use
permit, which requires approval by the Board. A collocation would not. It has been much more streamlined in the
ordinance so that would still be a possibility down the road and the County would b e involved in reviewing that.
However, it would not receive the same level of scrutiny as a special use permit.
Mr. Dotson said that it strikes him for efficiency they would want to request it now.
Mr. Morris asked the applicant to put the schematic as to the coverage back up. Driving this road at least two to
three times per week he pointed out moving to the north from the proposed location on up to the Stony Point School
they virtually do not have any current reception in a car.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 12 MEETING
4
Mr. Lloyd asked to reserve five minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Ronald L. Kerber, an adjacent property owner, noted in the email sent to the Commission that there was one typo,
which was an extra word “the”. He submitted a corrected copy. He won’t repeat what he wrote, but would repeat
some highlights.
For adjacent property owners and household residents that they place no tower closer than 500’ and ideally
1,000’ from a residence. In this case he suggested they keep the tower height only 25’ above the nominal
tree height. He wanted to question the 98’ reference tree. They just went through a process in this very area
with the Hollymead Transmission project and the refere nce tree height that was nominal for that project
was 80’. That is a lot different than 98’. He suggests the Commission be very careful when they accept
these reference tree numbers of what is the right height for a reference tree for a tower. The second point,
which was not in the written comments, is this tower will be very visible from his main entrance. As he
comes out his main entrance he looks right up there and will see the tower every time he comes out.
There is no one that can tell you that the long term danger of low level RF radiation will not harm the
human body. This is an area that he is an expert in. Also, he can say that no one can measure these
frequencies at low levels and be sure where that energy is. He could give an example where that happened
to him when he was doing work in a laboratory in New Mexico. He was shielding all the apparatus for RF
energy and he was very careful and turned off the room lights and they did not go off. As an expert he did
not know where low levels of radiation were because the radiation was actually illuminating fluorescent
lights.
Finally, he could say that distance is your friend. So putting antennae a long distance from people and
property lines is a good thing. They should not err on being close t o people or property lines. He would
never put my children in a house so close to an antenna as this is proposed. He thinks it is too dangerous.
He was asking them three things: to consider lowering the height above the trees; keep it away from
property lines and residences; and make the tower look like tree. They should require the tower look like a
tree in the normal requirements in Albemarle County.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty said he appreciates his credentials, but as he understands it they have no choice from the federal
government about the dangers of these towers. They have to approve them if they are not bad.
Mr. Kerber replied that he was not saying don’t approve it. He was saying keep it away from property lines and
residences.
Mr. Lafferty said he fully understands that. He guessed they could find out how many kilowatts they are putting in
the towers and figure out what the radiation was at some distance. They are charged to not consider that just so he
would know. He appreciates his point and understands that. However, he did not believe they can do that.
Mr. Kamptner said they can certainly consider sighting issues. They are precluded by federal law from considering
radio frequency radiation and e missions in radiation in particular if the facility complies with the FCC standards.
Mr. Kerber noted what he told the Commission was a fact.
Mr. Lafferty replied that he understands that.
Mr. Morris invited other public comment.
Jane Clark, a neighbor, said she was here with her husband, William Clark. Their house was estimated to be one -
half a mile from the site. However, what was not mentioned is they are on an elevation of about 600’. She believed
it will be visible from every window in their house. They were not notified of any of this until Mr. Kerber, who is
their next door neighbor, told them about it. They have not seen a balloon test and how it will affect their view.
Their house is in the Southwest Mountain Rural Historic District. It has a beautiful view, which is why they moved
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 12 MEETING
5
there. To have one of these towers obtrusively sticking up 20’ above the tree line b etween her house and the Blue
Ridge Mountains is really heartbreaking.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris invited the applicant to take advantage of the five minute
rebuttal.
Mr. Lloyd asked to address a few points that Mr. Kerber mentioned. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the site
if they were to move the location of the facility backward what would actually happen is that they would end up
with a facility in a meadow. It would be incompatible with the design standards described by the County. While it
may grant some individuals some ease in terms of their concerns about RF signal, which he knows is not germane to
this body’s decision, from a sighting perspective that would unfortunately not comply with the policy and the
regulations prescribed by the ordinance. Secondly, in terms of trying to design a facility that mimics an existing tree
that is not typical County policy. That is not a good four season option. When you design a facility that attempts to
mimic a tree it increased the cost and the maintenance but it does not dramatically improve the visibility impacts. It
may be appropriate in very rare circumstances. He knows the County has approved at least one. He would have
some pause in saying this is one of the sites that would be appropriate for the simple reason that it actually resembles
very closely the surrounding area. As they look through the bald trees here it looks like a tall tree truck. That is
why the County regulations were designed in the manner they were. A tree top tower, as the policy says, is
considered camouflaged for the purposes of attempting to mitigate adverse visual impacts. They think this is a
positive site. Again, it is not invisible and there may be certain properties that are able to pick it out from a great
distance. However, this was AT&T’s attempt to find a site that did meet all of the requirements of the policy while
providing better coverage and more reliable coverage for the Route 20 Corridor , which has been a priority as many
Commissioners and Board of Supervisors members have heard from their constituents.
There being no questions, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for
discussion and action.
Mr. Morris pointed out in driving and taking a look at the balloon test he paid particular attention to the multi -pole
utility poles in the area. He finds them far more obstructive than cell phone towers. However, that is his opinion.
Mr. Loach said it was important to recognize that in the county it has been a w eight in measurements. The easiest
thing to do is to go and look in the back of Fashion Square Mall and see the tower. That is the trade off we’ve made
to not have those types of towers versus utilizing these monopoles, which he thinks is a far more suitable solution.
He appreciates the comments about the health and safety, but as they heard it is not somet hing they can measure. If,
in fact, the tower would be as he said sited next to somebody’s house unfortunately he thinks the onerous then
becomes on the person who is going to live there to do the investigation of whether they want to be exposed to the
RF versus the income they generate from the tower. So those are the things they have been dealing with. He thinks
they have done the best they can under the circumstances. They also have to weigh the situation that the increased
coverage to reach 911 would be helpful in emergency situations. When weighing these things he always comes out
on the side of the tower. He supports the tower request realizing and living with the information they have given us.
Mr. Lafferty said there is some analogy to the noise in the rural areas in disturbing neighbors that have not been
there. However, he also sees that it may increase the property value because they will have cell phone service and
internet service on the property. Therefore, he was in favor of the request.
