HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201200016 Legacy Document 2012-08-08T,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201200016 - NTELOS WIRELESS —
Staff: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
CV825 Cedar Hill- Tier III PWSF
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
July 17, 2012
TBD
Owners: University of Virginia Foundation
Applicant: NTELOS - Jessica Wilmer
Acreage: 10 acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
(Lease Area: 600 square feet)
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: 090BO -00 -OA -01100
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas
Location: David Road, Marshall Manor Subdivision, East
Side of Rte 20
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers /Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA - RA - X
Proposal: A one hundred and fifteen (115) foot tall
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
steel monopole tower and associated ground
Area 4.
equipment. Associated with this request is a special
exception for critical slopes disturbance.
Character of Property: The property is vacant and
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas -
heavily wooded. The property has an existing gravel road
single family residential subdivision and winery
which meanders up the mountain side. The property is on
the back side of the Marshall Manor subdivision and abuts
property owned by Trump Vineyard Estate.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The monopole is located so that it is not
1. The proposal is located within the Lanark
skylighted, and there is a substantial backdrop for
Agricultural Forestal District.
the facility due to the mountainside and existing
dense tree cover.
2. The monopole is minimally visible to almost
invisible from Scottsville Rd (Route 20).
3. The Agricultural Forestal District Committee finds
the use will not cause substantial impacts to
agriculture, forestry, or land conservation in the
district.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Section 10.2.2 (48) and Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Tier III tower at ten (10) feet above the
tallest tree. Also included is a modification for Sections 5.1.40(d)(6). Based on findings presented in the staff
report, staff recommends approval at the height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree and associated
modification requests, with conditions.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
July 17, 2012
1 al
SP201200016 - NTELOS WIRELESS — CV825 Cedar
Hill- Tier III PWSF
University of Virginia Foundation
NTELOS — Jessica Wilmer
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility [Attachment A].
The proposed treetop personal wireless service facility will contain a steel monopole tower that
would be approximately one hundred and fifteen (115) foot tall [10 feet AMSL above the height
of the tallest tree within 25 feet]. The facility will utilize a flush- mounted antenna array
consisting of three (3) panel antennas and associated ground equipment that will be contained in
the 600 square foot lease area. Two (2) additional antenna arrays have been added to the plans to
show future growth at the facility. The site will be accessed by an existing gravel road. The
property is 10 acres, described as Tax Map Parcel 090BO- 00 -OA- 01100, is located in the
Scottsville Magisterial District and is zoned RA /Rural Areas and is located within an avoidance
area (Lanark Agricultural Forestal District). The facility is located well over 1000 feet from
Scottsville Road (Route 20) and is not within an Entrance Corridor nor a state scenic highway or
by -way. Associated with this request is a special exception to disturb critical slopes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit /acre in development lots)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed site is a 10 acre vacant lot which is heavily wooded and is zoned Rural Areas
(RA). The property is on the back side of the Marshall Manor subdivision and abuts property
owned by Trump Vineyard Estate. The character of the general area is rural.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
none
DISCUSSION:
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility. The proposed
tower is a Tier III personal wireless facility because it is located within an Agricultural Forestal
District. If this property was not located within the Lanark Agricultural Forestal District, this
personal wireless service facility application would have been processed as a Tier II facility.
Agricultural Forestal Districts have been identified in the Personal Wireless Facilities Policy and
Zoning Ordinance as `Avoidance Areas'.
N
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility 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; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by -way. (Added 10- 13 -04)
The Planning Commission will need to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed
personal wireless facility.
The proposed steel monopole and associated ground equipment will also require the disturbance
of critical slopes, which may be approved by special exception under County Code § 18-
31.8(a)(1). The Tier III application is also reviewed as a special exception County Code § 18-
31.8(a)(2).
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff's opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
properties. The monopole will not be skylighted, and there is a substantial backdrop for the
facility due to the mountainside. During the balloon test it appeared that the monopole will be
partially visible from various tree openings on Route 20, but overall the visibility of this site
from Route 20 was very minimal. The property is located in the Lanark Agricultural Forestal
District. The Agricultural Forestal District Committee met on July 9th and voted 5 to 1 in favor
of approval because they find the use will not cause substantial impacts to agriculture,
forestry, or land conservation in the district.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The site of the proposed facility will require little to no additional land disturbance. The
addition of the personal wireless service facility at this location will not adversely impact the
visual character of the area.
Will the use 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 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 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.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA) Rural Area district are
anticipated. The proposed personal wireless service facility will not restrict any nearby by-
right uses within the Rural Areas district.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility will give NTELOS
the ability to offer another choice of personal wireless service communication by providing a
full range of voice and data services in addition to the required E911 call services. This can be
seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on a regional level.
