HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300007 Staff Report 2013-02-25 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201300007 – Cingular Wireless “Pace”
Property Tier III PWSF
Staff: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
May 21, 2013
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Pace, Montie R. Sr. or Teresa Applicant: Valerie Long, Williams Mullen
Acreage: 115.73 Acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 47 Parcel 03
Location: 3382 Stony Point Road
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas, and EC Entrance
Corridor
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for installation of a 118 foot tall
monopole with 3 antennas and associated ground
equipment with fencing within a 1,600 sq. ft. leasing
areas as well as construction of a new access road
to the site.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
Area 2.
Character of Property: This property is zoned Rural
Areas and contains an existing dwelling unit with several
outbuildings and is located on a wooded parcel.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family residential containing both wooded
and open areas.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal will provide improved 3G and 4G
wireless service for the surrounding area.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval of the proposed monopole
and associated ground equipment stating that the
location is expected to sufficiently minimize its
visibility such that no negative impact on the
Entrance Corridor is anticipated.
3. The proposal meets all of the requirements of
5.1.40.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included are modifications for Sections 5.1.40(d)6. Based on findings presented in the staff report,
staff recommends approval of SP2013-07 with a condition and the waiver (special exception) request.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 21, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201300007: Cingular Wireless “Pace” Property Tier III
PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Montie R Sr. or Teresa Pace
APPLICANT: Valerie Long, Williams Mullen
PROPOSAL:
This is a request for installation of a 118 foot tall monopole with 3 antennas and
associated ground equipment with fencing within a 1,600 sq. ft. leasing areas as well as
construction of a new access road to the site. The 115.17 acre property, described as
Tax Map 47, Parcel 03, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is zoned Rural
Areas (“RA”) and Entrance Corridor (“EC”) (Attachment A).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is zoned Rural Areas and contains an existing dwelling unit and is located
on a wooded parcel. The site is on a mostly wooded parcel. The surrounding areas
contain both wooded and open areas.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
N/A.
DISCUSSION:
The PWSF Ordinance states that facilities should be located at least 200 feet outside of
a scenic highway or by-way which are designated as avoidance areas. This parcel
fronts on Route 20, which is designated as a Virginia byway. Based upon the plans
submitted, the proposed tower is sited to be located over 200 feet from the byway. A
portion of the site is also located in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District
which is considered an avoidance area under the Ordinance. The proposed tower will
be approximately 20 feet taller than the reference tree. These situations render that the
tower be processed as a Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility requiring a Special
Permit (“SP”).
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the planning commission and board of
supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting
upon an application for a special use permit:
3
The proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots.
The monopole is proposed to be 118 feet AGL in a largely wooded area. A reference
tree is identified as a 98 foot AGL white oak. The Applicant has requested a waiver
of the reference tree requirement as the monopole will be 20 feet taller than the
reference tree. (Attachment B). It is not anticipated that the proposed monopole will
be of any detriment to the adjacent properties, aside from limited temporary
construction activity. The new tower will not substantially change the visual impact of
the existing area since the property is wooded. Additionally, viewing the proposed
tower location from various points on Route 20 was minimal due to the surrounding
properties which are heavily wooded with varying topography.
The character of the [zoning] district will not be changed by the proposed
special use.
As mentioned above, no substantial changes will occur with construction of this tower
aside from limited construction activity associated with the change. Although the
tower as proposed will be 20 feet taller than the reference tree visibility is limited. A
balloon test was performed on April 09, 2013 and at a few vantage points it appeared
that the facility would be skylighted; however the foreground is densely wooded, so
the lack of backdrop is minimized. Additionally, at most sites it was significantly
camouflaged by trees, elevation changes and the winding nature of Stony Point Road
(Attachment C).
The use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning
ordinance.
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set
forth in Sections 1.4. of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified
in the Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is
consistent with both sections.
The use will be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district.
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated, since visibility is limited. Additionally,
Staff has not received any negative comments from citizens.
The public health, safety and general welfare of the community will be
protected if the use is approved.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected throu gh
the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use
permit are appropriate in the location requested. The proposed tower will provide
more reliable access to the wireless communication market, to include schools,
travelling public and residences. This can be seen as contributing to the public
health, safety and welfare. Otherwise, no change to the public health, safety and
general welfare is expected.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40(e)
4
are addressed as follows [Ordinance sections are in bold italics]:
Section 5.1.40(e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon
approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 33.8 of this chapter,
initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a)
and section 33.4, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter and the following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c )(2)
through (9) and subsection 5.1.40(d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the
board of supervisors during special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 33.8 special
use permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning
Ordinance: The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section
5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows:
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable:
Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to
all applicable regulations in this chapter.
The site drawings, antennae and equipment specifications have been provided to
demonstrate that personal wireless service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any
relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have
been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2)-: The facility shall be designed, constructed and
maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for
the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the
lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by
section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the
existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s
landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may
exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height
shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in
diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility
or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation
of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted
with any whip antennas at this time. All other requirements have been met.