Mr. Dotson noted unlike the previous application where the invisibility was emphasized and there appeared to be no
problems with neighbors they have had a couple of neighbors here. Unlike the previous application the 20’ was
justified by putting two tiers of antennae. He asked the question here and apparently there is only a desire for one
tier. So where at only 10’ above the tree line, as the ordinance provides, that would be just that much less visible to
the neighbors. They have not heard an argument at all as to justifying a space for a second antenna. Apparently they
are quite willing to come back if that ever happens and ask for a second approval. He was kind of mulling the idea
of what is the justification for 20’ instead of 10’.
Ms. Baldwin said to respond to his question that with the ordinance changes they could put two more antennae
arrays on the monopole by right now, which would just require a building permit under the new ordinance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 12 MEETING
6
Mr. Benish noted it was adopted on May 8.
Mr. Dotson said on the previous application, though, they allowed for two antennae because it was requested.
Apparently there was some anticipation of need for that. Here that has not been explained. He thanked Ms.
Baldwin for updating him on the ordinance.
Mr. Lafferty said that he was quite upset about the lady who said that she could see it from every window in her
house. That would be disturbing. He remembered the Commission turned down an antenna at Ivy because it was
visible from the neighbor’s house. Therefore, it is a trade off that is hard to do.
Mr. Morris said he fully understands that. However, it is interesting though when he went out to look at the balloon
test it was in the middle of trees. He was not trying to push the thing, but he did not see how it could be visible.
However, he was not looking out her window. He could not deny or anything else. But, it is in the middle of the
trees. It is very woody where it is.
Mr. Loach pointed out he always use the model on I -64 as he is going over the mountain. Right across from the
VDOT Memorial if they look there are four towers. However, you really have to look. Again, he thinks for the
County this has been the best solution.
Mr. Smith said the one in Ivy was about 250 feet away and the neighbor had to look up to see it.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of the modification to Section
5.1.40(d)(6): Modification of requirement that facility extend no more than 10 feet above the reference tree, to
permit it to extend 20 feet above the reference tree, for SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace Property Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility as outlined in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Dotson nay)
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of the SP-2013-00007 Cingular
Wireless/Pace Property Tier III PWSF with the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site
plans, entitled “CV372, Parcel 47-30” with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 05/06/13 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict wit h the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation before
construction of the access road for this use may commence.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Dotson nay)
Mr. Morris said SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace Property Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility and
modification would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval with condition s
on June 12, 2013.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 12 MEETING
7
Attachment to May 21, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes from Ronald L. Kerber
Testimony for Public Hearing at the Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 2013.
On: SP201300007 Cingular Wireless/Pace Property Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility Tax Map Parcel:
04700000003000
Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear before you both as an adjacent neighbor across the road from the proposed tower
and as an expert witness. My qualifications as an expert witness are attached.
First let me say that Teresa and Monte Pace are lifelong residents of the area and are viewed by all as good
neighbors and citizens and we want to support them. As we speak, our area is being bombarded with “technology
improvements” for the “general good” that are significantly devaluing our property. The Hollymead transmission
line expansion project is going through the area and adding a huge eyesore to the views. Now this project will add
more view shed clutter plus be a safety risk. I remind the Commission that this property is in the Southwest
Mountains Historic District.
I make the following requests:
1) For adjacent property owners and household resident protection and safety that the tower be placed no closer to
any property line or residence than 500 feet (ideally 1000 feet). If the tower is placed any closer to property lines it
will definitely negatively impact neighboring property values and restrict potential use of neighboring property.
2) The tower height be limited to 105 feet (which is still 25 feet above the nominal tree top line).
3) The tower be designed to look like a tree to blend into the environment.
The rational for these recommendations are as follows:
I have conducted microwave research for lasers and plasmas and published the results in archive journals. I was
responsible for Whirlpool Corporation’s global microwave oven business. And I was responsible for all of the
Department of Defense basic and applied research including radio frequency effects on people and things.
1) I tell you today that no one can say for certain that the long term impacts of low levels of radio frequency energy
are not potentially harmful to the human body.
2) I can also state without reservation that the electromagnetic energy distribution around antennas at their operating
frequencies and harmonic frequencies is very hard to measure and monitor at low levels.
3) Finally I can tell you that the electromagnetic fields of these antennas drop off rapidly with distance. So distance
is your friend.
I am not here to stop economic progress. We all know that cell phones and “wifi” have huge impacts on our society
both from a convenience and economic point of view. However, we have adopted these technologies without really
understanding the long term impacts of this low level radiation on our bodies. I am only saying that some smart
policies could mitigate the potential negative cell tower impact on us.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00007 Cingular Wireless/Pace
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 12 MEETING
8
Ronald L Kerber Page 2
Testimony for Public Hearing at the Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 2013.
I suggest that Albemarle County adopt the following two constraints as a minimum policy for all cell tower
placements:
1) Limit cell towers to be no closer than 1000 feet from a property line or home.
2) Require all cell towers to look like trees.
Ideally a more aggressive policy would place cell towers in our area on remote mountain tops with structures that
look like trees. I realize that with this recommendation each tower would need an access road but I still strongly
believe that it would be worth it.
Given the safety and aesthetic information that I provided above, I request the following conditions be placed on the
tower in question in this hearing:
1) For the safety of adjacent property owners and protection of their property values, that the no tower be placed
closer to any property line or residence than 500 feet (ideally 1000 feet).
And to preserve the aesthetics of the Southwest Mountains Historic district:
2) The tower height be limited to 105 feet (which is still 25 feet above the nominal tree top line).
3) The tower be designed to look like a tree to blend into the environment a nd view shed.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald L. Kerber
Ronald L. Kerber, Expert Witness Qualifications:
1) Ph.D. in Engineering Science (applied physics) from the California Institute of Technology
2) Professor of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering and Associate Dean of Engineering at Michigan State
University
3) Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Technology
4) Chief engineer for McDonnell Douglas Corporation
5) Chief Technical Officer of Whirlpool Corporation
6) Senior Fellow on the Department of Defense Science Board
7) Professional Engineer the State of Michigan
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 4, 2013
Valerie Long
321 E. Main Street
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: SP201300008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
TAX MAP PARCEL: 11200000001600
Dear Ms. Long:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 2013, by a vote of 6:0
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is based on the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “CV428”
prepared by O. Warren Williams, and dated 4/25/13 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major
elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown
on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
In addition, to Planning Commission by a vote of 6:0 recommended approval of the
special exception for the modification to Section 5.1.40(d)(6): Modification of requirement that
facility extend no more than 10 feet above the reference tree, to permit it to extend 20 feet above
the reference tree.
Note: The Commission requested that staff verify that the tower location (and fall area) is
acceptable to VDOT.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 12, 2013.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc Greenmont Farms LLC
455 2nd Street Se Suite 402
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2013-00008 Cingular
Wireless/Greenmont Farm
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
May 21, 2013
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD
TBD
Owners: Greenmont Farms LLC Applicant: Greenmont Farms LLC
Acreage: 145.15 acres
(Lease Area: 1,600 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map Parcel 11200-00-00-01600
Location: To the west of Fry’s Path (Route 627),
approximately one-half mile from the intersection with
Scottsville Road (Route 20).