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)
are addressed as follows.
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 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, 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 31.6.1 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: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(h (1 -51 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 proposed wireless facility will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached 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
2
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. The facility's outdoor
light fixture will be fully shielded and operated for temporary maintenance purposes only. All
proposed lighting is for temporary maintenance use only. The proposed equipment cabinet is
screened from all lot lines by terrain and existing vegetation. The proposed lightning rod atop the
facility does not exceed two (2) feet and the width does not exceed one (1) inch in diameter.
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 (1152) 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 proposed antennae configuration will consist of one sector with three panel antennas, and
each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. These antennas will be flush - mounted (12-
inches maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antennae. All antennae
will be painted to match the color of the tower: Brown: UMBRA- SW4008. Two (2) additional
antenna arrays have been added to the plans to show future growth at the facility.
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 will provide a tree conservation plan by a certified arborist prior to the submittal of
a building permit for this facility.
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.
5
In order to ensure that there is no significant impact to any of the trees that are to remain, the
conservation plan will be completed prior to the submittal of a building permit.
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,
NTELOS and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)( . 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.
After the proposed PWSF has been installed, NTELOS will submit an annual report updating the
user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)( . 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 installation of this facility and accessory uses does not create slopes steeper than 2:1 or
greater.
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 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 not proposing to install a fence surrounding the proposed facility and ground
equipment. Staff does not believe a fence would protect the facility from livestock or wildlife,
and not having a fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
Co
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 proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 115 feet
above ground level (AGL) or 1050.2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the
reference tree is approximately 1040.2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located within
25'of the proposed monopole.
A balloon test was conducted on June 16, 2012. The red balloon was raised to the same height as
the proposed pole, 10' above the reference tree [Attachment B]. During the site visit, staff
traveled Route 20, north and south of the site to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal.
When the balloon was seen, it was minimally visible to almost invisible from various sections of
Rte 20. It is staff's opinion that visibility of the proposed monopole at ten feet above the tallest
tree is not expected to have any negative impacts on State Route 20.
This site is adjacent to land with a conservation easement: Trump Vineyard Estate. The adjacent
property is located at considerable elevations from the site separated by topography and existing
dense vegetation. These onsite features provide for appropriate screening of the tower from the
adjacent property.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county's
open space plan.
The County's wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility,
facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact Avoidance
Areas (including Agricultural Forestal Districts). Staff's analysis of this request addresses the
foreseeable impacts of this use that might impact agriculture, forest T or land conservation in the
district. The Agricultural Forestal District Committee met on July 9t and voted 5 to 1 in favor of
approval because they find the use will not cause substantial impacts to agriculture, forestry, or
land conservation in the district.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean 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).
7
As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole has a height of approximately
115 feet above ground level (AGL) or 1050.2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of
the reference tree is approximately 1040.2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located
within 25'of the proposed monopole. As proposed by the applicant the monopole will be ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet. As stated above, it is Staff's opinion
that there is no material difference between the ten foot height and the seven foot height and
therefore recommends approval at the proposed ten feet above the reference tree.
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, fagade 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 applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The proposed
color for the tower and associated ground equipment is a brown paint (UMBRA- SW4008) to
match existing surroundings.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 32.2.4):
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. In its current state, the existing facilities and their 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.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DISTURB CRITICAL SLOPES
The applicant has submitted a request and justification for a special exception to disturb critical
slopes [Attachment D], and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the
Ordinance. The request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the
critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing
activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) establishes the criteria by which a request to
disturb critical slopes is evaluated. Under Section 31.8(b), the Board must consider the factors,
standards, criteria, and findings delineated in Section 4.2.5(a), but it is not required to make
specific findings in support of its decision.
The critical slopes specific to this site appear to be previously disturbed during the development
of the existing gravel road which meanders through the property. The overall critical slopes in
the area of this request are natural and belong to a larger system of critical slopes that have been
identified as needing to be protected in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed this waiver
request with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance, entitled "Critical Slopes." These concerns have been addressed directly through the
analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance
to which each pertain.
Section 4.2.5(a)
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
The application for a special exception to disturb critical slopes has been reviewed. The
engineering analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
This is a proposed wireless telecommunications facility and includes a critical slope area. The
applicant is proposing to include a monopole structure, two equipment cabinet platforms, a
future 45 square foot concrete equipment slab within a 600 square foot gravel compound with a
proposed retaining wall.
Areas
(sft)
Total project site
1,709
Critical slopes
354
20.7% of site
Critical slopes disturbed on
site
354
100% of critical
slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
This disturbance is not exempt.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2:
"movement of soil and rock"
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization should prevent
any movement of soil.
