Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300038 Correspondence 2013-08-24 Kent& Kathryn Sinclair 417 Key West Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 August 24,2013 TO: Albemarle County c/o Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 RE: SDP 201300038 Cingular Wireless/CV313A(Elledge Property) Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility—Tax Map Parcel 062E 1-00-0E-01100 Setback Violation Alert Dear Sarah: Studying the AT&T diagrams made available to him at the public meeting last week, one of the officers of a Key West community organization who is a real-estate professional has noticed an evident violation of the applicable setback requirements in the proposed location for the AT&T"facility." The following portion of the County code states that the setback for the cellular facility is equal to the height of the tower. 2. Setbacks. Notwithstanding section 4.10.3.1(b), the agent may authorize a facility to be located closer in distance than the height of the tower or other mounting structure to any lot line if the applicant obtains an easement or other recordable document showing agreement between the lot owners, acceptable to the county attorney addressing development on the part of the abutting parcel sharing the common lot line that is within the facility's fall zone (e.g., the setback of an eighty (80) foot-tall facility could be reduced to thirty(30) feet if an easement is established prohibiting development on the abutting lot within a fifty (50) foot fall zone). If the right-of-way for a public street is within the fall zone, the Virginia Department of Transportation shall be included in the staff review, in lieu of recording an easement or other document. Like all setbacks in Albemarle County, this setback requirement bars construction in the defined setback space. AT&T's proposed location in the backyard at the Elledge home assumes that the required setback from the lot line is equal with the "fall zone" if the tower keels over in a landslide, earthquake or Derecho. However, that's not what the ordinance says. The height of the pole defines the amount of setback for each installation, but the ordinance says that the "facility" cannot be located any closer to the lot line than that distance. The "facility" is not just the pole, as I believe was reiterated by AT&T representatives in the public meeting last week(indicating that they don't like to focus on the "tower" alone, and that the preferred concept is the "facility" as a whole). The "facility" includes the platform with its supporting pillars and concrete footers as well as the fencing and stairs bolted or welded to the platform. This is the ordinary and accepted meaning of the term "facility," and I'm sure you can document that this is how the County, AT&T and the FCC have used the term "facility." For example,page 2 of Ms. Long's June 24, 2013 letter which embodies the present critical slopes application expressly states: "The proposed facility consists of a monopole, a 180 square foot elevated equipment platform on four concrete footings and a new gravel road." Thus AT&T admits that the facility includes the platform and the proposed new gravel road. GRAVEL ROAD: I'm not conversant with the County's approach to road- construction setbacks, but perhaps you would be able to address whether—if the new gravel road they want to construct is admittedly part of the "facility"—the applicant would need some sort of variance to even build that new access road given the required setback for "facilities," since the new road is part of the "facility" and would be constructed to run very close to the Clem property line? EQUIPMENT PLATFORM: At a minimum, the setback requires that ALL parts of the planned metal transmission equipment platform and its attached appendages, footers and equipment in the"facility," must be more than 103'2" from the lot lines. On the Clem's side, it's at least 20+ feet too close. As presently designed, the entire platform structure violates the setback. If you require AT&T to move the site 20+ feet farther away from the Clem's home it may affect the septic field destruction on the Elledge property that has already been raised. Not only the tank, but also the distribution box and multiple down-hill sewage lines will be implicated. Moving the site farther away from the Clem property would also move the platform and tower location off the claimed pre-existing "natural" opening on the hillside, raising additional critical slopes disturbance, more tree loss, more paving for a longer access road that would be required, more scarring of the hillside, creating more runoff problems, and so on. We have been told for four years the proposed site had the advantage of being the only existing open location on the very steep hillside immediately behind the Elledge house. Tree inventory listings on the site drawings that have been filed show that—if the entire constructed complex is moved 20-some feet farther away from the Clem property—the tall tree AT&T has been using as the reference tree to justify the height of this tower will be considerably more than 25 feet from the tower pole. The tallest alternative reference tree at the new location is lower than the one the plans presently use. This will require a lower monopole height and no doubt raises other design issues. We ask that you address the AT&T setback violation(s) and deny their application. Very truly yours, '<vv. Kent&Kathryn Sinclair cc: Valerie Long, Esq., by electronic mail. Kent&Kathryn Sinclair 417 Key West Drive Charlottesville,VA 22911 August 21, 2013 TO: Albemarle County c/o Ms. Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing DELIVERED BY HAND Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 RE: SDP 201300038 Cingular Wireless/CV313A(Elledge Property) Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility-- Tax Map Parcel 062E 1-00-0E-01100 Dear Ms. Baldwin Thanks to you and Special Projects Director Bill Fritz for attending the AT&T public meeting Monday night to witness the outpouring of opposition and dismay in the Key West subdivision over the prospect of installation of this cell pole. Please accept this filing as a supplement to the Notice and Request for Review we filed July 17, 2013, which noted(¶2)that proper special exception notice requirements and procedures need to be followed in this process and made a number of other specific requests for needed steps in consideration of this application. A. We wanted to inquire whether the applicant has supplied you with a proper plat indicating the septic drain field location for the parcel,which County staff can verify, to provide assurance to the health authorities and the environmental authorities that the proposed excavations and construction will not be detrimental? We made this request in¶5 of the July 17 submission. B. Similarly,we wanted to learn whether the applicant has supplemented the 29-page drawing package filed in June, 2013,with appropriate cross-sectional diagrams and measurements for the most important and extensive excavation and slope disturbance of the entire project, the base for the 103 foot metal tower? We requested in¶6 of the July 17 filing that staff require appropriate engineering drawings to permit assessment of the impact of the proposed slope disturbance. We found it really odd that the diagrams include the large holes for the little feet of the platform,but nothing to give you and the engineering staff an idea of the scope of the excavation needed for the base of the large pole itself. C. Please advise if any filings have been made by the applicant, or steps taken by County staff, regarding the other paragraphs of the July 17 Notice we made. D. The present filing embodies our further request that you consider the earthquake safety of proceeding with construction on this slope. Last year FEMA found extensive damage to homes along this ridge where the slope behind 415 KWD is located, and the federal government approved many thousands of dollars of repair subsidies for broken masonry and other effects of the quake centered 20 miles from this location. We would like the opportunity to document that the damage that occurred along this ridge shows a special risk if this site is used, and it surely is a factor for the County to consider in assessing the wisdom of putting a tower half-way down this steep rocky slope. The County will have access to seismic data that we do not, concerning the frequency and severity of tremors in this area, and the KWD ridge is obviously susceptible to serious damage from such events. E. When this installation was proposed in 2009 the Senior Planner most knowledgeable about bio-diversity concerns wrote a January 30, 2009 e-mail: "That site is in an area noted as sensitive and important by our biodiversity committee." And on February 27, 2009 in a specific assessment sent to the Planner pulling together staff reviews of this proposal this assessment was stated: "This location has been identified as an important native-plant habitat by the Biodiversity Work Group. While this type of tower is by-right, it would not be appropriate to approve a critical slopes waiver in this location, as that would be damaging to the plant habitat. The best- preserved areas are those on the steeper slopes." These communications were contained in the prior file on this application the last time I reviewed it in the Planning Department offices, and I presume the originals remain available to you. We would like to request that your report indicate the manner in which these concerns have now been addressed. G. We also wanted to document what you and we discussed on the day of the "balloon test," which is that this tower is being placed substantially down the hill from other nearby properties. That seems,to us, a poor choice of location because the segments of the antennas facing the other properties along Key West drive (which