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Special use permit request for a
personal wireless service facility including a
129-foot steel monopole (20 feet above the
height of the reference tree) with two (2)
antenna arrays, each consisting of three (3)
flush-mounted panel antennas. The proposed
ground equipment will be located on a 40X40
foot leased compound area. An 8’ tall wooden
privacy fence is also proposed to surround the
base of the 40X40 compound. Access to the site
is proposed through an access road off Route
627 (Fry’s Path).
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in Rural
Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots)
Character of Property: Hardwood forest Use of Surrounding Properties: The adjacent
properties include forests, farms, and rural
residences.
Factors Favorable:
1. The facility will not be visible from the Virginia
Byway (Route 20).
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of SP201300008 (with
conditions) and associated modification request (for Section 5.1.40(d)(6)).
2
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 13th, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201300008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
PROPERTY OWNER: Greenmont Farms LLC
APPLICANT: Greenmont Farms LLC
PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED: Special use permit request for a personal wireless service facility including a 129-
foot steel monopole (20 feet above the height of the reference tree) with two (2) flush-mount
antennae, each consisting of three (3) panel antennas. The proposed ground equipment will be
located on a 40X40 foot leased compound area. An 8’ tall wooden privacy fence is also proposed
to surround the base of the 40X40 compound. Access to the site is proposed through an access
road off Route 627 (Fry’s Path).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO
HISTORIC DISTRICT: YES
LOCATION: To the west of Fry’s Path (Route 627), approximately one-half mile from the
intersection with Scottsville Road (Route 20).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 11200-00-00-01600
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The area is largely made up of large farm and forest parcels, with a few groupings of smaller
residential parcels to the east along Route 20.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
None.
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because it is located in the Southern
Albemarle Rural Historic District, which qualifies as an “avoidance area.” Also, the height of the
proposed tower would be more than ten (10) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet of the
tower.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of
3
Supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an
application for a special use permit:
The proposed use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent lots:
It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The proposed facility would be located in a wooded area approximately 130 feet
from a little-traveled gravel road (Fry’s Path) and out of view of the Entrance Corridor (Route
20). The proposed facility would be located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest
dwelling. A balloon test conducted on April 9, 2013 indicated that the tower would have
limited visibility.
The character of the zoning district will not be changed.
The facility would have limited visibility and would not limit rural uses on the site or the
surrounding properties. Therefore it is staff’s opinion that the character of the zoning district
will not change with this use.
The use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance.
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with
both sections.
The use will be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district.
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA) Rural Area district are
anticipated. The proposed personal wireless service facility will not restrict any nearby by-
right uses within the Rural Areas district.
The public health, safety and general welfare of the community will be protected if the
use is approved.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e) are
addressed as follows.
Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of
a special use permit issued pursuant to section 33.8 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 33.4, and it shall be
installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the
following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and
4
subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a), “application for approval” and section 33.8, “special use
permits.” have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The
County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and
5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows:
Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable
regulations in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached site drawings, antennae and
equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service
facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of
the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
(i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only
during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall
be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not
located within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain,
existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s
landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the
height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet
and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point,
may be installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the
completion of the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the
agent certifying that the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The tower will not require guy wires or a whip antenna. The proposed grounding rod meets the
requirements of the ordinance, and the facility will only have one outdoor light fixture, which
will be activated by motion sensor for use during maintenance and for security purposes. The
ground equipment will be located at the base of the tower, in an area that is sheltered from all lot
lines by existing vegetation.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application
shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand
one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure
beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on
the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and
(iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing
5
structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use
shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.
The proposed antennae configuration would consist of two arrays with three panel antennas, and
each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. The outer edge of the antennae would be
within 12 inches of the pole. All antennae would be painted to match the color of the monopole.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the
agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to
be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove
existing trees within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions
surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify
additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the
plan.
The applicant has acknowledged that a tree conservation plan will be submitted. Two 10-inch
poplar trees are shown for removal. Staff does not find that their removal will significantly
increase the visibility of the facility.
The facility will be sited approximately 130 feet from Fry’s Path and approximately 125 feet
from the property line to the northeast.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by
the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal
is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was
approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended
plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
This requirement applies after the approval of the required tree conservation plan. The
installation, operation, and maintenance of the facility will be conducted in accordance with the
tree conservation plan.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the
agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be
removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility
submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for,
and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee
shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety
should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the
6
tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual
report was not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole
will be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable
regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within
the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future, the
applicant and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no
earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user
of the existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying
which equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider.
Multiple users on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report,
provided that the report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user
acquiescing in the report.
If this special use permit request is approved, and after the proposed PWSF has been installed,
the applicant would submit an annual report updating the user status and equipment inventory of
the facility in the required time period.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory
uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed.
No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall
be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the
facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the
rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the
character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
The proposed fence would (i) provide protection from wildlife, (ii) would not be detrimental to
the character of the area, as it would not be visible from Route 20 or from adjacent properties,
and (iii) would have no health or safety impacts. Therefore staff believes that the proposed fence
should be approved.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the
facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of
their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a
national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility
also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would
be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent
to a conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not
7
visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The proposed monopole would be 129 feet tall, and would be 20 feet taller than the reference
tree.
A balloon test was conducted on April 9, 2013. During the site visit, staff observed a test balloon
that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Staff travelled Fry’s Path (Route 627) Route 20, Red Hill Road (Route 708), and Secretary’s
Sand Road (Route 717) to determine the visibility of the proposed facility. The balloon was
visible only near the site on Fry’s Path, and on Secretary’s Sand Road, at a point where the
balloon was too distant to show clearly in a photograph. Staff therefore finds that visibility of the
facility will be minimal.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the
county’s open space plan.
No significant resources identified in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan would be
adversely impacted.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level,
shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be
more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole,
and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing
natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to
ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the
monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest
tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the
county’s open space plan caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a
height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s
denial of a modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
The applicant is requesting a waiver of this section. In order to give sufficient service in the area,
the applicant is requesting to increase the height above the reference tree to 20 feet. This increase
would not impact resources identified in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan, would not
make the facility visible from the Entrance Corridor, and would not substantially change the
visual impact of the tower.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each
metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding
trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole
shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground
equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the
monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a
color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is
8
a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the
area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year
from any other parcel or a public or private street.