I
"excessive stormwater runoff'
The proposed telecommunication facility's surface will be pervious, consisting of a layer of
gravel over a meshed layer of geo- synthetic fibers. This project is unlikely to cause
excessive stormwater runoff.
"siltation"
Proper stabilization and maintenance can help long term stability. Measures proposed
include soil stabilization blankets and matting at the existing steep slopes and silt fence and
construction entrance during construction.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
Eighteen trees are proposed to be removed as part of this project. This should cause a
minimal impact to loss of aesthetic resource in the rural area of the county.
"septic effluent"
This project does not propose any sanitary facilities.
Based on the review above, engineering recommends approval of this critical slopes disturbance
waiver request.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The
preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the
provisions of Section 4.2.5(a) (3), along with staff comment on the various provisions. Under
31.8, the Board may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 based on the these
provisions, however, no specific finding is required in support of the Board's decision on the
special exception.
"A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; "
Granting the special exception could better serve the purpose of this chapter or the public health,
safety or welfare by allowing the site to provide area residents with more reliable 4G service.
More reliable service may be considered to serve public welfare, in an area where cell service is
more limited.
"B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and
purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree, "
No alternatives have been proposed by the applicant.
"C. Due to the property's unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual
conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the
disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of
the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent
properties; or"
It appears that the applicant has the capability to modify the location of the proposed monopole
10
outside of the critical slope area but is restricted to the depicted location based on the land
owners' preferences which are dictated by the potential of additional monopoles to be sited in
this area.
"D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. "
Granting the special exception would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be
served by strict application of the regulations. Although the critical slopes requested to be
disturbed belong to a larger system of critical slopes, the total disturbance is minimal. Loss of
aesthetic resource is also expected to be minimal. The proposed tower is well -sited and otherwise
meets the County's Wireless Policy.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Favorable Factors for Tier III PWSF:
1. The monopole is located so that it is not skylighted, and there is a substantial backdrop
for the facility due to the mountainside and existing dense tree cover.
2. The monopole is minimally visible to almost invisible from Scottsville Rd (Route 20).
3. The Agricultural Forestal District Committee finds the use will not cause substantial
impacts to agriculture, forestry, or land conservation in the district.
Unfavorable Factors for Tier III PWSF:
1. The proposal is within the Lanark Agricultural Forestal District.
Favorable Factors for Critical Slope Disturbance:
1. The critical slopes specific to this site appear to be previously disturbed during the
development of the existing gravel road which meanders through the property.
2. The amount of total disturbance is limited.
3. Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization should prevent
any movement of soil.
4. Proper stabilization and maintenance can help long term stability. No septic effluent
concerns.
5. Approval of the critical slopes waiver would better serve public welfare than strict
application of the regulations.
6. Minimal loss of aesthetic resource is expected.
Unfavorable Factors for Critical Slope Disturbance:
1. The disturbance of critical slopes is to a larger system of critical slopes.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, 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.
11
Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance:
NTELOS is in the process of improving its wireless services in Charlottesville. The proposed
wireless facility is for the purpose of expanding its wireless network along Rte 20. Staff is able to
support all of the recommended modifications described in the staff report for reasons outlines
above. Listed below are the recommended modifications:
Section 5.1.40(d)(6) — The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller
than the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet of the monopole...
RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR TIER III WIRELESS
FACILITY
Staff recommends approval of the special exception for a Tier III personal wireless service
facility at ten (10) feet above the reference tree.
RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR CRITICAL SLOPES
DISTURBANCE:
Staff recommends as a condition of approval the Special Use Permit cannot be approved until
the Board approves the Special Exception to disturb the Critical Slopes on the site.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff recommends the
following conditions:
Conditions of approval:
1. The Special Use Permit cannot be approved until the Board approves the Special
Exception to disturb the Critical Slopes on the site.
2. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Cedar
Hill (UVA Foundation Property) CV825" prepared by Brian Crutchfield and dated 6 -25-
12 (hereafter "Conceptual Plan "), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development
and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
12
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Balloon Test photos
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
D. Critical Slopes Waiver Request
13
Motions- Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission's role is to recommend approval or denial of
modifications for Sections 5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the modification of
Sections 5.1.40 (d)(6):
I move to recommend approval granting the modifications for reasons outlined in
the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of the modification for
this Tier III personal wireless service facilitv:
I move to recommend denial of the modification outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for recommendation of denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission's role in this case (SP201200016) 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 201200016 - CV825 Cedar Hill - 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 201200016 - CV825 Cedar Hill - Tier HI PWSF.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for recommendation of denial)
14