ascends as you move along the roadway) will broadcast waves into the ground or the nearby houses. H. Based on the comments of County staff at the public meeting Monday night of this week, you understand the ordinances to preclude you from considering anything other than the visual impact of the tower, insofar as the tower portion of the application is concerned. We will need ask the Board of Supervisors to confirm that they believe themselves powerless to consider any other factors in that regard: that neither the zoning statutes in the Code of Virginia,nor the County's ordinances and policies permit the Board to consider the other impacts. I. With respect to the critical slopes waiver, Section 18-33.5 says that waivers are to be treated as special exception applications, and that the standards set forth in the specific waiver sections apply. Thus,while the "options" of 18-4.2.5 apply, all three of the mandatory requirements of 4.2.5(a)(3) also must be satisfied,which require all of the following,that the granting of the waiver will not be * detrimental to public health, safety or welfare * detrimental to orderly development of the area, or * detrimental to adjacent properties We also understand that under Section 18-33.8, in considering any special exception application the Board must find no substantial detriment to adjacent lots, and that the character of the district will not be changed by the proposed special use. Will you be making recommendations on whether the disruption of investment-backed expectations made over decades in a subdivision like Key West caused by the insertion of a cell- pole long after the character of the area was established, violates these concerns for public welfare, the orderly development of the area, detriment to adjacent properties, causing a change in the character of the area? Thank you. Very truly yours, Kent Sinclair cc: Valerie Long, Esq., counsel for the applicants, delivered this day by electronic mail. August 18,2013 Sarah D.Baldwin, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax sbaldwin@albemarle.org Ms.Baldwin: We knew nothing about cell towers before we began our research;but it was our assumption that all communities prohibited cell towers in residential areas and near schools. Given Albemarle County's reputation for environmental concerns,we were quite surprised last week to learn of a planned cell tower in our neighborhood,and on a critical slope adjacent to the Rivanna River flood plain. The FCC has received so many complaints about RF exposure in recent years that they have filed a Notice of Intent to reassess policy.The FCC invited scientists,medical professionals and others to submit information by September 3,2013. Within a few months,the FCC might revise their current policy relating to the public's health and safety;our County should show commensurate caution. We are not medical experts, scientists, lawyers, industry or political officials.We have tried to be fair in our reporting in this letter. References at the end are a sampling of information that formed our opinions regarding the proposed wireless service facility for 415 Key West Drive. THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE CELL TOWER SITE Two cell tower rumors have flourished in our community: the first-the proposal was permanently defeated in the VA Supreme Court—was dashed on August 7. It was then that the second rumor started: Despite the objections of many Key West citizens,AT&T is still active in its plans to construct a tower associated with radio frequency--electromagnetic radiation—and this is a"done deal." Community citizens also feel that we were not afforded notices in 2009,and again this year,that most citizens of the Commonwealth are provided as a courtesy when base station placements are being considered. IS KEY WEST UNIQUE IN THAT A CELL SITE IS PLANNED DIRECTLY INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD? This is one of our most alarming discoveries.We inquired about this with the County. It appears that Key West is distinct. If the tower is constructed,evidently it will be the first one so close to residential housing. We were told that two other neighborhoods MIGHT have towers: one neighborhood community leader said that he knows of no tower within his neighborhood;the other,that their tower is in a remote corner of their subdivision,and close to Highway 29. The Key West and Cedar Hills neighborhoods,with the accompanying Key West Swim and Tennis Club and conservation easements are unique and should be protected. COULD ANY CELL SITE POSE HEALTH DANGERS? Yes, it could.There have been numerous studies in recent years that suggest these towers,which emit "radio frequency radiation,"could elevate the risk of health problems from chronic exposure:possibly elevated cancer rates;DNA breakdown;trouble with memory,headaches,nausea,dizziness, depression, sleep disturbances,hypertension, etc. Some of the research indicates that illnesses were