The new antenna and all associated equipment will be painted a natural brown color.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
Conditions of approval are recommended below, and the facility will be held to those conditions.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The facility will not be visible from the Virginia Byway (Route 20).
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. none
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, if the Planning Commission
recommends denial of this request, it is required to provide the applicant with a statement
9
regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each
requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2013-00008 Cingular
Wireless/Greenmont Farm with the conditions listed below, and of the requested modification to
Section 5.1.40(d)(6) (to permit the facility to extend 20 feet above the reference tree ), based on
the analysis provided herein.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Keene
(Flatwoods Land Trust) CV829” prepared by Brian V. Crutchfield., and dated 8/17/12
(hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design
of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40 (d)(6)- Modification of requirement that facility extend no more than 7
feet above the reference tree, to permit it to extend 30 feet above the reference tree.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Area Map
B. Site Map
C. Conceptual Plan – Plan View
D. Conceptual Plan - Elevation
Motions (Two Separate: 1: Modification request; 2: Special Use Permit request)
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend approval or denial of the
modification to Sections 5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this modification
to Section 5.1.40 (d)(6)
10
I move to recommend granting the modification for the reasons outlined in the staff
report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this modification:
I move to recommend denial of the modification outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP20130008) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20130008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 20130008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Return to PC actions letter
1
Attachment A
1
Attachment B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 14 MEETING
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 21, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting and public hearing
on Tuesday, May 21, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium,
Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Russell
(Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair, and Calvin Morris, Chair. Absent was Richard Randolph.
Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Chris Perez, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor,
Clerk to Planning Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Public Hearing:
SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
PROPOSED: Special use permit request for a pe rsonal wireless service facility
including a 129-foot steel monopole (20 feet above the height of the reference tree) with
two (2) flush-mount antennae, each consisting of three (3) panel antennas. The
proposed ground equipment will be located on a 40X40 f oot leased compound area. An
8’ tall wooden privacy fence is also proposed to surround the base of the 40X40
compound. Access to the site is proposed through an access road off Route 627 (Fry’s
Path).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 -
Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO
HISTORIC DISTRICT: YES
LOCATION: To the west of Fry’s Path (Route 627), approximately one -half mile from
the intersection with Scottsville Road (Route 20).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 11200-00-00-01600
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report , as
described above.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 14 MEETING
2
Staff described the area around the site as a large forested parcel. In the balloon test
photographs staff pointed out the proposed tower location . He also pointed out the
trees marked for removal in the photograph. Staff found the only road in which the
facility would be visible was Secretary S and Road, which is about 4,000 feet to the
west. He could not get a photograph of the balloon clearly. In the enlarged version of
the same picture the speck is the balloon across the fields in the woods.
Potential Impacts:
• The proposed facility would be located in a wooded area approximately 130 feet
from a little-traveled gravel road (Fry’s Path) and out of view of the Entrance
Corridor (Route 20).
• The proposed facility would be located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest
dwelling.
• A balloon test conducted on April 9, 2013 indicated the tower would have limited
visibility from the surrounding area.
There is one issue with the requirements for Tier III towers and the zoning ordinance.
The staff report used an older version from before the recent ordinance amendments.
The staff report talks about the limit being 7 feet taller than the reference tree. Of
course, that has been increased to 10 feet now. However, in this case the applicant
needs a special exception or waiver of this section because they are proposing to be 20’
above the reference tree. Again, given the topography, the surrounding vegetation , and
the distance to some of the roads it did not appear to staff that the 20 foot height made
any difference in the already limited visibility.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The facility will not be visible from the Virginia Byway (Route 20).
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
None
Staff recommends approval of SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm with
the conditions listed below, and of the requested modification to Section 5.1.40(d)(6) (to
permit the facility to extend 20 feet above the reference tree), based on the analysis
provided herein. Please note in the staff report that it had the wrong title and preparer
for the conceptual plan for this use. The proper reference in this case should be
“CV428” prepared by O. Warren Williams, and dated 4/25/13.” The second condition
would be VDOT approval of the entrance before the use actually commences.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 14 MEETING
3
There is also the request for the zoning ordinance modification of Section 5.1.40 (d)(6)-
Modification of requirement that the facility extend no more than 7 feet above the
reference tree, to permit it to extend 20 feet above the reference tree.
Staff requests the Planning Commission take two actions in this case.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson asked what the precedent is for the 20’ above the tree line of the reference
tree and if they have been doing that often.
Mr. Clark replied he was not sure he could give them an analysis of all of them. There
is a site nearby a little farther south on Route 20 that has two towers approved for 30
feet above the reference tree. That site was actually significantly closer to Route 20. It
is all based on visibility and terrain. Usually staff recommends approval for those
extensions in cases where they don’t significantly increase the visibility of the facility,
which is the case here.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the neighbors were contacted.
Mr. Scott replied yes. He had one person contact him. The applicants after that point
have contacted that neighbor to talk over their concerns. The n earest dwelling at this
point is about 1,000 feet away.
Mr. Lafferty noted the balloon test photograph taken from the road that he had to blow
up to see was probably more than 1,000 feet away.
Mr. Clark replied it was over 4,000 feet away.
Mr. Smith asked what the Highway Department says about the fall zone.
Mr. Clark replied he was not sure that VDOT addressed that. The tower is 129 feet tall
and is 130 feet away from the road.
Mr. Smith pointed out the sketch shows the fall zone very close or hitting the center line
of the road.
Mr. Morris suggested that the applicant can address that.
Mr. Benish noted from his experience VDOT has seldom commented on fall zones
within the VDOT right-of-way. He thinks the applicant nodded that they can respond to
that.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 14 MEETING
4
Preston Lloyd, attorney with Williams Mullens, represented AT&T and the property
owners in connection with the proposal before the Commission. He would also like to
extend his appreciation to Mr. Clark and staff for their assistance in vetting this
proposal. He presented a PowerPoint presentation to explain the request.
The reason this proposal is a Tier III tower is two-fold. First, it is located in the
Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, which covers a significant portion of
the southern portion of the county. Any tower that is proposed within that area is
automatically a Tier III tower and requires a special use permit. The second
reason, as staff mentioned, is they have requested a 20’ extension above the
reference tree, which is 10’ higher than what is typically before the Commission.
To address Mr. Dotson’s point, because this is a special use permit the Board
has the discretion to essentially waive any aspect of the typical development
criteria for a wireless facility. So in the Tier II the policy that was then codified
into the regulations in the zoning ordinance said these are all of the different
design standards that need to be complied with. When they get to Tier III
because that automatically entails discretion by the Board of Supervisors they
can decide whether or not there is any particular aspect that they find cause to
waive. However, the one thing that does not change throughout whether it i s a
Tier II or Tier III is that the primary consideration is visibility and whether there is
any adverse visual impact that needs to be mitigated by appropriate conditions or
that has not been addressed in the design of the proposal.
