Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000018 Review Comments 2000-07-18 STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd PUBLIC HEARING: July 18, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-2000-18 OWNER/APPLICANT: Alltel Communications, applicant / Roger W. and Patricia Patterson, owner TAX MAP/PARCEL: 71/31J (191 Patterson Mill Road) ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: Lease area of 1 ,200 square feet within a 14.195 acre parcel LOCATION: The property is located between the East side of Patterson Mill Road and Interstate 64 approximately 3/4 miles South of the intersection with Route 250. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 75 foot front setback from a thoroughfare public road. A variance of 66 feet is requested to allow construction of a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 90 foot wooden pole and accessory equipment. The pole is proposed 9 feet from the right of way of 164. [In addition to the underlying zoning district setbacks, Section 4.10.3.1 requires that a tower be setback a distance equal to its height. Although the Board of Zoning appeals can reduce the minimum primary structure setbacks required under Section 10.4, the additional setback required based on the height of the tower under Section 4.10.3.1 must be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission. Should the PC fail to approve that reduction, the applicant could then choose to request a variance from that section. It will be reviewed as part of the special permit application. This is not before the BZA presently.] RELEVANT HISTORY: None PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This 14.195 acre parcel contains a dwelling and is also used for agricultural purposes. The parcel meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. There is nothing about the size, shape or topography of this parcel to qualify it for a variance. There is no hardship as defined by the Code of Virginia. Siting a tower 9 feet from 164 will be a convenience for the applicant. The Board of Supervisors has recognized that siting towers is very difficult under current regulations. At their direction and with assistance from consultants, staff has worked to draft the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. The Planning Commission has considered this draft at work sessions, has conducted a public hearing on the policy and has offered recommendations. A revised document incorporating those recommendations will be presented for approval to the Planning Commission on July 18, 2000. Once the Variance Report, VA 2000-18 2 July 18, 2000 Commission has completed its review of the policy, they will pass it on to the Board of Supervisors. The public hearing for adoption has not been scheduled at this time, but is imminent. If the manual is adopted as it is currently written, this type of tower would be a Tier II tower (out of three tiers) and would require Planning Commission approval, but not a special permit from the Board of Supervisors. The proposed policy enables the Planning Commission to approve modifications of setbacks to locate wireless communication facilities. This request would not require any action of the Board of Zoning Appeals. This acreage receives use value taxation for agricultural and forestal uses. With these and the availability of by-right residential uses, there is neither hardship approaching confiscation nor any unreasonable restriction of uses. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary: Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The placement of the tower is carefully selected so the tower can provide adequate coverage while still concealed among the trees. Movement of the facility would either create a situation of inadequate coverage or would make the tower more visible. The proposed site allows for adequate coverage and little visibility while remaining faithful to the objectives of the setback ordinance. As stated, staff acknowledges that siting towers in Albemarle County under our current ordinance is difficult. However, staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. Reasonable use already exists on the property 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: Such hardship is not shared generally among other properties in the vicinity. The hardship is created as the result of balancing adequate telecommunications coverage and low visibility. Such considerations are not applicable to most other uses, but are unique to telecommunications facilities. The proposed facility satisfies both conditions while preventing undue crowding and minimizing safety concerns Staff agrees that tower siting has its own unique hardships, however, the hardship is one of the use—telecommunications towers—not of the parcel. There is no hardship I:IDEPTIBwlding&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-18 Patterson Tower.doc Variance Report, VA 2000-18 3 July 18, 2000 related to the land that could be unique. This parcel has plenty of area available for a variety of uses without a variance. All rural area properties must abide by the setbacks of section 10.4. 2. The applicant has not 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: Authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the character of the district. In fact, authorization of the variance is the best way to prevent detriment in that regard. Without authorization of the variance, the facility would have to be located in an area where it would be more visible, and therefore have a more substantial impact on its surroundings. As it is proposed, the facility has little impact because of its minimal visibility among the trees. Staff finds that locating a tower on this particular parcel in the area noted will not change the character of the district if the surrounding trees are protected. The variance may make it easier for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to permit a tower in an area that will insure the least possible visibility. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since only one of the three criteria has been met, staff recommends denial. However, should the Board find cause to approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This variance is for the facility described in this file only. Any modification will require new variance review. 2. 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. 3. The cutting of trees within 75 feet of both the existing and the new 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 plans as necessary for the establishment of the towers; 4. Removal of tree limbs of the remaining trees shown on either plan is prohibited unless recommended by an arborist for the health of the tree or required by a public utility. 1:IDEPT18udding&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-18 Patterson Tower.doc 7/ 7 4 0 L / :s0.1‘t 1 EXIST. JNT���T ROUTE 250 - I-64 SITE ` O D ICK JO 24" RED OAK �' U �, VARIABLE �o� R9 EBL No. 24761 /W �' _ EXIST. 15" ��p � �_� w� EXIST. �. PROPOSED TWIN OAK / ��S 1 VDOT R/W LINE M WOODS LINE EXIST. `SIGNAL E N _ 20" OAK / / EXIST. -_--__ ' VDOT R/W FENCE N�.1 `''_--._ PROPOSED 2.63' DIA. ' - _�_ a1. _ 7/\__ MONOPOLE ' •_ EXISTING FENCE `t . `o' _- _ -_ :' NOTE: EXISTING WOODS 1 -'- - __ /' ARE MATURE WITH AN ` ! '�'`- _ __ AVERAGE TREE HEIGHT OF 80't r3 7�,. • ' PROPOSED 8' PROPOSED 30' x 40' v' • • PROPOSED 'ALLTEL ; CHAIN LINK FENCEC ALLTEL LEASE AREA ; CABINET W/ WIRE 1200 sq. ft. ' 0.0275 AC. ' = EXIST. 15" OAK I I r + PROPOSED4.` x 8' r a � ••GENERATOR PAD EXIST. 15" IVtAPLE r - , ' • GRAVEL ��4- 1-_= • ENTIRE- 'O - _ SITE , �L • LNG G��OGP�O r_ F- ,_- _., ' . ,'ASO ��R 1 PROPOSED 14' GATE �� • • • 1 . ss . .. . PROPOSED 10' GRAVEL DR1VE i • \ ©PROPOSED TIMMONS ' WOODS LINE • ENGIAIEERS * ARCHITECTS * SURVEYORS PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE 4411 CROSSINGS BLVD. PRINCE GEORGE, VIRGINIA 23875-1455 TELEPHONE: (804) 458-8685 FAX: (804) 751-0798 DATE: 4-3-2000 SCALE: r _ to' DRAWN BY: BVC ..,,, VA et 2 ► 1g STAKING PLAN CHECKED BY:KLS CALC. CHK.: JOB NO.. 65300 SHEET 3 OF 3 EXHIBITS PRESENTED TO (�n � n COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SCALE IN FEET 600 0 600 1200 SECTION 71