not • noticeable at first;but,after five years they became more evident(the problem of"chronic"exposure). The FCC is willing to review these findings in September,and to rethink their emission standards. IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON HEALTH EFFECTS CONCLUSIVE? Research is still in progress;but many studies that are both lab-based and based on the study of large populations(1000 people or more)suggest cause for concern. Among the respected groups collecting research,the World Health Organization and the Biolnitiative 2012 have drawn worldwide attention to the dangers. Researchers have expressed particular concern about populations such as children,the elderly, and women(some evidence indicates women may be more vulnerable). Consequently,these scientists urge caution in locating cell sites—especially for the health of adults susceptible to radiation risks(pregnant women and the elderly,for example),those in permanent worksites, and for children. Some who have examined the evidence indicate that the current situation may be analogous to the post- World War II era when data emerged about the dangers of smoking. We all know how long it took for the tobacco industry and society to make a conclusive judgment about these risks.At least smoking-with its acknowledged risks-is a matter of individual choice,and thus,voluntary;tower base stations expose many people...involuntarily and 24/7. DOES IT MATTER WHERE THE CELL SITE IS PLACED? There have been national and international studies on this question. Some studies find particular elevated risk within 1500 feet of the towers with chronic exposure(i.e.,over long periods). These studies report that it has become an internationally-recognized precautionary measure for localities not to site cell towers within 1500 feet of a school,playground, or day care center. Fifteen hundred feet is the length of five football fields in each direction from the tower; a distance encompassing many Key West homes and recreational areas. IS THERE PARTICLAR RISK FOR THE KEY WEST CLUB AND SURROUNDING RECREATIONAL AREAS? The Key West Swim and Tennis Club(known as the Key West Club)and environs encompass 40.9 acres and are a separate non-profit entity from the Key West Cedar Hills HOA.With full membership dues, patrons enjoy all of the swim club facilities;with partial dues(known as Trail Memberships)individuals may walk their dogs or otherwise enjoy the pathways and areas leading through the club site,continuing to the river,woods,and field spaces. Seasonal Trail Memberships are also available. These three membership options are open to everyone,and their guests, in the metropolitan area and beyond. Some swim club members reside as far away as Louisa County. Who knows the number of people—from all corners of the Commonwealth—contained within the total membership options? The Key West Club offers tennis and swimming lessons for all ages,and has swim meets. It has hosted Boys Clubs' overnight events,birthday parties and community open houses for the holidays. The swim and tennis areas are well within the cautionary 1500-foot area mentioned above. Within about 200 feet of the proposed cell tower location,UVA biology classes examine one of Virginia's unique sites for indigenous wildflowers. The Sacagawea Garden Club offers guided wildflower tours of this area. Several Virginia Wildlife covers were taken in this area. [Afterall,the primary road through Key West is named Wild Flower Drive.] The Gray/Keese estate has donated another 48.82 acres of this beautiful area to the Virginia conservation easement. Bikers,runners,and hikers use all of the trails(some within 200 feet of the proposed tower site)and fields. A walk in the spring or fall through the field will become a memory. Cross-country skiing is an • out-of-body experience. Kayak and canoe enthusiasts have two sites to stop and swim in the Rivanna, picnic, or just take in the ambiance of this piece of wilderness,less than three miles from downtown Charlottesville.Wade fishing in the summer in an old pair of sneakers could even yield you an 81b bass! We offer a total of 89.72 land acres,plus a section of the Rivanna River,to citizens of the Commonwealth and their guests.The club and wilderness amenities are all within the borders of this small community in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Please allow us to continue to offer this pristine,park-like setting. Oh yes! There is wireless coverage within this wildlife area! HAVE COMMUNITIES OPPOSED TOWERS ON THE BASIS OF THE DANGERS TO CHILDREN AND OTHER VULNERABLE CITIZENS? Yes.There have been several efforts in recent years,especially as more information has come to light. The Georgia legislature attempted to ban such towers on school property.Baltimore considered a ban on towers in recreation areas and near facilities that care for children.Hempstead,NY,challenged the construction of towers near schools,and Asheville,NC managed to ban cell sites in some neighborhoods. Mr. Bill Fritz,Albemarle County's Chief of Projects,said that some communities in Virginia prohibit cell towers in residential areas and near schools. WILL CONGRESS OR THE FCC CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO BLOCK COMMUNITIES WITH HEALTH OR OTHER ISSUES? Ms.Baldwin,we discussed previously that some members of Congress are trying to return power to communities on health issues; others are trying to forever remove decision-making from communities by making towers an interstate issue. The FCC has received numerous complaints about health matters in recent years—so many, in fact,the FCC filed a Notice of Intent to reassess policy. The agency invited scientists,medical professionals and others to submit information by September 3,2013.After careful study of those submissions,the FCC will reassess its current policy with regard to the public's health and safety. Several scientists maintain that the FCC 1996 standards are antiquated:based on thermal effects,without adequate attention to non-thermal radiation. They also say that the FCC standards are too lenient concerning RF radiation(regulatory study of 235 countries). Switzerland imposes the most stringent limits in the world at places of sensitive use: apartment buildings, schools,hospitals,permanent workplaces and children's playgrounds. Key West includes"places of sensitive use"such as children's playgrounds,permanent workplaces,and a unique park-like community of outstanding recreational areas and approximately 350 residential homes. COULD TOWERS POSE DANGERS TO WILDLIFE? Yes. Some state Audubon Society chapters, such as in NY and CT,have strongly opposed towers in state parks. Many studies have shown that cell towers cause millions of migratory bird deaths nationwide each year, as well as problems for bats,bees,butterflies,and other insects.The proposed Key West tower would affect the Key West Cedar Hills bird migratory flyway. The Rivanna River flood plain is contiguous to this area. The flood plain also serves as a refuge for wildlife. WHAT ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES? The New York Times reports that a lawyer involved in the matter estimated property values drop an average of 4-10%when a tower is placed in a neighborhood. Studies by Dr. Sandy Bond,an international appraisal expert,have been cited by the governing bodies in Canada and New Zealand as reasons for changes in policy. She has presented her findings at several international real estate conferences. • HOW COULD THIS BASE STATION SITE AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES? TREES WILL HIDE THE TOWER,WON'T THEY? Not entirely.The proposed tower will be taller than surrounding trees.The facility will consist of a 103 foot steel monopole,a 180 square foot elevated equipment platform on four concrete footings, and a new paved road. The construction for the cell tower and its accompanying generator with floodlights will disturb an area of 2,931 square feet. The tower and surrounding areas will obstruct views,and will be visible. According to some,AT&T can upgrade this tower at any time: increasing tower dimensions by over 20 feet in all directions,and adding more antennae. Many cell towers in Albemarle County have recently been upgraded in this manner. IS IT WISE FOR AT&T TO MOVE AHEAD WITH CONSTRUCTION IN KEY WEST? The FCC may conclude soon that the dangers to health are troubling and new rules need to go into effect. Why would AT&T and area officials knowingly proceed when Key West citizens' safety and well-being are in the balance? We are asking AT&T: Why take a chance? We've been told that AT&T software is proprietary;therefore,they must build new towers rather than co- locate. We should make it clear that we are not opposing all such towers. We recognize and value the improvement of wireless service in the County. Instead,we are asking that AT&T find a location outside of our neighborhood and at a distance from our neighborhood amenities(especially the pool). Key West is a unique suburban neighborhood,even though, in terms of formal defmition, it is categorized as a rural area(with many building lots greater than half an acre).We ask: Has AT&T examined alternate areas for its proposed tower?Which other areas in eastern Albemarle County would serve its needs— areas that are not directly in a neighborhood of numerous homes? The Key West and Cedar Hills neighborhoods, its accompanying Key West Swim and Tennis Club and conservation easements, are unique and should be protected. We request that the wireless service facility be placed outside of our neighborhood. Respectfully, John and Karen Crosby 3 Randolph Court A SAMPLING OF THE MANY RECENT SCIENTIFIC, MEDICAL AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES THAT HAVE DISCOVERED A DISTURBING HEALTH IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH THE TOWERS. EACH BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS CONTAINS KEY WORDS