Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000015 Review Comments 2000-07-18 IS+\t/0 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: July 18, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-00-15 40 ?c. 1 OWNER/APPLICANT: Ray A. Graham, Ill, owner; and, American Tower for Triton PCS TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07900-00-00-01000 (part) ZONING: RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 40' x 40' lease area within approximately 25 acres of an 866.071 acre parcel LOCATION: The site is totally bounded by Interstate 64, Rt. 250 and Rt. 22 at Shadwell. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, Rural Areas district, which requires a front setback of 75 feet on a thoroughfare state road. A variance of 55 feet is requested to , allow construction of a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a tower, an equipment cabinet and smaller accessory items. The fifty-foot wooden pole tower is proposed to be 20 feet from the property line adjoining 164 while the other structures will be farther back but within the 40' x 40' lease area. [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: SP 93-32 attempted to locate a retail antique, gifts, and crafts complex on this same portion of the parcel, but was deferred indefinitely. SP-00-18 is pending to allow another tower on the property if this variance is approved. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Case law in Virginia dictates that we view this portion of parcel 10 as an independent parcel due to its separation from the remainder of the acreage by State- or Federal- maintained roads. This portion of the parcel meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. There is Variance Report, VA 00-15 2 July 18, 2000 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. Siting a tower twenty 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 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. t�U✓) , e tax w 11o5 2 ot.42.1 tv , 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 establish setbacks to locate wireless communication facilities. This type of request as proposed would not require any action of the Board of Zoning Appeals. On this portion of the larger parcel there are no improvements, but this acreage is included in the total that receives use value taxation for agricultural and forestal uses. With these uses 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 because: • The actual distance of the proposed facility from the roadbed exceeds the height of the tower; • Siting farther back would hinder the applicant's efforts to shield the facility from view; • Siting farther back would significantly diminish the facility's effectiveness; • To provide coverage on 164, the tower must be relatively close to the road; and, • To minimize the visibility, the site must be within a grove of trees; 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. I:IDEPT\Building&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA2000-15 doc l w 1 `dr„ "c:N \ \ s � \ �1 V 1�, Variance Report, VA 00-15 3 July 18, 2000 Uniqueness of Hardship - ' The applicant notes: • The property is uniquely sited at the top of a hill in a small clearing surrounded by trees and vegetation on three sides, thus allowing a shorter tower to be effective and remain shielded; • There are no existing structures between the lot line and the proposed location that would be impacted by granting the variance. 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 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 Cli The applicant offers: 0(112fr)())11:°114ii • There are no other structures on adjacent properties that would be impacted; • The adjacent property is all owned by VDOT; and, v U " v)I • Dense vegetation and a steep grade leading down to the roadbed surround the site. ,V2, '' �S� Staff finds that locating a tower on this particular parcel may change the character of the t01-4-1-4-- surrounding rural historic district, if it is at all visible. The variance may make it easier itAt for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to permit a tower in an area that "" tr U1( will insure the least possible visibility. 3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such I,l,o ,.- variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that C� 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 775 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. I:IDEPT1Building&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-15.doc Variance Report, VA 00-15 4 July 18, 2000 3. The cutting of trees within 75 fe ower 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. I:IDEPT18uilding&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-15.doc STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: July 18, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-00-15 OWNER/APPLICANT: Ray A. Graham, Ill, owner; and, American Tower for Triton PCS TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07900-00-00-01000 (part) ZONING: RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 40' x 40' lease area within approximately 25 acres of an 866.071 acre parcel LOCATION: The site is totally bounded by Interstate 64, Rt. 250 and Rt. 22 at Shadwell. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, Rural Areas district, which requires a front setback of 75 feet on a thoroughfare state road. A variance of 55 feet is requested to allow construction of a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a tower, an equipment cabinet and smaller accessory items. The fifty-foot wooden pole tower is proposed to be 20 feet from the property line adjoining 164 while the other structures will be farther back but within the 40' x 40' lease area. [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: SP 93-32 attempted to locate a retail antique, gifts, and crafts complex on this same portion of the parcel, but was deferred indefinitely. SP-00-18 is pending to allow another tower on the property if this variance is approved. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Case law in Virginia dictates that we view this portion of parcel 10 as an independent parcel due to its separation from the remainder of the acreage by State- or Federal- maintained roads. This portion of the parcel meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. There is • Variance Report, VA 00-15 2 July 18, 2000 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. Siting a tower twenty 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 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 establish setbacks to locate wireless communication facilities. This type of request as proposed would not require any action of the Board of Zoning Appeals. On this portion of the larger parcel there are no improvements, but this acreage is included in the total that receives use value taxation for agricultural and forestal uses. With these uses 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 because: • The actual distance of the proposed facility from the roadbed exceeds the height of the tower; • Siting farther back would hinder the applicant's efforts to shield the facility from view; • Siting farther back would significantly diminish the facility's effectiveness; • To provide coverage on 164, the tower must be relatively close to the road; and, • To minimize the visibility, the site must be within a grove of trees; 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. 1.1DEPTIBuilding&Zoning\StaffReports\VA2000-15.doc Variance Report, VA 00-15 3 July 18, 2000 Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • The property is uniquely sited at the top of a hill in a small clearing surrounded by trees and vegetation on three sides, thus allowing a shorter tower to be effective and remain shielded; • There are no existing structures between the lot line and the proposed location that would be impacted by granting the variance. 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 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: • There are no other structures on adjacent properties that would be impacted; • The adjacent property is all owned by VDOT; and, • Dense vegetation and a steep grade leading down to the roadbed surround the site. Staff finds that locating a tower on this particular parcel may change the character of the surrounding rural historic district, if it is at all visible. 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. v 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 N.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. I.1DEP71Buildrng&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-15.doc Variance Report, VA 00-15 4 July 18, 2000 3. The cutting of trees within 75 feet of both the existing an. 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. • I:IDEPT\Building&Zoning\Staff ReportslVA2000-15.doc 800 o Or 600 i' \ O • \ 500 •� • \ 11 500 c N, II s 1 11 460 n /'u0 I \\ 11 \ II / I 440 49/ X n p0 4 0 424 --- u •o \\o .\ !/ I .� • ��1 424aft \\ 'v ❑ 1% o � q n3oA� 4 C� R v / 1 •• e 300 - —'- ' G�%'� - O Q 6 • H ram. 71 / W 9 I O I . • -- 11 \ I �/ '� � • /ram\ 41 00 I •29 /// " • / u A v 3 5 • �'�� 4�0 w0 �r� � vvvv 0 • o — �� 1 • SCALE IN FEET 600 0 600 1200 SECTION 79