5
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure
only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing
structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached
under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application,
which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (115 2) square
inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum
required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and
(iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the
existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes
regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.
The Application plan depicts 3 antennas that will not exceed 1152 square feet. The
antenna will not project more than 12 inches and will be painted Java Brown. The
proposal meets all criteria of this subsection.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be
submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable
requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods
and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the
installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions
surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may
identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area
to be included in the plan.
The Applicant has acknowledged that a tree conservat ion plan will be submitted and no
significant trees will be removed within the lease area or 100 feet in all directions. The
facility will be sited on the property 302.9’ from the eastern property line (Stony Point
Rd./TM 47-29A) and 445.52’ from the western property line (TM 47-11F).
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5) The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility
shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and
dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the
tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by
the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall
submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the
proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from
any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to
assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
6
The Applicant has acknowledged that the installation, operation and maintenance of the
facility will be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the
site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is
required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may
require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check,
a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety
guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In
determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the
following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being
used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed;
(iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable \
regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower
or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the
agent.
Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the
future, Cingular Wireless and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility
within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the
agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report
shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing,
photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or
operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single
tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user
acquiescing in the report.
The Applicant acknowledges that an annual report must be submitted at the required
time.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility
and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining
walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county
engineer are employed.
The Application plan shows that no 2:1 slopes will be created with installation of this
facility.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing
building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the
7
fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of
vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from
livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and
(iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The Applicant is proposing to construct a six (6) foot board on board wood fence around
the tower. Staff has determined that a fence will protect the tower area from vehicular
and pedestrian traffic and will otherwise not be detrimental to the area. is. Additionally,
the fence will not be visible from adjacent properties or Route 20.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening
and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and
streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be
visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of
whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its
visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands
subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that
it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The tower will be located in a wooded area and is adequately screened. The adjacent
parcel is heavily wooded and the alternating topography of the general area provide
additional screening.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in
the county’s open space plan.
This proposal does not substantially change the visual impact of the proposed tower
and does not adversely impact any resources in the open space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or
more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an
area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of
two hundred (200) feet.
There are no other PWSF within 200 feet of this tower.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty
(30) inches and the maximum diameter of the top of the monopole shall be
eighteen (18) inches.
The application plan lists the base of the monopole as 34 inches and the top at 18
inches. Tier III towers are not subject to the requirements of this subsection.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean
8
sea level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved
height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within
twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or
grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation;
provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet
taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the
visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7)
feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse
impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the
monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a
modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement as the tower will be
approximately 20 feet taller than the identified reference tree, which is a 98 foot AGL
White Oak. Although the height is being increased, the lot is wooded and the
surrounding topography adequately screens the tower. This proposal does not
substantially change the visual impact of the tower and does not adversely impact any
resources in the open space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood
color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to
blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all
other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches
that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and
the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole,
provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a
color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or
fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is
consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment
and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or
private street.
The application plan shows that the proposed tower, antennas and ground equipment
will be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown (#6090).
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables,
wiring and similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to
the antennas are placed on the pole to face the interior of the property and away
from public view, as determined by the agent. Metal monopoles shall be
constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments are contained
within the monopole’s structure.
The application plan states that all cables will run inside of the tower.
9
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the
special use permit.
The facility will comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section
31.6.3).
Section 704(a) (7) (b) (I) (II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in
part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I)
shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC
guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health
and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the
provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies
and regulations for the sighting and design of wireless facilities. The proposed facility
and mounting structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless
communication services. The applicant has not provided any additional information
regarding the availability, or absence of alternative sites that could serve the same
areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna additions at this site. Therefore,
staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor the denial of this
application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal
wireless services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable a nd unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The proposal will provide improved 3G and 4G wireless service to the
surrounding area.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval of the
proposed monopole and associated ground equipment stating that the location
is expected to sufficiently minimize its visibility such that no negative impact on
the Entrance Corridor is anticipated.
3. The proposal meets all the requirements of 5.1.40 (with a waiver that is
supported by staff).
10
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. None identified.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance if recommended for
denial, the Planning Commission is required to provide the applicant with a statement
regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each
requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Tier III personal wireless
services facility based upon the analysis provided herein.
Special Exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance:
Request for modifications must be reviewed under the criteria established in Sections
33.5 and 33.9 taking into consideration the factors, standards, criteria and findings for
each request; however no specific finding is required in support of a decision. The
proposed modifications are to waive the ordinance requirements with respect to the
reference tree. Staff is able to support the recommended modification described in the
staff report. The recommended modification is for requirements of the ordinance that
are generally meant to aid in the determination of whether a new tower is appropriate in
the proposed area. Staff is supportive of the modification that is listed below:
1. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-Modification of the requirement that the facility extend no
more than 7 feet above the reference tree, to permit if to extend 20 feet above
the reference tree.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff
recommends the following condition:
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in
the applicant's request and site plans, entitled “CV372, Parcel 47-30” with
a final zoning drawing submittal date of 05/06/13 (hereafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator.
a. Height.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements
above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
11
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201300007) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve or deny the modifications for
Sections 5.1.40(d)(6) under the special exception criteria of Section 33.9.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the
modifications Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of the modifications for SP 201300007-
Cingular Wireless “Pace” Property Tier III PWSF as outlined in the staff
report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of the
modifications of this Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of the modifications for SP 201300007-
Eastham Cingular Wireless “Pace” Property Tier III PWSF (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial).