As staff mentioned, notwithstanding being 20’ above the reference tree, which is
as staff mentioned somewhat atypical but not precedent setting, they took a very
strong look at this site from the perspective of adverse visual impacts. With the
one exception of the very distant three-quarters of a mile long view where it just
peaked upon the tree line, and if they went out there with a telephoto lens you
might be able to snake a view. To that exception there was really no adverse
special impact whether it was 10’ or 20’.
However, on the flip side of that this helps to address a key corridor that AT&T’s
customers and the public frankly have said requires immediate attention. Cell
coverage has not been consistent up and down Route 20. They have had a
number of these facilities before the Commission in the past and they are well
familiar with the ordinance and the attempts to find sites that have been sighted
according to the visibility criteria. This proposed site is a success story. It is one
that is a significant distance away from Route 20, but provides better coverage
because of the 20’ height above the reference tree. With that he believes that
staff covered everything else that they have here.
He pointed out that one slide shows a before and after snapshot of the s ignal
coverage. The diagram before them shows the proposed site of CV428. The
green signal is the best signal that is sufficient to be able to have wireless
coverage within a building. Yellow would be sufficient to have coverage
outdoors, but not within a building. After the construction of the facility it shows
that the green area expands significantly to the south and continues to fill in the
Route 20 Corridor. In response to Mr. Smith’s question it was nice to know that
the Commission is reading our plans carefully. The line is actually not the center
line, but the property line. However, there is a setback from the property line
which makes it appear to be part of the right-of-way. But, the circle actually is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 14 MEETING
5
completely enclosed within the property of the property owner. So there is no
portion of the fall zone that would actually come into the right -of-way.
Mr. Morris asked if that answered Mr. Smith’s question.
Mr. Smith noted they may own to the center of the road.
Mr. Lloyd pointed out if they look at the line it does appear to be in a portion of the right -
of-way. However, the right-of-way of Fray’s Path was between the two lines. This is an
additional setback line that the surveyor showed on the plan, but is within the property
itself. It is not within the right-of-way.
Mr. Lafferty noted a concern about the 20’ above the reference tree as they continually
see height creep. The next one that comes in will be 50’ and the next 100’. The whole
concept of this is to try to keep the County clean of these towers.
Mr. Lloyd pointed out this may achieve more of that goal than might be expected to the
extent that there are higher towers that do not have adverse visual impacts and provide
a greater coverage area. That means there does not ne ed to be another tower further
down the road to help improve the coverage. So by allowing slightly higher towers
above the 10’ where they are appropriately sited and have mitigated any adverse
impact, it does not mean they are invisible but rather there i s no material adverse
impact on the surrounding properties. That may actually prevent the need to have
another facility down the road.
Mr. Lafferty said that is an interesting argument.
Mr. Dotson noted that he was curious that our staff report says Cingular and he referred
to AT&T.
Mr. Lloyd replied it is actually New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC. However, AT&T is a
little bit easier since it is doing business as AT&T.
Mr. Morris said with the height being at 20’ above the reference tree does this give the
potential possibility of another applicant collocating on that tower.
Mr. Lloyd replied yes, it dramatically increases the likelihood that collocation will be
feasible. As the Commission knows it takes about 10’ to drop down below the primary
carrier in order for there to be a feasible collocation. If they drop down 10’ and it is
totally obscured that co-location is not achievable because the signal is mitigated or
dampened by the density of tree coverage. As they have said these are typically goi ng
to be sited in areas with heavy tree coverage to help screen them from public view. It
may not be feasible for collocation and they may end up with another tower.
Mr. Smith asked who is Greenmont Farm.
Mr. Lloyd replied that it was Mr. Murray.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 14 MEETING
6
Mr. Lafferty said following up on his argument about this tower covering more distance,
it might have been interesting to look at the difference between the coverage of staying
at 10’ as opposed to going to the 20’. He did not want to put more burdens on him, but
it might ease their concern a little bit if they saw something like that.
Mr. Lloyd replied they always want to give them what is most helpful in making a
decision. Staff will note that for future application if that would be productive.
Mr. Dotson said they are proposing two antenna clusters. He asked if one was for
AT&T and the other reserved or available.
Mr. Lloyd replied that he would have to defer to his technical expert who confirmed the
top one would be for AT&T use and the second one for a future carrier.
Mr. Loach said they were talking about the difference between 10 feet and 20 feet. He
asked if they might have to add another tower if it was only 10 feet.
Mr. Lloyd replied he was not a RF signal expert so he doesn’t know the degree of
propagation. To Mr. Lafferty’s point that would helpful in the future for helping the
Commission see visually exactly what the effect is of considering the different heights.
He did not know whether it was a logarithmic or a direct correlation bet ween the two.
Mr. Lafferty noted that it depends on the topology, too.
Mr. Franco said it was a line of sight issue, too.
Mr. Loach wondered if they would have gotten 1½ to 2 times what they would have
gotten out of the 10 feet.
Mr. Moore noted the layman’s answer is that the lower it is the greater the interference
by all of the tree covering. They, of course, want to seek out sites that provide that
substantial tree cover in the vicinity to help screen those visual impacts that he
mentioned.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, he closed the
public hearing to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission for discussion and a
recommendation.
Mr. Kamptner asked staff what was VDOT’s review on this application.
Mr. Clark replied that VDOT’s review was just to look at the entrance location and he did
not recall they had any concerns about this one.
Mr. Benish said that VDOT is given the full plan.
Mr. Kamptner asked if they had no concern about the fall zone in this case.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 14 MEETING
7
Mr. Franco questioned if he agreed with the applicant’s analysis. The line weights and
the graphics show it is probably the center line of the road or the property line. It is an
easement across a prescriptive easement, which is what the line styles are saying. So
it probably does fall into the road. However, from his perspective they don’t have trees
limited to being pushed back so they don’t fall into the street. He was not sure that was
a big deal.
Mr. Lafferty noted that on most of the County roads the property owners on each side
own to the middle of the road.
Mr. Kamptner said certainly all the old roads that were brought into the state system in
1932 typically have a 30 foot prescriptive easement with ownership to the center line.
Mr. Franco suggested whatever their action is when it moves forward to the Board that
they get clarification on that.
Mr. Morris asked if there was further discussion. He pointed out that he talked with Mr.
