Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000035 Review Comments 2001-01-03 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: January 3, 2001 STAFF REPORT VA-2000-035 OWNER/APPLICANT: David C. Weber, owner/ Triton PCS, Inc., applicant TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 73/31 D ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: Lease area of 900 square feet within a 10.31-acre parcel LOCATION: East side of Rt. 708 approximately 200 ft south of its intersection with 1-64 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 21 feet is requested to allow construction of a wireless telecommunications facility 54 feet from the right-of-way of Rt. 708. The facility will consist of a 94-foot steel monopole with flush-mounted panel antennas, an equipment cabinet and the appurtenant electrical and telephone items necessary for operations. RELEVANT HISTORY: On this parcel, SP-1999-011 and VA-1999-010 were granted to allow a CFW tower; SP-2000-031 and VA-2000-020 were granted to allow an Alltel Communications, Inc tower; and, SP-2000-064 and this variance are pending to allow a Triton PCS tower. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This parcel meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. There is nothing about the size or shape or topography of this parcel to qualify it for a variance. There is no hardship as defined by the State Code. An unnecessary hardship only exists when the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or cause a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant. This parcel has two dwellings and one communications tower facility on it. It receives use value taxation for eight acres of agricultural use. A special use permit and variance for a second tower facility have been approved but no building permit has been requested to-date. Siting a tower fifty-four feet from Rt. 708 will be a convenience for the applicant, the tower company and the wireless phone users driving in the area. However, the Board of Supervisors has recognized that siting towers under current regulations is very difficult. On December 6, 2000 they adopted the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy which recommends many changes to the process and to the Zoning Ordinance. Once the Zoning Ordinance is amended, the Planning Commission will be able to establish setbacks for wireless communication facilities during their review process, so that variances will no longer be needed. However, it will be a few months before the Staff Report VA 00-35 Page 2 January 3, 2001 necessary Ordinance amendments are adopted. Therefore, we will continue to utilize existing zoning regulations. 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 this case, the parcel was selected partly due to its topographic features that are excellent for siting a tower. In addition, its location is adjacent to roads that currently have problems with mobile telephone coverage. The specific site on the parcel was selected because it meets the 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 treed area meeting the County's policy is within the front setback. (The existing and approved towers are in this same general area.) To require the setback to be maintained would cause the tower to be located in an open area where it would not meet the policy and therefore, not be approved. Therefore, the strict application of the terms of the ordinance restricts the use of the property for additional towers. However, the property currently enjoys reasonable use and we are required to utilize the existing zoning regulations. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary because: • Strict application of this ordinance would hinder the applicant's efforts to comply with the County's adopted Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy, which requires that wireless telecommunications facilities be screened from the view of surrounding properties and roadways. • The policy requires that the facility be as minimally visible as possible and be located within a grove of mature trees, at a height just over the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the facility. This proposed facility is sited within a grove of trees which minimizes the visibility of the structures from neighboring properties, Interstate 64, and from Rt. 708. • To be 75 feet from Rt. 708, the tower would have to be 21 feet to the east where there are no trees that would effectively screen the facility as required. Approval of a special permit at that location is unlikely, as it would likely be extremely visible. • The adopted policy recommends that the zoning ordinance be amended to allow the Planning Commission to establish setbacks for towers. Once the ordinance is amended, this type of request will not require any action by the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, at this time there has been no action to amend the ordinance. As a result, the applicant faces a hardship, in that it is required to comply with the policy that dictates that minimal visibility, but does not have the benefit of being able to look to the Planning Commission for relief from the setback requirements, as is expressly intended by the policy. I:IDEPT'Burldrng&ZonrnglStaff Reports1VA2000-35.doc Staff Report VA 00-35 Page 3 January 3, 2001 Although sympathetic with the problem of siting towers, staff finds this parcel has reasonable use with two existing dwellings, one existing tower and another tower already permitted. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • This hardship is not shared generally by other properties. This property has the unique attribute of having characteristics that make it uniquely suited for a wireless telecommunications facility under the requirements and limitations of the County's policy for such facilities, but these characteristics happen to be located less than 75 feet from a public right-of-way. The unique topography and location of the property makes it uniquely sited for a facility of the kind the policy requires—one that is located within a grove of mature trees, away from residences, and that will not require any tree clearing or removal. Staff finds that this site is unique in its topographic features, treed area and remoteness that are all ideal for siting towers in compliance with the County's adopted policy. 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: • Granting the variance will allow a facility that will be minimally visible from surrounding properties, which will limit or eliminate any substantial detriment to such properties. Locating the tower in a highly visible part of this property may have a substantial detriment, but granting the variance will enable the siting in a grove of mature trees that will effectively screen the majority of the facility. Moving the site to adhere to the ordinance could cause a substantial detriment to the adjacent property owners because of the exposed nature of the site. Staff agrees that the addition of the tower and its appurtenances in the selected area 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. The one existing tower blends very well and is noticeable only if you are looking for it. 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.IDEPT\Building&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA2000-35.doc Staff Report VA 00-35 Page 4 January 3, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since only two of the three criteria have been met, staff recommends denial. However, should the Board find cause to approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This approval is for the wireless communication site depicted in this file only. (Please note that the prior approval of SP 00-31 for the unbuilt tower has conditions that do not allow any tree removal within 200'of that tower and includes this entire site. However, since that SP may be abandoned, staff recommends the following condition.) 2. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures for all trees within 100 feet of the proposed tower location shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with tree conservation plan. Removal of tree limbs of the trees shown on the plan is rohibited unless recommended by an arborist for the health of the tree or require by a public utility. I.IDEPTTBudding&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-35 doc