HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 15 1997 PC Minutes7-15-97
JULY 15, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July
15, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr.
William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson;
and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The
minutes of the June 24th and July 1st meetings were unanimously approved as
amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the July 2nd and July 9th Board of
Supervisors meetings.
SDP 97-034 Mobile Home Sales Center Preliminary Site Plan - Requests for: (1)
Waivef of critical slopes; and (2) Waiver for grading within residential buffer. Deferred
from the July 1, 1997 Commission meeting.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, which had changed very little since the July
1st meeting. He confirmed that the plan on display was that which was reviewed by
the Engineering Department and shows the limits of grading coming to the "edge of
the page." (The plan which had been displayed at the July 1st meeting had not
shown grading "off the page.") Staff was able to confirm that the Engineering
Department, in its review, had considered the entire site plan and not just this
particular parcel.
Mr. Andre Williams, representing the County Engineering Department, answered
questions about the grading plan. He said all the grades shown, outside the parking
area, are at a 2:1 slope. He said some areas may be "slightly steeper," but the
average is 2:1. He confirmed that the Erosion Control Officer will make sure the slope
is stabilized before releasing the Erosion Control Bond. Ms. Huckle asked if a certain
type of planting could be required on the slope. Mr. Cilimberg said the stabilization of
the slope comes under the Erosion Control section of the Code. Mr. Kamptner said
the Commission can suggest a certain type of plant, but the E & S Ordinance is out of
the Commission's domain. Noting that the site will be visible from Rt. 29, Ms. Huckle
suggested an attractive, spreading type of ground -cover, such as Blue Rug Juniper,
would be desirable.
o,,. The applicant was not present. Public comment was invited; none was offered.
(?6
7-15-97 2
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that a waiver of Section
4.2.3.2 (Critical Slopes) and a waiver of Section 21.7.3 (Residential Buffer) be
approved for the Mobile Home Sales Center Preliminary Site Plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
SUB 96-081 La Clyde Run Revised Preliminaryy Plat - Proposal to create 8 lots
average 3.23 acres, and two parcels, average 24.15 acres. Property, described as Tax
Map 55, Parcels 87 and 88A-1, is located on the west side of State Route 684 (Half
Mile Branch Road) near Yancey's Mill. This property, containing 75.379 acres, is
zoned Rural Area in the White Hall Magisterial District, and is designated Rural Area
in the Comprehensive Plan. The lots will be served by a proposed state road.
Deferred from the June 10th Commission meeting.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She said issues regarding delineation of
wetlands have been resolved, and the lot layout was not effected.
To address a concern expressed by an adjoining property owner at the previous
meeting, a new condition No. 5 is proposed: Access to and from each lot shall be
only from the proposed public street identified on the preliminary plat as LaClyde Run.
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Morris Foster. He said the applicant had no
problems with the staff report. He hoped there would be no problem with the
continued use of the existing roadway in the peach orchard for agricultural purposes
related to the orchard. Staff had no objection to the continued use of the peach
orchard road for agricultural purposes.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the La Clyde Run
Revised Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering approval of preliminary and final plat items outlined in
their memo dated May 1, 1997.
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval of proposed state maintained road
plans.
3. Department of Health approval of soil evaluation.
4. Department of Planning and Community development approval of final plat.
97
7-15-97 3
5. Access to and from each lot shall be only from the proposed public street identified
on the preliminary plat as LaClyde Run.
6. Only one dwelling per lot (requires removal of tenant houses from lot 9).
The motion passed (6:0:1) with Commissioner Tice abstaining. (Mr. Tice had not
been present at the June loth hearing of this item.)
CFW Wireless - The next six items are requests for wireless telecommunications
towers at six different locations. Staff recommended approval of two requests (Boyd
Tavern and Joshua Run); denial of 3 (Piney Mt., Toms Mt., Fan Mt.); and deferral of
one (Britt's Mt.). Staff began by presenting an overall report about the applicant's
approach and staffs review of the entire network. Highlights of staffs report and
answers to specific Commission questions included the following:
--None of the towers are to increase capacity. All are to provide basic
coverage. None of the areas to be served by these towers presently have any
service.