Randolph on this matter and he had no problems with it.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP-
2013-0008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm with staff’s recommended conditions, as
amended, and that staff verify that the tower location (and fall area) is acceptable t o
VDOT.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“CV428” prepared by O. Warren Williams, and dated 4/25/13 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development
and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation before construction of the access road for this use may
commence.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of the
special exception for the modification of Section 5.1.40.(d)(6): Modification of
requirement that facility extend no more th an 10 feet above the reference tree, to permit
it to extend 20 feet above the reference tree for the reasons outlined in the staff report.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm
SUBMITTED TO BOS – JUNE 14 MEETING
8
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris said SP-2013-00008 Cingular Wireless/Greenmont Farm would be forwa rded
to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval with conditions on Ju ne
12, 2013.
Mr. Franco asked to stress the comments he heard from other Commissioners about
wanting to understand the map in how those services have improved and how many, if
any, additional towers might be eliminated by the extensions. That additional
information would be really helpful.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
VDOT Secondary Six Year Plan, FY 14-19
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider approving VDOT FY 14-19
Secondary Six Year Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish, Sorrell
PRESENTER(S): David Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 12, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this public hearing is to receive input on the proposed Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP), FY 14-19 (Attachment A). The Board held a work session on the SSYP and the
County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements on May 1, 2013 (Click here for May 1, 2013 Executive
Summary). The Board agreed to the priority list with one change, moving Gillums Ridge Road to the top of the
priority list for unpaved roads (on the Rural Rustic Road paving list). Three other public requests for road
improvements will be further evaluated by VDOT for possible inclusion in next year’s SSYP. VDOT staff has
provided a draft of the SSYP (Attachment A) that is based on the direction provided by the Board at its May 1 work
session.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
Funding for the SSYP for the next six years is projected to increase significantly from the prior year’s projections of
$350,000 per year. The more significant increases in funding are projected in years 4 through 6. Most of the funding
increases are allocated for paving unpaved roads. Since last year, changes have occurred to State funding sources
for paving unpaved roads.
There are two funding sources for paving unpaved roads. The Secondary Unpaved Road Fund is construction funding
generated by a formula. Funds from this category may be used for other types of projects, but the County’s future
allocations for unpaved roads through this funding source would be reduced based on a formula adjustment. The
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Unpaved Road Fund, created by State transportation funding legislation
adopted this year, is funding that can only be used to pave gravel roads that have greater than 200 vehicle trips per
day (VPD).
VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County:
Table 1. Projected Funding Allocations for Albemarle County
FISCAL
YEAR
SECONDARY UN-
PAVED ROAD FUND1
CTB UNPAVED
ROAD FUND 2
REG. STATE FUNDS
(teletax fee)
SECONDARY
FORMULA FUNDS
TOTAL
FUNDS
2013-14 $0 $71,588 $295,492 $0 $367,080
2014-15 $0 $584,942 $308,284 $0 $893,226
2015-16 $0 $881,454 $308,284 $0 $1,189,738
2016-17 $137,955 $997,207 $308,284 $137,955 $1,443,446
2017-18 $170,249 $997,207 $308,284 $170,249 $2,043,491
2018-19 $204,172 $997,207 $308,284 $204,172 $2,190,541
Totals $512,376 4,529,605 $1,587,578 $512,376 $8,587,578
Total unpaved road funds $5,041,981
1- Roads must carry 50 VPD or greater. 2- Roads must carry 200 VPD or greater.
AGENDA TITLE: Review of VDOT Secondary Six Year Construction Program, FY14-19
June 12, 2013
Page 2
Attachment A is the proposed Secondary System Six Year Construction Program, FY 14-19, which applies the above
noted projected funding to the County’s Priority List as agreed to by the Board on May 1, 2013. Highlights from this
program include:
Projects in the current SSYP:
Dry Bridge Road (Rt. 708) bridge replacement – advertised on 5/14/2013
Broomley Road bridge replacement – estimated advertisement date (EAD) 12/30/2014
Dick Woods Road bridge replacement – EAD 12/30/2014
Dickerson Road bridge replacement over the N. Fork Rivanna River – EAD is beyond the six years of
this SSYP
Pocket Lane Rural Rustic Road (RRR) paving project – EAD is beyond the six years of this SSYP
Remove Bear Creek Road (Rt.774) RRR paving project due to high cost, construction constraints,
and low traffic count.
New road paving projects added in order to utilize the two categories of available unpaved road funds:
Gillums Ridge Road (Rt. 787) RRR paving project, from paved section to Dry Bridge Road –Midway
Road (Rt. 688) RRR paving project, from Rt. 824 to Rt. 635
Keswick Drive (Rt. 731) RRR paving project, from Rt. 744 to Rt. 22
Rio Mills Road paving project, from paved section to US 29.
Doctors Crossing (Rt. 784), from Rt. 600 to Rrt. 640.
Regarding the Gillums Ridge Road paving project, the Board requested that the project be constructed as
soon as possible so paving would likely be completed when the Dry Bridge Road bridge is closed for
replacement. Additional traffic is anticipated on Gillums Ridge Road as a detour route during the Dry Bridge
Road closure. VDOT is hopeful that paving will take place no later than July 2013. Due to the rapid turn-
around for this project, the Board should be aware that staff will not be able to provide the project notification
and comment process normally used with RRR projects. In order to expedite the project, the Board will need
to adopt the attached resolution designating Gillums Ridge Road as a Rural Rustic Road (Attachment D).
BUDGET IMPACT:
The SSYP process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT secondary road construction
funds and does not impact County funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The draft VDOT SSYP (Attachment A) is consistent with the County’s priorities for secondary road improvements
agreed to by the Board at its May 1, 2013 work session (Attachment B) and with the projected amount and timing of
available funding. After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) approving the VDOT FY14-19 Secondary Six Year Plan and
the FY14 Construction Priority List and authorize the County Executive to sign the SSYP; and
2. Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) designating Gillums Ridge, from Rt. 682 to Rt. 708, as a Rural
Rustic Road.
If further information is needed prior to an action, staff requests that the Board provide direction to staff on the
additional information it desires.