FROM THE ABSTRACT OR THE RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS: THIS ARTICLE SUMMARIZES DIVERSE RESEARCH. IT CONCLUDES, NOTING WHAT THE RESEARCHERS FINDS"STRIKING:" "IN PARTICULAR,THE INCREASING PREVALENCE OF ADVERSE NEUROBEHAVIORAL SYMPTOMS OR CANCER IN POPULATIONS LIVINMG AT DISTANCES LESS THAN 500 METERS[ABOUT 1500 FEET1 FROM THE BASE STATIONS FOUND IN 80%OF THE AVAILABLE STUDIES."THAT INDICATES CURRENT STANDARDS FOR MEASUREMENT OF RADIATION'S EFFECTS MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE. DANGERS MAY BE GREATEST FOR THOSE LIVING WITHIN 1500 FEET OF A TOWER. http://www.brain-surgery.us/Khurana et al IJOEH-Base Station RV.pdf THIS FRENCH STUDY OF PEOPLE LIVING NEAR THE BASE STATIONS FINDS"WOMEN SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN MEN COMPLAINED OF HEADACHES, NAUSEA, LOSS OF APPETITE,SLEEP DISRUPTION, DEPRESSION, DISCOMFORT AND VISUAL DISRUPTION." http://www.next-up.org/pdf/RogerSantiniStudyHeealthPeopleLivingMobilePhoneBaseStations2002.pdf ISRAELI STUDY: IT CONCLUDES: "THIS STUDY INDICATES AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INCREASED INCIDENCE OF CANCER AND LIVING IN PROXIMITY TO A CELL PHONE TRANSMITTER STATION." http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050207 israel.pdf A REPORT OF RESEARCH FINDS THAT TEN OF FOURTEEN SCIENTIFIC INVESTGATIONS REVIEWED BY SCIENTIFIC PROFESSIONALS("PEER REVIEWED") FOUND POTENTIAL EFFECTS http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/docs/10%20out%20of%2014%20peer- reviewed%20studies%20on%20base%20stations.pdf A REPORT FINDS PEOPLE EXPOSED APPEARED TO BE AT SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER RISK OF HEADACHESL MEMORY CHANGES, DIZZINESS,TREMORS,DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS AND SLEEP DISORDERS. http://www.chronicexposure.org/basestations.html Health and Policy: The World Health Organization and the International Association for Research on Cancer Monograph report(480 pages)published in 2013,was prepared by 30 scientists from 14 countries.The World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system.It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters,shaping the health research agenda,setting norms and standards,articulating evidence-based policy options,providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends. This is the most significant government health report published on the health risks of mobile phone radiation. http://www.prlog.org/12125230-mo st-si gni ficant-go vernment-health-report-on-mobile-phone-radiation-ever- published.html The Biolnitiative 2012 Report(1479 pages)was prepared by 29 authors from ten countries:ten holding medical degrees(MDs),21 PhDs,and three MSCs,MAs or MPHs.This report was done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,and includes 1800 new studies. Precisely because of this,the Biolnitiative Report presents a solid scientific and public health policy assessment that is evidence-based. http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/do-we-know-enough-to-take-action/ Summary of diverse research,noting"striking"findings:"In particular,the increasing prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances less than 500 meters(about 1500 feet)from the base stations found in 80%of the available studies." Current standards for measurement of radiation's effects may not be adequate. Dangers may be greatest for those living within 1500 feet of a tower. http:'www.brain-surgery us/Khurana et al 1JOEI-I-Base_ Station RV.pdf This French study of people living near the base stations finds"Women significantly more than men complained of headaches,nausea,loss of appetite,sleep disruption,depression,discomfort,and visual disruption." http://www.next-up org/pdf%RogerSautaniStudvFleealthPeopleLivtngMobtlePhoneBaseStattons2002.pdf Israeli study indicates:"...an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell phone transmitter station." http./'www.powerwatc.h.or;.uk;news/20050207 rsrael.pdi Israeli Ministry of Communications,A Global Survey and Comparison of Different Regulatory Approaches: http://www.moc.gov.il/sip_storage/FILES/6/1846.pdf A report of research finds that ten of 14 scientific investigations reviewed by scientific professionals("peer reviewed")found potential effects biltrAwww_tnAg:Victin) ,Ptg(Ig5.f.M.cc.5/Si.Qcs'Ie.20out%30Q.ft;'2914°%2Q.peer- reviewed°2Ostudies �''Oon°o20base° 20stationspdf People exposed appear to be at significantly greater risk of headaches,memory changes, dizziness,tremors, depressive symptoms and sleep disorders http//www chronicexposure org/basestations.html Web sites concerning the FCC's initiative to collect scientific studies on radiation: http Pwww.rfradcomments org/index.html http Pwww s o gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-06-04/pdf/2013-12713 pdf Fact Sheet on Cell Tower Health Studies: http://www.emrpolicy.org/science/research/fact sheet.htm FCC preview,FCC Review of RF Exposure Policies: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-review-rf-exposure-policies Letter to the FCC,Susan Brinchman,Center for Electrosmog Prevention: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/123853204?access key=key-2gercl2zwvr7xznoepo3&allow share=true Wildlife: United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,communications towers kill an estimated 4-5 million migratory birds per year,tower guidance: http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/com tow_guidelines.pdf From the FCC,to reduce risk to migratory birds,Environmental Notification Process for the Registration of Antenna Structures—Overview:http://www.fcc.gov/help/environmental-notification-process-registration-antenna-structures- overview Keep Cell Towers Out of State Parks,Connecticut Audubon Society:http://www.ctaudubon.org/2012/04/keep-cell- towers-out-of-state-parks/ Cell Towers and Wildlife,a conservation fact sheet of the Bedford Audubon Society:http://www.bedfordaudubon.org/conserv/cel ltowerfacts.pdf Property Values: The NY Times reports that property values drop an average of 4-10%depending on size and proximity of the cell tower:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1376079141- rAL+Pikkhvg9BZVaU l OCwg Summary of studies,declines in property values up to more than 20%:http://wvvw.lbknews.com/inprint/pdfs/100711P5.pdf The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods:http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/09/Property-devaluation-cell-towers.-pdf.pdf Article about tower upgrades being approved in Albemarle County:http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/news/article/593 8-cell-tower-review/ Kent&Kathryn Sinclair 417 Key West Drive Charlottesville,VA 22911 July 17, 2013 TO: Albemarle County c/o Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing DELIVERED BY HAND Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 RE: SDP 201300038 Cingular Wireless/CV313A(Elledge Property) Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility-- Tax Map Parcel 06281-00-0E-01100 NOTICE & REQUEST FOR REVIEW 1. We own property at 417 Key West Drive,directly abutting the above-listed applicant parcel. 2. We request that the proper notice procedure, including advertising and sign posting, and the community meeting and public hearing process applicable to special use permits,be complied with in this application. 3. We hereby formally Request Review of the critical slopes waiver application associated with this project by the County offices/bodies authorized by state law and/or County Ordinance to conduct such review. 4. We hereby request, further,that the entire application for siting and construction of this tower, and the critical slopes waiver application associated with this project, be considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at a public hearing. 5. We request that the applicant be required to supply, and the County staff to verify, a proper plat indicating the septic drain field location for the applicant parcel,to provide assurance to the health authorities and the environmental authorities that the proposed excavations and construction will not be detrimental. 6. Since no sheet of the applicant's package filed in June, 2013, contains any cross- sectional diagram and/or measurements for the most important and extensive excavation and slope disturbance of the entire project, the base for the 103 foot metal tower,we request that staff require appropriate engineering drawings to permit assessment of the impact of the proposed slope disturbance. 7. Since the critical slopes ordinance in 4.2.3(b)requires staff to consider the scope of the "land disturbing activity to establish" the proposed constructed roadway and platform and tower,we request that the staff require engineering drawings showing the additional critical slope square footage that will be disturbed during the moving and operation of heavy equipment, excavation, and construction,not just the "final footprint" of the construction. 8. We request, in accord with the applicant's representation on Sheet A-0(2 of 29),that the County require by express condition that no blasting or explosive techniques be used in this project. We further request that the applicant be required to notify specified County staff personnel, and abutting landowners, if at any point in the construction process,jack- hammering of bedrock will need to be employed in the excavation that is undertaken. 9. We request that General Note 2 on sheet A-9 (12 of 29)be modified to require as an express condition that if any contractor or subcontractor engaged by the applicant determines that the project cannot be constructed in accord with the plan submitted, County Planning Staff shall be promptly notified and a new site plan and construction application shall be required to be filed. Very truly yours, • Kent inclair cc: Valerie Long,Esq., counsel for the applicants, delivered this day by electronic mail.