--The three requests which staff recommended denial of are all located within
the Mountain Resource Area identified in the Comp Plan Open Space Plan. To
relocate to a lower elevation may: (1) reduce the service area resulting in a taller
tower to achieve the same level of service; (2) require that the tower be located on
critical slopes; and (3) alter the location of the accessway to a degree that it impacts
critical slopes to a greater or lesser degree. If denied, the applicant will have to seek
alternative locations, either on the same site, a different site, or possibly one tower
may have to become two towers. The Telecommunications Act requires that
localities "not prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting" service. Mr. Fritz confirmed
that if another site cannot be located, it is conceivable that the applicant will reapply
for another site in a Mountain Resource area.
--Staff was actively involved in trying to identify co -location options. Those
options were explored at the beginning of the process. The only site which may have
a co -location option is the Piney Mt. site. Staff is convinced that the co -location
options for the other sites have been exhausted. However, staff cannot say, for any of
these requests, that possible alternate sites have all been exhausted. (Later in staffs
presentation, Mr. Fritz described why some possible options will not work.)
--The only existing towers in the southern part of the County are on Castle
Rock Mt. and Heards Mt.. These are cellular towers and are too far away to provide
service for a PCS (Personal Communications System) system. PCS systems require
more towers because of their operating system, i.e. the power level and frequency at
which they operate.
--If these towers are constructed, staff feels they will open up co -location
options for the other cellular and PCS providers, but the County can expect to
continue to see tower applications. There is the potential for eight service providers in
this region. Three are presently known and active.
7-15-97 4
--Lattice towers have some advantages over monopole towers because they
offer more opportunities for co -location.
--All users on a particular tower will have their own equipment buildings. PCS
buildings are smaller (approximately 8' x 10') than cellular buildings (approximately 10'
x 15').
--Staff typically supports a request for modification of Section 4.10.3.1 (to allow
location of the tower a distance from the property line which is less than the height of
the tower). This is an issue which the Commission can consider in determining
whether or not a particular tower is of substantial detriment to adjacent properties.
Liability, in the event of tower failure, is on the part of the tower owner, not the
County.
--Historically, staff has not addressed the question of tower color. Color has not
been a concern in past requests. The Commission, may, however, require a certain
color if so desired. Mr. Fritz pointed out that some sites will require a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the ARB. (It was later decided that a condition will be added to all
such permits which requires the use of certain colors.)
--Staff was uncertain whether the Boyd Tavern site is in the Monticello
viewshed. The site is 7-8 miles distant from Monticello. Mr. Fritz recalled that
Monticello had not commented on the amphitheater request at Boyd Tavern. Mr. Tice
said he thought the tower was probably far enough away, and because it will not be
lighted, it should not be a problem.
'%W" Ms. Huckle wondered if the Task Force studying this issue is considering the fact that
the landowners who lease these sites are benefitting financially, but the adjoining
properties may experience a devaluation in their property as a result of the towers.
Ms. Fritz said the public hearing process allows the question of the potential adverse
impact on adjoining property owners to be addressed. He said he has found no
information in any of the research he has performed which says that towers cause a
decrease in property values.
Addressing the issue of removal of the towers, Mr. Tice asked if there is a process by
which the County will be able to determine when a tower is no longer in use. If there
is no process, can staff recommend one? Mr. Fritz said there is presently no type of
on -going tracking mechanism. Yearly submittal reports have been problematic in the
past. The property owner is ultimately responsible for the removal of the tower
because the special permit is issued to the property owner and is bound by the
condition of the permit which requires removal. The Zoning Administrator can take
steps to require compliance with the conditions of the special permit. Mr. Tice thought
requiring the company to submit an annual report to the County would be fairly easy
to accomplish. Mr. Fritz said a condition could be added as suggested by Mr. Tice,
but it will require additional staff time to handle such a condition. The idea of an
annual reporting system was discussed at various times throughout the meeting. It
was ultimately decided that a report would be required and would be due on July 1st
of each year.
7-15-97 5
Mr. Tice asked if noise is of any concern with these towers. Mr. Fritz said PCS
systems use a battery backup system, not a generator system as do cellular towers.
Mr. Tice pointed out that noise could become a concern if a cellular tower were to be
co -located on a PCS tower. He wondered if a condition related to noise should be
added. Mr. Fritz did not think noise will be a problem because these towers are
remote from dwellings and generators would only run infrequently, for short periods.
He confirmed, however, that a condition could be added addressing potential noise.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mike McPherson and Mr. Tom Whittaker. Their
comments included the following:
--The applicant has tried to make the application adhere to the Task Force's
directions.
--CFW strives to build a network with as few sites as possible and always
exhausts co -location opportunities first.