ATTACHMENTS
A – VDOT Six Year Secondary System Construction Program (FY14-19)
B – County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements
C – Resolution approving the VDOT FY14-19 Secondary Six Year Plan and the FY14 Construction Program
D – Resolution Designating a Portion of Gillums Ridge as a Rural Rustic Road
Return to agenda
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTSRecommended June 12, 2013 Strategic Priorities (Projects 1-23)VDOT's Secondary Program County's Proposed RankingRoute Number and Name Location From - ToEstimated Advertisement DateEstimated Cost Description/CommentsJustification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority ListMost Current Traffic County and year of Count Y0 County wide County wide N/A varies County services/improvements: signs,pipe,plant mix projects, raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting, etc safety, maintain function/staff, public req.Y0 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program N/A varies Designated for traffic calming projects through out the County that meet requirements and sidewalk improvements.Safety/Public Request, studies-plansY0Meadow Creek PkwyMelbourne Rd to Rio Rdcomplete$33,514,741Two lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RR - County portion completed.Capacity/ CHART20,000-2006Y0691 Jarmans Gap RoadRt 240 to Gray Rock under construction$13,162,248Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk/bikelanes, turn lane improvements. Project completed.Capacity,safety/Land Use Plan2,700-2006 anticpates 4,500 in future)Y0656 Georgetown RoadRt 654 to Rt 743complete$2,504,150Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk, improvements to certain turn lanes. Project completedCapacity,safety/G'town Rd Plan, Public17,000-2007Y (Urban Program)1Hillsdale DriveGreenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq.designed, constr. not funded$9,800,000 Connector Rd., Greenbrier Dr to Hydraulic Rd; constr. w/ urban system funds; $15.5 M. donated ROW expected Places29 Master Plan; UnJAM 2035N/A2Berkmar Dr Ext. & Bridge End of Berkmar Dr to HTC$38,000,000 New parallel road in Rt. 29 Corridor; Bridge location design first phase; ROW cost variable w/ development approvalsPlaces29 Master Plan; UnJAM 20352006 N/A3649 Proffit RoadRt 29 to 1.6 miles east $10,000,000 improve alignment, urban x-section with bikelanes/sidewalk and multi-use pathCapacity, safety/Land Use Plan 5,00-20104781 Sunset AvenueFontaine/Sunset ConnectorImprovements to Sunset Ave. and Fontaine/Sunset Ave. Connector Area B Study,Capacity/ LU Plan2007 4,600-20065631 Old Lynchburg Rd1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt 708Spot improvements at various locations to serve development in Southern DA/County Capacity/Land Use Plan 4,600-2006Y 6 Bridge Improvement ProjectsVarious locations (See Att. A) Improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on County and VDOT priorityvaries7 726 James River Road Rt 795 to Rt 1302 Spot improvement to improve sight distance Safety/Scottsville 1,900-20068601 Old Ivy RoadIvy Rd to 250/29 Byp Widen, improve alignment , coordinate with UVA Gateway project Capacity/Land Use Plan 5,500-20109Southern ParkwayAvon St to Fifth St Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speedCapacity/Southern City StudyN/A10 795 Blenheim Road Intersection of Rt 790 Intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request 1500-201011Eastern AvenueRt 240 to Rt 250 Interconnect future neighborhood streets, includes RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Capacity/Crozet Master PlanN/A12631 Rio RoadMCP to Agnese Street Improve substandard intersection, add bikelanes and sidewalks Safety/pedestrian 22,000-201013 643 Polo Grounds Road Rt 29 to Rt 649 Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request 2,400-200914Main Street Crozet Ave to Eastern AveNew road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan, to be built with development of siteCapacity/Crozet Master Plan2003 N/A15743 Hydraulic RoadIntersection with Rt 29 (29H250)Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study2003 18,000-200716866 Greenbrier DriveIntersection with Rt 29 (29H250)Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study2003 8,200-200617Eastern ConnectorRt 250 to Rt 29 Initial study of new road concept completed. Further study of alignment on holdCapacity/CHART 2006 N/A18702 Reservoir RoadFontaine Ave. Ext to Dead endPaving and spot improvements, to be done as part of the reservoir reconstruction project Safety/Public Request 2003 430-2009Bold‐‐ Projects in Development AreaItalics ‐‐ New ProjectsPage 1
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTSRecommended June 12, 2013 VDOT's Secondary Program County's Proposed RankingRoute Number and Name Location From - ToEstimated Advertisement DateEstimated Cost Description/CommentsJustification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority ListMost Current Traffic County and year of Count 19606 Dickerson RoadN. of Rt 850 to just S. of Rt 1030Paving of unpaved road segments--no state unpaved road funds available for the foreseeable futureUnJam 2030; DA location; Rt 29 alternate route2008 480-2009Y20 Brocks Mill Road, Rural Addition Rural addition projects to be funded upt the available $250 ,000 in VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction ProgramPublic Request 2011 N/ABold‐‐ Projects in Development AreaItalics ‐‐ New ProjectsPage 2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTSRecommended June 12, 2013[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding] Bridge Priorities - In Priority OrderMap ID #VDOT's Secondary PlanRoute Number, Road Name Location From-ToSufficiency Rating**Traffic CountDescription/Comments Estimated cost/funding source6AYRoute 708, Dry Bridge Road Buckingham Branch Railroad 26 950 suff rating, high traffic count -- Advertisement Date (EAD) 5/14/13$3,399,237 / federal bridge funds6B YRoute 616, Black Cat Road Buckingham Branch 54.4 800 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 3/30/14 $3,755,171 / federal bridge funds and secondary road funds6CYRoute 677, Broomley Road Buckingham Branch 42.2 750 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 12/30/14 $4,677,092 / federal bridge funds6DYRoute 637, Dick Woods Road Ivy Creek 36.1 1100 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 12/30/14 $2,458,161 / federal bridge funds6ERoute 795, Presidents Road Hardware River 19.4 200 low sufficiency rating6FRoute 745, Wheeler/Arrowhead Valley Rd.Norfolk Southern Railroad 20.9 90RR to reconstruct bridge in 2012 & dedicate to State/VDOT (low sufficiency rating)6GRoute 641, Frays Mills Road Marsh Run 49.6 510 low sufficiency rating6HRoute 649, Proffit Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 35.2 3800 upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic count6JYRoute 606, Dickerson Road Jacobs Run480low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 Completed Fy 11-126IYRoute 606, Dickerson Road North Fork of Rivanna River 480 low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 $5,075,557 / Federal bridge funds* Programmed into future allocations of federal bridge funds in Culpeper District.**Sufficiency Rating is utilitzed by VDOT to rate bridge structure.A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTS Recommended June 12, 2013[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSRURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT.Map ID # Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - To Funding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement DateA 762 Rose Hill Church LaneRt 732 to Dead EndFunded$135,000120-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. Remove - Completed FY 12-132012B 704 Fortune LaneRt 715 to Dead EndFunded$632,717140-2009Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. Remove - Completed FY 12-132012C 672 Blufton Road Rt 810 to Dead End Funded $745,157 170-2009 School Request in 2007 - Nearly Complete in FY 12-13 keep on list b/c a few minor repairs are needed.20032012D 608 Happy Creek RoadRoute 645 to Route 646Funded$509,022100-2009Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. Remove - Completed FY 12-132012E 774 Bear Creek RoadNelson County Line to Dead EndNot Funded$1,206,13080-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. Remove - very high cost to pave for low traffic volumeno dateQ787 Gillums Ridge RoadBroad Axe to Dry Bridge RdNot Funded$358,947 290-2006Public request. Ranking due to traffic count/new project in 2011.2011no dateF 703 Pocket Lane Rt 715 to Dead End Not Funded $322,964 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no dateG 784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded $933,109 130-2006 School Request in 2007, public request as well no dateH 688 Midway Road Rt 635 to Rt 824 Not Funded $155,191 310-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no dateI 731 Keswick Road Rt 744 to Rt 22 Not Funded $362,113 230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no dateJ 787 Gillums Ridge Road Broad Axe to Dry Bridge RdNot Funded $480,747 290-2006Public request. Ranking due to traffic count/new project in 2011.2011no dateK 637 Dick Woods Road Rt 691 to Rt 758 Not Funded $754,377 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no dateL 747 Preddy Creek Road Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded 110-2006 School request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no dateM 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 231 Not Funded 100-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no dateN 769 Beam Road Rt 1484 to Dead End Not Funded 60-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no dateO 629/624 Browns Gap TP/Headqrters LaneRt 810 to end of Rt 624 Not Funded 80/40-2009 Public request. ranking due to traffic count/new project 2010.2010no dateP824 Patterson Mill LaneRt. 