Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199900010 Review Comments 1999-05-11 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: May 11, 1999 STAFF REPORT VA-99-10 OWNER/APPLICANT: David C. Weber, owner/ CFW Wireless, applicant TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 73/31 D ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: Lease area of 400 square feet within a 10.31 acre parcel LOCATION: East side of Rt. 708 approximately 500' south of its intersection with 164 near Ivy TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 75-foot front yard for all structures in the RA district. A variance of 63 feet is requested to allow a telecommunications facility 12 feet from the right-of-way of Rt. 708. The facility will consist of a 105-foot wooden pole, two 7-foot antennas, one equipment cabinet and the appurtenant electrical and telephone items necessary for operations. RELEVANT HISTORY: None STAFF INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This case and VA 99-09 are not our usual variance requests. These cases involve the rapidly growing, perceived need for telecommunication towers. During the review of the special use permits for these two towers (and one to be heard next month), Planning staff has found that although the requests have responded to and met the recommendations of the Planning staff, Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, they conflict with our setback regulations. Since this has just come to light, the variance is by far the quickest route to allowing the applicants to move forward while County staff tries to examine and rewrite our regulations to fit the newly formulated, but yet-unadopted policy. Staffs intention is to add language to the ordinance exempting towers from all required yards and to allow the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors to precisely locate towers where they have the least visual impact on our community. This will maintain control of the use and location of the towers while allowing our citizens to have full coverage along our rural highways for their cellular phones and personal communications systems. The policy involves use of more, shorter poles that must be located closer to the roads that they serve and the use of treed areas to screen the towers and mitigate the visual impact on our citizens and visitors. Please see Attachment A regarding the County's policy on towers. The Planning Commission has already heard the SP requests on both of these towers and recommended approval. They will not act on the waiver request that would allow the towers to be closer to the right-of-way than the height of the tower until such time as the BZA acts on these variance requests. Should either variance be denied there would be no action by the PC needed since the tower would then have to be proposed in a different location. Staff Report VA 99-06 Page 2 April 6, 1999 GENERAL CRITERIA COMMENTS: Under State Code section 15.2-2309, the Board of Zoning Appeals may authorize a variance from the terms of the ordinance when it is not contrary to the public interest, if owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provision will result in unnecessary hardship. In authorizing a variance, the Board may consider the "exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of such piece of property, or the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto." In both of these cases, the properties were selected partly due to their topographic features which are excellent for siting a tower and their location adjacent to roads that currently have problems with mobile telephone coverage. The specific sites on the parcels were selected because they meet the "to-be-adopted" county policy regarding minimization of visual impact to the adjacent properties and to the residents and tourists traveling our roadways. The "other extraordinary situation" is that the only area with trees that meets the County's policy is within the front setback. To require the setback to be maintained would cause the towers to be located in open areas where they would not meet the policy and therefore, these parcels would probably not be granted the special use permits necessary to have the use available. Therefore, the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the use of the property. Granting the variance would alleviate that hardship and meet the county's goal of providing mobile phone service. At this point, the hardshipis not shared generallybyother properties in the same zoning p P district and the same vicinity—only three properties in the entire county are involved now. Staff hopes to formulate a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance before more such applications come along. In the meantime, staff opinion is that granting the variances will be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the ordinance and certainly with the stated telecommunications policy. In this request—VA 99-10—the parcel is vacant, used only for pasture. The lease area is in a nice stand of old hardwoods located within 60 feet of property line. There are also many smaller hardwoods, pines, cedars and scrub growth along the property fence, partly on the property and partly within the Virginia Department of Transportation's right-of-way for Rt. 708. If the applicant were required to meet the setback at this location, the