--Requests include some sites in Mountain Resource areas because if the
towers were not at those elevations, the solution would be to build 4 or 5 towers (to
achieve the same coverage) instead of that one tower. Also, there are existing
roadbeds to all these sites.
--The Piney Mt. tower could be lowered a little, but that would require the
construction of a new access road, which would destroy a lot of trees. The proposed
site is on an existing road.
--Regarding setbacks, Mr. McPherson pointed out that the measurements are
from the fenced compound, not from the tower itself. (15 - 25 feet can be added to the
measurements.)
--Regarding removal of a tower when no longer in use, he said CFWs contracts
with the landowners specify that CFW will remove the tower when it is no longer in
use.
--In order for the system to work, towers must be in line of sight of each other.
The six individual CFW requests were then heard separately by the Commission.
SP 97-19 CFW Wireless, Britts Mountain - Petition to construct a 150-foot
telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 65 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property,
described as Tax Map 75, Parcels 22 and 23, is located on the east side of Route 29,
Monacan Trail Road, on Britts Mountain. This site is located in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial district and is not located within a designated development area. Deferred
from the June 17th Commission meeting.
The applicant was requesting deferral to August 19th.
Public comment was invited.
M
%O0
M
7-15-97 6
Ms. Babette Thorp, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, read a
statement (Attachment A to these minutes) which raised several issues which the PEC
feels should be addressed before the approval of any new towers.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was
placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley, seconded, that SP 97-19 (CFW/Britts
Mountain) be deferred to August 19, 1997.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
SP 97-17 CFW Wireless, Boyd Tavern - Petition to construct a 150 feet
telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 79 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property,
described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 41A is located on the north side of Route 250,
Richmond Road, approximately 1/2 mile west of Route 616 in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is not located within a designated development area. Deferred from
June 17 Commission meeting.
Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Charles Curtis addressed the Commission. He said "cellular towers pose a
distinct threat to the natural beauty of the whole area." He asked that the Commission
take a much longer look at all tower applications and not be so quick to "roll over" to
this technology.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson said this site is unlike all the others in that it is at a low elevation and is in
a clearing. He said a question he looks at for all these applications is whether or not
a tower can be too close to, or too visible from, a road. He said that though an
argument can be made that a road is a disturbed corridor "so keep the tower in that
disturbed corridor," it is really unlike anything else that is in that corridor because it is
"so vertical and so shocking when you come upon it." He said he is concerned about
this site because the tower is so close to the road (170 feet from perimeter of facility
to the edge of the right-of-way). He said it will be very visible and a startling contrast
to the area around it. He doubted that there isn't a less obtrusive site available.
Mr. Loewenstein said he has concerns similar to Mr. Dotson's.
/o/
M
7-15-97
Mr. Tice said he did not have a major concern about this site, though he wished there
had been input from Monticello. He said two smaller towers would be less obtrusive
to Monticello's viewshed. However, given the distance from Monticello, and if a
condition addressing color can be added, he said he could support this request.
Ms. Huckle wondered if these requests should be deferred until the Board has studied
the recommendations of the Task Force. Mr. Cilimberg said the Task Force report is
in the hands of the Board. He said the Commission must act on these requests within
a certain time period, unless a deferral is agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Fritz said
the Commission time period is about to expire, so the Commission must take action
tonight.
Mr. Dotson thought it was important that the minutes show that more input from the
Board would have been useful to the Commission, and "we are proceeding because of
the statutory time limit."
Mr. Nitchmann said he did not really have any problem with any of these sites. On
the Boyd Tavern site, he recalled he had spoken with Monticello at the time of the
amphitheater application and "they felt that was off to the right and was not in their
viewshed as much as some of the things which are occurring now right below them."
He said this is just the next step in telecommunications technology and America was
built on this type of technology. He said he thinks it is important to the safety and
welfare of the citizens of the County to continue to support telecommunications
technology.
The Commission discussed the addition of conditions addressing color, an annual
reporting process, and co -location, which the Commission decided should be added to
all tower applications. It was ultimately decided the following three conditions would
be added to all tower permits:
A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later
than July 1st. This report shall state current user status of the tower,
specifically the report shall state it is being used for wireless
telecommunication service.
Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the
Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall be
colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except
as may be modified by the ARB (for those towers within the Entrance
Corridor).
The permit holder shall make available unutilized space for co -location of
other telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities
/0 o01
M
7-15-97 8
providing similar, competing services. A good -faith effort in achieving co -
location shall be required of the host entity.
Because noise will not be an issue for these PCS towers, it was decided the question
of noise (from other users which might locate on these towers) would be left for the
Board to consider. Mr. Fritz clarified that the noise referred to by Mr. Tice was that
which results from generator -powered backup.
Mr. Dotson asked if storage buildings (for co -locators) would be administratively
approved. Mr. Fritz said a building would require a site plan, or a site plan waiver (but
another special permit would not be needed.)
Mr. Tice said he too wished there had been more direction from the Board of
Supervisors. However, he said the applicant is to be commended for working so
closely with the Task Force on these applications, and staff has adequately addressed
the relationship of this request with the Comp Plan.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-17, CFW, Boyd Tavern,
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet.
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All
tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground.
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall
constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers,
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any
antennae administratively approved under this section.
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines
such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within
the lease area.
6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed form the site within 90 days of the
discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes.
7. Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW
Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1 /97.
103
on
7-15-97
8. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without
amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit
construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities.
9. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than
July 1 st. This report shall state current user status of the tower, specifically the report
shall state whether the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service.
10. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the
Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall be colors such as
gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by
the ARB (for those towers within the Entrance Corridor).
11. The permit holder shall make available unutilized space for co -location of other
telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities providing similar,
competing services. A good -faith effort in achieving co -location shall be required of
the host entity.
The motion passed (5:2) with Commissioners Loewenstein and Dotson casting the
dissenting votes.
SP 97-18 CFW Wireless, Covesville - Petition to construct a 150 foot
telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 56 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 9C, is located on
the east side of Route 29, Monacan Trail Rd., at its intersection with Route 837, Cove
School Lane. This site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is not
located within a designated development area. Deferred from June 17th Commission
meeting.
Staff recommended denial of this request.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. David Bass expressed concern about all three of the sites on Rt. 29 South. He
said this is a very scenic area which presently has only the Heard's Mt. Tower. He
said he feels towers are being "overdone" because of the definition of "adequate
service." He thought only one of the three towers (or two at most) would be
sufficient to provide adequate service. He said "adequate service" is different in a
rural, mountainous area, than it is in an urban area.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
/U�
7-15-97 10
Ms. Nitchmann asked the applicant if the suggestion for one tower was feasible. Mr.
Whittaker said one tower would mean the difference between "adequate service" and
"no service." He explained that the omission of even one of the towers would create a
3-5 mile wide "hole" in coverage. About the possibility of co -locating on a tower in
Nelson County, he said that would only result in a reshuffling of the sites and possibly
would add one more tower.
Ms. Huckle noted that staff recommended denial based on the fact that the site is
within the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comp Plan Open Space Plan
and the impact may be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1. Mr. Loewenstein said that this is an
issue which is going to keep coming up with these tower applications and he asked
staff if any thought is being given to how to "address this in the broader sense." Mr.
Fritz said locating in the Mountain Resource Area is not a factor which is unique with
just PCS systems. Mr. Nitchmann said Albemarle is a mountainous county and this
situation will come up again and again.
Mr. Nitchmann said he does not want to see towers all over the county, so it is
important that the County require co -location between users. However, it is not in the
County's best interests to try to halt the progress of telecommunications technology
because we don't want to see towers. He hoped some guidelines can be developed
which will prevent the proliferation of towers.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-18
(CFW/Covesville) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet.
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All
tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground.
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall
constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers,
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any
antennae administratively approved under this section.
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines
such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within
the lease area.
cm
7-15-97 11
6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed form the site within 90 days of the
discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes.
7. Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW
Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97.
8. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without
amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit
construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities.
9. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40
feet.
10. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be
created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineering are employed.
11. The access road above the 900 feet elevation shall be built with the side slopes
on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter.
12. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section.
13. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than
July 1st. This report shall state current user status of the tower, specifically the report
shall state whether the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service.
14. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the
Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall be colors such as
gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by
the ARB (for those towers within the Entrance Corridor).
15. The permit holder shall make available unutilized space for co -location of other
telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities providing similar,
competing services. A good -faith effort in achieving co -location shall be required of
the host entity.
Discussion. -
Ms. Huckle said denial of this request does not mean the applicant will not be able to
locate a tower in this area. Rather, it means they will need to look for a more
appropriate site.
/ C (0
7-15-97 12
Mr. Loewenstein said that as tower applications increase it is inevitable that more sites
will be in remote locations. Given the current growth rate of the County, that may
happen sooner rather than later.
Mr. Finley said he agreed with some of Mr. Nitchmann's statements, but he did not
think this little tower will become a mini -tower. He said: "If approved, we are opening
the door on the Mountain Resources Area to have towers all over the place. On the
other hand, there must be substantial reason, in the written record, for denial."
Mr. Kamptner said the burden for establishing reason for denial is on the Board of
Supervisors. He said if the Board reaches a consensus that they are going to deny a
request, they will defer action to allow the legal staff time to go through the record and
state the evidence and the findings that support the denial. "That issue will be for the
Board." The Commission's discussion and recommendation helps to establish that
record.
Mr. Tice said this is an example of when it would be helpful to have the advice of an
independent consultant, e.g. "have all the alternative sites been exhausted or would
they have impacts greater than this particular site?" Absent that information, he said
he felt staff had done an excellent job of identifying the issues. Based on the
information the applicant has provided, this site is in conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Tice said also this site is so close to the edge of the Mountain Resource
Area, it would set a precedent if we were to approve it within the Mountain Resource
Area when in fact there may be alternatives.
Mr. Dotson again raised the issue of visual impact, both from the ridge line and from
the road. He said it is set back far enough from the road that it is does not "jump out
at you" as you pass by. It is also off the access of the roadway. It is shielded, to
some degree, by trees and doesn't involve substantial grading for road construction.
In those respects, he said it meets some of his visual concerns more than some of the
other sites. On the other hand, he asked "how important is it that Rt. 29 South have
full service" given there are fewer residents and less traffic than on Rt. 29 North.
The motion for approval was defeated by a vote of 2:5 with Commissioners
Nitchmann and Washington voting for the motion and all other Commissioners voting
against.
Staff then reminded the Commission that an action on the Modification of Section
4.10.3.1 is required, in the event the Board should approve the request.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a Modification of Section
4.10.3.1 be approved for SP 97-18 (CFW(Covesville).
The motion passed 6:1, with Commission Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
/0 17
7-15-97 13
SP 97-20 CFW Wireless, Toms Mountain - Petition to construct a 160 foot
telecommunication tower and associated facility on a portion of 79 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property,
described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 9, is located on the west side of Route 29, Monacan
Trail Road, approximately 1/2 mile north of Route 692, Plank Road, in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated development
area. Deferred from the June 17, 1997 Commission meeting.
Staff recommended denial of the request.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Gary Bibb addressed the Commission and expressed objection to approval of
more towers. He felt they are of "marginal benefit to the County." He suggested
there is a way that two sites, below the ridge line, would offer the same service.
Mr. E.R. Shelton, owner on the property, addressed the Commission. He explained
that the revenue he will receive from this lease will allow him to defray some of the
real estate tax on the property in a way that will have less impact than some other
options might have. He said his agreement with CFW gives him the right to approve
any other users which might wish to co -locate on the tower. He said he would not
approve a co -user which would use a noisy generator.
Mr. Joe Garafellow said these towers will ruin the natural beauty of the area and will
decrease property values.
The applicant briefly described the capacity of the towers. He said: "Our current
equipment configuration can support no more than 9 panel antennae/sector, for a total
of 27 antennae on the tower. It could be designed to support more.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Shelton's description of his agreement with CFW and his ability to approve or
disapprove a co -locator was discussed by the Commission. There was concern as to
how this type of agreement might effect the County's ability to require co -location. Mr.
Fritz acknowledged that staffs review does not include the ground -lease agreement
between the tower owner and the landowner. Mr. Kamptner said in the absence of an
express provision which requires co -location, a provision as described by Mr. Shelton
"is going to be problematic." He said this is an issue which the Board should
consider. But if there is an express condition requiring co -location, and co -location is
denied, "and it appears the current tower user isn't making it reasonably available to
other users, it may be a violation of the special permit condition." Mr. Loewenstein
/6 ,9,
7-15-97 14
asked what would happen in a situation where a tower owner might be willing to
accept a co -user, but the agreement with the property owner prohibited that. Mr.
Kamptner responded: "Our only way of assuring that co -location happens, if the tower
is going to be used, is an express condition that requires (co -location). Coming up
with the appropriate language that will be enforceable will require some thought, to
consider the underlying ground lease that may exist." Mr. Shelton clarified that he had
not said he would not approve another co -locator, rather he has the right to approve
or disapprove a potential co -locator. He said he just wanted to be sure that noise
would not become a problem.
On the question of whether or not a landowner receives additional money for
additional users, Mr. Shelton said he will receive a small percentage from additional
users.
On the issue of visibility from the road, Mr. Dotson was concerned about the fact that
this site is at the end of a long, clear stretch of road.
Ms. Huckle said her concerns were the same as with the Covesville site, i.e. approval
would be endangering the Mountain Resource Area and the Open Space Plan.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP 97-20 (CFW(Toms
Mountain) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial, for those reasons
,%N - listed in the staff report.
The motion passed, 5:2, with Commissioners Nitchmann and Washington casting the
dissenting votes.
MOTION: In the event the Board should approve this request, Mr. Finley moved, Mr.
Nitchmann seconded, that a Modification of Section 4.10.3.1 be approved for SP 97-
20 (CFW(Toms Mountain).
The motion passed 6:1, with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
SP 97-21 CFW Wireless, Joshua Run - Petition to construct a 150 foot
telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 8 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 41, is located on
the south side of Route 649, Airport Road, approximately 0.3 miles west of Route 29,
Seminole Trail, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for
Office Service in the communities of Hollymead and Piney Mountain.
Staff recommended approval of this request.
Public comment was invited.
%7
7-15-97 15
Mr. Rick Jones, an adjoining property owner, objected to all the tower sites. He said
he feels approval of all these towers is premature until the County has studied the
issue further. He pointed out that there are already 2 cellular providers in this area.
He expressed concern about the fact that if the tower should fail, it will fall in his
parking lot. (The applicant addressed this concern and explained that the towers are
designed to fall upon themselves within the leased area. He assured the Commission
that the towers are well maintained and are inspected regularly.) Mr. Jones suggested
that the request be turned down because it cannot meet the setback requirements
without a modification.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he views towers which are closer in to the commercial area
somewhat differently than those which are out in the rural areas of the county. He
asked if consideration had been given to locating on other structures in this area. Mr.
Fritz explained what other co -location options had been considered and why those
would not work. Mr. Whittaker confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Fritz's explanation. Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that because of the county's height restrictions on buildings, it is
unlikely buildings will be able to be used for locating towers (unless a building might
be on a site that is on a high elevation).
Mr. Finley said this site is in an area recommended for Office Service in the
communities of Hollymead and Piney Mountain, and is very different from a Mountain
Resource Area.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-21 (CFW/Joshua
Run) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet.
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All
tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground.
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall
constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers,
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any
antennae administratively approved under this section.
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines
such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within
the lease area.
//0
7-15-97 16
6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed form the site within 90 days of the
discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes.
7. Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW
Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97.
8. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without
amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit
construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities.
9. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than
July 1st. This report shall state current user status of the tower, specifically the report
shall state whether the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service.
10. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the
Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall be colors such as
gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by
the ARB (for those towers within the Entrance Corridor).
11. The permit holder shall make available unutilized space for co -location of other
telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities providing similar,
competing services. A good -faith effort in achieving co -location shall be required of
the host entity.
The motion passed 5:2, with Commissioners Dotson and Huckle casting the
dissenting votes.
Ms. Huckle noted that this site is very close to the airport.
Mr. Dotson said one of his concerns with this site is that it is directly in the line of sight
to both the entrance and exit of Forest Lakes.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that a Modification of
Section 4.10.3.1 for SP 97-21 (CFW(Joshua Run) be approved.
The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
SP 97-22 CFW Wireless, Piney Mountain - Petition to construct a 150 foot
telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 62 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property,
described as tax Map 21, Parcel 10 is located on the west side of Route 29, Seminole
Trail, on the eastern slopes of Piney Mountain. This site is located in the White Hall
Magisterial District and is not located within a designated development area.
/1/
7-15-97 17
Staff recommended denial of this request. Mr. Fritz noted staff had received one letter
of opposition on this request.
Mr. McPherson said this is one site which could possibly be moved down out of the
Mountain Resource Area. (Later Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant mistakenly
believed the Mountain Resource Area began at 900 feet, but it begins at 800 feet in
this area. He doubted that the tower could be moved down 150 feet and still provide
the service needed. Moving the tower would also put it in critical slope areas) Staff
said they had not reviewed impacts which might occur as a result of moving the tower.
It was decided the applicant and staff would consider this possibility prior to the Board
hearing.
Public comment was invited; none was offered and the item was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Tice asked staff to again explain their statement on this site that 'options for co -
location have not been exhausted." Mr. Fritz explained why the options which had
been considered would not work. However, a potential for a co -location on the
Southern Railway site could be a possibility. The applicant said they are still
negotiating with Southern Railway but think they have come to an impasse.
Mr. Dotson said that though this site is also in the Mountain Protection Area, it already
has existing towers on it, so he views this differently than some of the other sites. He
pointed out that this is a high traffic area and will be a high volume usage area.
Staff confirmed that existing towers are visible from Rt. 29 and from dwellings in the
area.
To remain consistent with the previous actions, Ms. Huckle said she supported staffs
recommendation for denial because of the location of the tower in the Mountain
Protection Area. She said: "I feel every time one of those things is abrogated, it has
less validity."
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that SP 97-22 for CFW Wireless,Piney Mountain, be
denied. This motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 97-22 for CFW
Wireless/Piney Mountain, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet.
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
// A
7-15-97
18
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All
tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground.
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall
constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers,
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any
antennae administratively approved under this section.
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines
such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within
the lease area.
6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed form the site within 90 days of the
discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes.
7. Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW
Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97.
8. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without
amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit
construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities.
9. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40
feet.
10. No slopes associated with construction of the tower 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.
11. The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on
cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter.
12. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section.
13. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than
July 1st. This report shall state current user status of the tower, specifically the report
shall state whether the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service.
14. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the
Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall be colors such as
gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by
the ARB (for those towers within the Entrance Corridor).
/I 3
7-15-97 19
15. The permit holder shall make available unutilized space for co -location of other
telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities providing similar,
competing services. A good -faith effort in achieving co -location shall be required of
the host entity.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann asked why this site is different than the Covesville or the Toms
Mountain sites. Mr. Finley replied: "A bunch of existing towers, radar." Mr.
Nitchmann said: "It's interesting. We voted for denial (of those sites), but we're going
to approve this one, in the mountaintop area because there are a bunch of towers
near it, in an area where there is a telephone pole almost every 1/2 mile along the
road and plenty of cellular service, yet we deny it out in the county where 360 is the
only game in town, basically. Just from the standpoint of safety for the general public,
something about it seems to be contradictory, but we're going to justify it because
even though it is in the Mountain Resource Area, it is O.K. because there are a bunch
of towers close to it." He concluded: "It doesn't seem to be going down the same
path."
The motion for approval passed 5:2, with Commissioners Huckle and Tice casting the
dissenting votes.
(No modification was required for this site.)
Moormans River A/F District Addition - The addition to Moormons River Ag/Forestal
District is described as a request to add four parcels described as Tax Map 28,
Parcels 12, 30, 30A and 30B, totaling 242.38 acres located on the east side of Route
671 (Ballard's Mill Road), White Hall Magisterial District. One parcel is located at the
intersection of Route 665 (Millington Road) and three parcels are located near the
intersection of Route 609 (Wesley Chapel Road). The property is designated Rural
Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a brief staff report. Staff recommended approval.
Public comment was invited; none was offered and the item was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the addition to the
Moormans River A/F District be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
Keswick A/F District Addition - The addition to Keswick Ag/Forestal District is
described as a request to add four parcels described as Tax Map 64, Parcels 10 and
7-15-97
20
11, and Tax Map 81, Parcels 15B and 15A6, totaling 190.872 acres, Rivanna
Magisterial District. Two parcels are located on the west side of Route 22 (Louisa
Road). Two parcels are located at the end of State Route 648 (Clark's Tract Road).
The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a brief staff report. Staff recommended approval.
Public comment was invited; none was offered and the item was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the addition to the
Keswick A/F District be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 97-04 Daniel Bicker - Petition to rezone 5 acres from RA Rural Areas to R-6
Residential with proffers. The property is a five acre parcel known as TMP 79-25A, on
Ashton Road in the Rivanna Village. RA zoning carries a density of 0.5 dwelling units
per acre; the proffered rezoning would result in a density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre
and the County's Land Use Plan shows a neighborhood residential density of 3 to 6
dwelling units per acre.
The applicant was requesting deferral to August 19th.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 97-04 be deferred
to August 19, 1997. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Loewenstein thanked the Planning Staff and Mr. Kamptner for their work on the
CFW applications.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
X-
Im