HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB202200058 Correspondence 2022-07-13FLORA
ATTAT LAW PETTIT
AT LAW
Via Email
mmaliszewski@albemarle.org
Nancy R Schlichting
Attorney at Iaw
Direct: (434) 220-61o8
nrs(@fplegal.com
July 12, 2022
Margaret Maliszewski, County Staff Liaison to Architectural Review Board
Albemarle County Community Development
401 Mchitire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ARB2022-58: Scrubv Verizon Advisory Review
Dear Ms. Maliszewski:
Phone: (434) 979-1400
Fax: (434) 977-5109
53o East Main Street
P.O. Box 2057
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
As you may be aware, this Firm represents Hope Burghardt who owns Mirador Farm,
which is located in the Greenwood -Afton Rural Historic District. We understand the Architectural
Review Board (the "ARB") will conduct an advisory review of ARB-2022-58 during their
upcoming meeting on July 18, 2022. Thank you for the time and thought you put in to preparing
your Architectural Review Board Staff Report. We are writing to provide additional input
regarding Verizon's latest application for a special use permit for the proposed personal wireless
service facility (the "Tower").
From your Staff Report, we understand the ARB will determine three issues on July 18:
(i) whether the ground equipment and base station are screened to eliminate visibility from the I-
64 Entrance Corridor; (ii) whether the proposed location will sufficiently minimize the visibility
of the monopole from the I-64 Entrance Corridor; and (iii) whether a consistent 18" standoff will
not create significant additional negative visual impact as viewed from the I-64 Entrance Corridor.
My client has several concerns about the Tower, some of which were included in the Staff
Report. The following points are relevant to the ARB' S advisory review:
1. Height of Monopole
The monopole is more than fifty feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of the
monopole.
2. Screening and Siting to Maximize Visibility — Zoning Ordinance Sec. 5.1.40(b)(6),
5.1.40(c)(6)
We attended the balloon test held on June 15, 2022. From the balloon test and a review of
the photo -simulations provided by Verizon, it is apparent that the Tower site is not sited to
minimize visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, including but not limited to I-64 East
w Iplegalxom
Charlottesville I Harrisonburg
Margaret Maliszewski, County Staff Liaison to Architectural Review Board
Albemarle County Community Development
July 12, 2022
Page 2
and I-64 West. The Tower is also visible from resources specifically identified for
protection in deeds of easement, including but not limited to Mirador Farm. The view of
the Tower in the Greenwood -Afton Rural Historic District would be clear and skylit.
We appreciate the inclusion of the photo -simulations in your Staff Report. One photo -
simulation was inadvertently let out, so it is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In addition, a
few photographs taken by my client's photographer are attached as a composite as Exhibit
B. These photographs show the visibility of the proposed Tower as seen from the
Greenwood Station Road overpass at I-64.
3. Trees — Zoning Ordinance Sec. 5.1.40(a)(4)(f)
Page Z-2 of the site plan fails to identify tree species and does not include an existing
101' tree in the tree inventory. Additionally, Verizon does not identify all the trees they
rely on to provide screening of the facility, as is required.
4. Design — Zoning Ordinance Sec. 5.1.40(a)(4)(c)
In the project description, Verizon states, "...the site will be upgradeable to 5G CBAND
service with just a small equipment change at the time of the tower installation." The site
plan fails to include the configuration of the proposed equipment for 5G CBAND service.
We are not familiar with how it will affect the optics.
5. Addition of Antennas - Zoning Ordinance Sec. 5.1.40(a)(7)
In the project description, Verizon states, "...the site will be upgradeable to 5G CBAND
service with just a small equipment change at the time of the tower installation." The site
plan does not identify the equipment needed for Verizon to provide 5G CBAND service.
Again, we are not familiar with how it will affect the optics.
6. Outdoor Lighting —Zoning Ordinance Sec. 5.1.40(b)(1)(b)
The site plan does not include a note saying that the outdoor lighting will be permitted
only during maintenance periods.
For all of the aforementioned reasons, we respectfully request that the ARB recommend
that (i) the ground equipment and base station are not sufficiently screened to eliminate visibility
from the I-64 Entrance Corridor, (ii) the proposed location will not sufficiently minimize the
visibility of the monopole from the I-64 Entrance Corridor; and (iii) a consistent 18" standoff will
create significant additional negative visual impact as viewed from the I-64 Entrance Corridor.
Margaret Maliszewski, County Staff Liaison to Architectural Review Board
Albemarle County Community Development
July 12, 2022
Page 3
We appreciate the opportunity to provide Mrs. Burghardt's position and ask that you please
share this letter with each of the ARB members in advance of the ARB meeting on July 18. Please
let me know if we can provide you with a(
cc: Mr. William Fritz (w/attach; via email)
Lori Schweller, Esquire (w/attach; via email)
Mr. Nathan Holland (w/attach; via email)
Mrs. Hope Burghardt
Mr. David Tomlin
Shannon Delano, Esquire
T