tower would have to be constructed in a wide-open pasture. Both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have stated their intention that towers for telecommunications be located within treed areas and be the telephone pole style, wooden structures that are much less visually obtrusive. The topography of this parcel and the adjoining parcel (between it and 164) enable this site to work for receiving and transmitting. The site of the tower is approximately 60 feet higher in elevation than the roadway of the interstate. The lay of the land is a rolling hillside gently sloping down from the tower to the road with no obstructions in at least a 100° radius. There are only two houses in the area. One belongs to the owner of the tower site and is at approximately the same elevation and directly west of the tower, across Rt. 708. The other house is unrelated to this application. It is also across Rt. 708, but sits at a much lower elevation than the tower and is very close to 164. There are many trees on the parcel with the dwelling and along both sides of 708 that serve to obstruct any possible view of the tower from the house. I:IDEP71Building&ZoninglReports\VA99-10.doc Staff Report VA 99-06 Page 3 April 6, 1999 APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary because: • Strict application of this ordinance would force CFW Wireless to move the proposed site outside the available tree cover thereby increasing the view of the wooden pole. • The location of this site within the trees was recommended by the Planning Department. Staff finds that the topographic necessity of the siting of a tower; the location of the roads that need to be served; and finally, the County policy of shorter wooden poles close to the roads, unreasonably restricts the use of this property. If the setback regulation is strictly applied, the special use permit will not be granted. 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • Due to the height of the pole, such hardship is not shared by other properties in the same zoning district and vicinity. Staff finds that this application is unique to this and two other known cases mentioned in this report and is due to the county's new policy on telecommunication facilities. There are no other current situations where the PC's and BOS'policy dictates use of a site that is within a required setback. 2. The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • The authorization of this variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property because of the existing trees that the site would be located. Moving the site to adhere to the ordinance would cause a substantial detriment to the adjacent property owners because of the exposed nature of the site. Staff agrees that the addition of the wooden pole style tower and its appurtenances will not change the character of the district. By keeping it in the treed area, the visual effect will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. I:IDEPTIBuilding&ZoninglReportslVA99-10.doc Staff Report VA 99-06 Page 4 April 6, 1999 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since all three criteria have been met, staff recommends approval. If the Board agrees, staff recommends the following conditions to minimize the visual effects and to insure that the tower stays within a treed area: 1. A tree conservation plan identifying all trees that have a diameter of six (6) inches or greater (measured at six (6) inches above ground) within 75 feet of the proposed tower site shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application for the tower. The plan should note any trees to be removed to make space for the tower and its appurtenances, including the driveway; 2. The cutting of trees within 75 feet of the tower shall be limited to dead trees and trees of less than six (6) inches in diameter measured at six (6) inches above ground, except those trees identified on the plan as necessary for the establishment of the tower; 3. Removal of tree limbs of the remaining trees shown on the plan is prohibited unless recommended by an arborist for the health of the tree or required by a public utility. I:IDEPT1Building&ZoninglReports1VA99-10.doc ALBEMARLE COUNTY 72 • / !31 29 7 9 \ ** E 64 8 122 , 11 ROUT *ir INTERSTATE 29B 'ooa 9B * 31 C 32, `\ 309 ** *** t 31D 1 1 12 A I I Ap}e 1 w� 14 \ 31C1 37 14C r0 \a9 30 Sop � 15 Greek IA r 30C \ - 3gp 3gC � 3� 14A2 / 30CI11 330 oawt 14AI / 3C ♦ ♦♦♦y�♦♦ CasroN Q � B 1 37B 14A ALBEMARLE COUNTY \—• 3 See ♦ 3CS11"i�Z�\ 33L 16 ♦ ��1 LANDFILL 2 7A A 36R 37 QpL� 160 1\ _ 36s F,P .70 1Y` % ♦' 360'..:` OQ 33I 16C (0 / �; 36r 37A 33H 16A 1 ♦I 36N V• �'`��' 36P 36H 168 17C -1727 E 34 18C I88 17 It 361 358,.:: 35A 17B - ♦ it "a 18D I'8E �♦ 36L 35 ) m ♦ 36F ;36 le 7p 2(D A 38 i9A !' 20B 2.7E1 /1 it 36G 19 p W 27 27G ♦ ♦ 36A K N ♦ \ 49 21H Rt. 63 a ) ♦ 36E 36D 36B 39A ♦ \ ♦ 39 , 21G l�Q 4� 36 �yEZ 39E ♦ ♦ j .-.39E4 21B 21 26A ♦ �6E,2 �; •• ♦ 39E3 AV 21C 27F 27F1 ' ♦ AV ♦ 39C1 ,♦AF, 39C2 AW ♦ ' � I g,ygG•' 21D C 44 21F � 39C7 B y96t \ yC -9 ♦ ��. 21E �1�♦ 4 , 39 (♦ \ : ,a 40 I♦ y� A�. ♦ � � 42A _ 41G 1 22 ` I. // / \/• \•• \ \ J`\ alp / 23 +� 4 }• 43 V ♦ m 25 1 42 41A atAz m 41A3Al A4 " i t1 ♦ P \ P 87 ' **** ENTRANCE CORRIDOR r4 IN SCALE FEET •oo o eao =00 to" _.� 1 SAMUEL MILLER AND ° W"ItE-#BALL. � - . f SEOTION 7' x ♦* MARWARE AGRICULTURAL S FORESTAL DISTIKT SCALE IN FEET 600 0 600 1200 SECTION 73