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201300007) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier
III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20130007- Cingular Wireless “Pace”
Property Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201300007- Cingular Wireless “Pace”
Property Tier III PWSF (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for
denial).
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources May 3, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
1018 ft
G
NOTES:
1. MONOPOLE, GROUND EQUIPMENT, ICE BRIDGE, CABLES,
FENCE-ANTENNAS, AND "THEIR — SUPPORT- ATTACHMENTS SHALL
BE PAINTED SW #6090 JAVA BROWN.
2. ALL VERTICAL COAX SHALL BE RUN INSIDE OF MONOPOLE.
3. PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE SHALL BE SHIELDED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ALBEMARLE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS AND
OPERATED BY MOTION SENSOR. ALL PROPOSED LIGHTING IS
FOR TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY USE ONLY.
DIMENSIONS:
TOWER -
- - -- -34,' _DIAMEfER_MAX -AT-BASE
18" DIAMETER MAX AT TOP
LIGHTNING ROD-
_ 2' IN LENGTH
1" DIAMETER AT BASE TAPERING TO A POINT
ANTENNAS —
(3) @ 71 "X12 "X6"
MOUNTED NO MORE THAN 12" FROM TOWER
, -------- ..JTENNA
C*
ELEVATION = 484.01' AMSL GROUND ELEVATION = 484.0' AMSL
ELEVATION VIEW
AZIMUTH
250' (TRUE NORTH)
(3) NEW AT &T PA lL.L. n l L_lll Nr0
JTENNA MOUNTING LAYOUT
TO SCALE
ANTENNA
7.r_•
GR
12" MAX
'�_p \
\1�1,
�o,,ti
0 \`,
� o
o �
PROPOSED
MONOPOLE TOWER
NOTES:
1. THE DISTANCE FROM THE OUTSIDE FACE OF THE POLE TO THE
OUTSIDE FACE OF THE PANEL ANTENNA SHALL NOT EXCEED 12 INCHES.
2. PROVIDE KELLUMS GRIP AROUND CABLES AND HANG ON EXISTING
J -HOOKS W/ STRUCTURE.
ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
BRACKET
§,"Emmmomo—I, at &t
L881P7YP1ATAI
9801 =ROAD, SUM300
MWAIIBA; MU"
Z= (e0v2m M7
0. WARREN WILLIAMS, JR
Lie. No. 37030
5 -6 -13 'w'
o��SSIONAL Y2�P
CV372
RAW LAND
MONOPOLE
GALV. 3376 STONY POINT RI
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
22911
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
MONOPOLE
SHEET TITLE:
ELEVATION VIEW
SHEET NUMBER:
C-3
m "T "..-i
warren williams & associates
736 CARNEROS CIRCLE
HIGH POINT
NORTH CAROLINA
27265
757 450 -2266
NO.
5/23/12
TREE SURVEY
1
BY: KMB
CHK: OWW APP D: OWW
5/24/12
REVISED TREE SURVEY
2
BY: KMB
CHK: OWW APP D: OWW
7/1/12
PRELIM ZONING DWGS
3
BY: KMB
CHK: OWW APP D: OWW
11/19/12
FINAL ZONING DWGS
4
BY: KMB
CHK: OWW APP D: OWW
4/11/13
REVISED ZONING DWGS
5
BY: KMB
CHK: OWW APP D: OWW
5/6/13
IREMSED ZONING DWGS
6
BY: KMB
CHK: OWW APPD: OWW
0. WARREN WILLIAMS, JR
Lie. No. 37030
5 -6 -13 'w'
o��SSIONAL Y2�P
CV372
RAW LAND
MONOPOLE
GALV. 3376 STONY POINT RI
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
22911
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
MONOPOLE
SHEET TITLE:
ELEVATION VIEW
SHEET NUMBER:
C-3
View from entrance to parcel
CV372 Parcel 47-30, 3376 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, VA
Proposed AT&T
118’ monopole
after installation
before installation
View from 3261 Fosters Branch Road
CV372 Parcel 47-30, 3376 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, VA
Proposed AT&T
118’ monopole
(not visible)
after installation
before installation
View from 3365 Stony Point Road
CV372 Parcel 47-30, 3376 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, VA
Proposed AT&T
118’ monopole
after installation
before installation
View from 3404 Stony Point Road
CV372 Parcel 47-30, 3376 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, VA
Proposed AT&T
118’ monopole
after installation
before installation