688 to unpaved section (abt. 1.04 mi)Not Funded200-2006Public request. Ranking due to traffic count/new project in 2011.2011no dateR760 Red Hill School Road Rt. 29 to Rt. 712Not Funded70-2006Public request. Ranking due to traffic count/new project in 20112011no dateItalics -- new projects to this list (moved from Regular Paving Projects list)Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTSRecommended June 12, 2013[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) Map ID # Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - To Funding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date1 643 Rio Mills Road Rt 29 to Rt 743 Not Funded $3,218,665 650-2003 Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2003 Dec-152 689 Burch's Creek Road Rt 250 to Rt 635 Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. (previously Pounding Creek Rd)no date3 671 Ballards Mill Road Rt 609 to Rt 674 Not Funded 260-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date4 685 Bunker Hill Road Rt 616 to Dead End Not Funded 230-2009Public request. No longer qualifies for RRR due to align-ment and utility problems, will have to be reg. paving project.5 720 Harris Creek Road Rt 20 to Dead End Not Funded 170-2006 Public request 2007 no date6 736 White Mountain Road Rt 636 to Dead End Not Funded (sect. btwn Rt 635 & 636 doesn't meet VDOT requirements)230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date7 683 Shelton Mill Road Rt 751 to Dead End Not Funded 70-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date8 712 North Garden Lane Rt 692 to Rt 29 Not Funded 350-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date9 712 Coles Rolling Road Rt 713 to Rt 795 Not Funded 220-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date10 712 North Garden Lane Rt 29 to Rt 760 Not Funded 220-2006 This project will be paved as part Rt. 712 -btwn Rt. 713 to Rt. 795no date11 671 Wesley Chapel Road Rt 609 to Rt 601 Not Funded 100-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date12 829 Horseshoe Bend RoadRt 601 to Dead End Not Funded 210-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date13 645 Magnolia Road Rt 608 to Orange County LineNot Funded 190-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date14 637 Dick Woods Road Rt 691 to Rt 635 Not Funded 140-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2006 no date15 674 Sugar Ridge Road Rt 614 to Rt 673 Not Funded 180-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date16 761 Briery Creek Road Rt 622 to County Line Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no date17 682 Broad Axe Road Rt 637 to to current paved sectionsNot Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date18 678 Decca Lane Rt 676 to Rt 614 Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date19 640 Gilbert Station Road Ashleigh Way Dr to paved sectionNot Funded $1,500,000 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date20 856 Burton Lane Rt. 711 to Dead End Not Funded 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date21687 Shifflett Mill Road Rt.601 to Rt 810 Not Funded45-2006School Department Request 2013 - Not eligible under current traffic counts. 2007 no date22668 Fox Mountain RoadRt 671 to Rt 810 Not Funded30-2006School Department Request. 2013 - Not eligible under current traffic counts. 2007 no dateStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTSRecommended June 12, 2013[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) Map ID # Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - To Funding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date23 605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt 743 to Swift Run (including bridge)Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date24 723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 722 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date25 633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date26 707 Blair Park Road Rt 691 to Dead End Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date27 698 Hungrytown Road Rt 633 to Dead End Not Funded 90-2006 School transportation request 2006 no date28 813 Starlight Road Rt 712 to Dead End Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date29 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles west to Rt 20 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date30 634 Spring Valley Road Rt 633 to Rt 635 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date31 637 Dick Woods Road Rt 151 to Nelson County LineNot Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date32 721 Old Dominion Road Rt 6 to Rt 630 Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2006 no date33776 Buck Mtn Ford LaneRt 667 to Rt 664Not Funded20-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. (previously Pounding Creek Rd) 2013 - Not eligible because traffic count is below 50 VPD2004 no dateStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B3
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-23.4 provides the opportunity for each county to work
with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Secondary Six -Year Road Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board has previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this Plan, in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation policies and procedures, and participated
in a public hearing on the proposed Plan (FY 14-19) as well as the Construction Priority List (FY14)
on June 12, 2013, after duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to
participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed
Plan and Priority List; and
WHEREAS, Joel Denunzio, the Resident Administrator of the Virginia Department of
Transportation, appeared before the Board and recommended approval of the Six-Year Plan for
Secondary Roads (FY14-19) and the Construction Priority List (FY14) for the County of Albemarle;
and
WHEREAS, the Secondary Six Year Plan (FY14-19) and the Construction Priority List
(FY14), as presented at the June 12, 2013 public hearing, are in the best interest of the County and of
the citizens of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby approves the Secondary
Six-Year Plan (FY14-19) and the Construction Priority List (FY14) as presented at the June 12, 2013
public hearing, and authorizes the County Executive to sign the Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the clerk of the Board shall forward a certified copy
of this resolution to the District Administrator of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of _____ to _____,
as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION
Rural Rustic Road Designation, Portion of Gillums Ridge Road
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-70.1 permits the improvement and hard surfacing of
certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for designation as a Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, any such road must be located in a low-density development area and have no
more than 1500 vehicle trips per day; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (“Board”) desires to
consider whether Route 787, Gillums Ridge Road, from Route 682 to Route 708, should be designated a
Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, the Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the
existing traffic on this road; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that this road should be designated as a Rural Rustic
Road due to its qualifying characteristics; and
WHEREAS, this road is in the Board’s six-year plan for improvements to the secondary
system of state highways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby designates Gillums Ridge
Road from Route 682 to Route 708 as a Rural Rustic Road, and requests that the District Administrator
of the Virginia Department of Transportation concur in this designation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board requests that Gillums Ridge Road from Route
682 to Route 708 be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing
right of way and ditch-lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes,
and rural rustic character along the road in their current state.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board shall forward a certified copy of
this Resolution to the District Administrator of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary