The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201300048 Review Comments 2014-03-280 �� r s: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 March 27, 2014 Cheryl Lynn Taylor 4164 Innslake Dr. Ste. B Glen Allen, VA 23060 RE: SDP - 201300048- Durkin Property — AT &T Wireless Facility Tier II Dear Ms. Taylor: Pursuant to Albemarle County Code §18- 5.1.40(d)(12), §18- 5.1.40(d)(2), §18- 5.1.40(h)(1) the above referenced application is disapproved. This action has been taken because the plan has not been revised to include required revisions of the Site Review Committee with regard to § 18- 5.1.40(d)(2) Screening and siting to minimize visibility, and §18- 5.1.40(b)(5), §18- 32.7.4.1(a), §18 -17 -200, §18- 17.204(e) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Those items that have not been addressed are: 1. [Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2)] Screening and siting to minimize visibility. 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... [Comment] Two balloon tests were performed onsite; the first on September 25, 2013 and the second on February 20, 2014. During the balloon tests staff traveled Stony Point Road (Rte 20), Gilbert Station (Rte 640), Turkey Sag Road (Rte 640), and visited surrounding and adjacent properties. During both balloon tests the balloon was highly visible from the adjacent property's residence and driveway (TMP 03400- 00- 00- 07000), 4826 Stony Point Road (Rte 20), owned by Jean Jones. From this property's vantage point, the facility is highly sky lit, which means with a backdrop to the facility being sky. Page 57 of the County's Personal Wireless Service Facility Policy, which is part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, explains that "in order to minimize visibility the backdrop of the facility must be considered." Staff requested the applicant provide photo simulations from this vantage point. Upon review of these photos, the tower is highly visible from the property. The visual impacts of the site are most prevalent from this property because the tower is sited North East of the reference tree (the tallest tree within 25' radius) and trees in front of or behind the tower from this vantage point are significantly shorter than the tower, in some instances 19', 27', 30', and 41' shorter than the tower. This leads to significant sky lighting from this property's vantage point. Staff has been contacted by the owner of this property who has voiced her concerns to staff through phone calls and through a hard copy letter. Her concerns primarily revolve around the high visibility of the tower from her residence and property and how it will affect her viewshed, property value, and the enjoyment of her property. Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2) requires that visibility from adjacent parcels be minimized. Staff has previously provided the following possible methods to reduce tower visibility: increase the distance and buffering of trees between the tower to neighboring properties, reduce the height or bulk of the tower; however, no efforts have been made to mitigate the visibility as required by Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2). Therefore, the site fails to provide adequate opportunities for screening and is not sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels as required by Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2). Also, during the second balloon test, staff was invited to observe the visibility from the property across the street from the tower site, TMP 03500- 00 -00- 02100, 4765 Stony Point Road (Rte 20), Piedmont Manor home and grounds owned by the Piedmont Land Trust. The home is recognized as a notable historic resource and is a contributing structure to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The visual impacts of the site are prevalent from this property because the tower is sited North East of the reference tree (the tallest tree within 25' radius) and trees in front of or behind the tower from this vantage point are also significantly shorter than the tower, in some instances 30' and 32' shorter than the tower. This leads to significant sky lighting from this property's vantage point. From this property, the proposed facility is visible and it's visibility has not been minimized, nor does its proposed location provide adequate opportunities for screening. Staff has been contacted by the owner of this property who has hired legal counsel to voice their concerns through phone calls, hard copy letters, and meetings with staff and the applicant. The landowners are opposed to the facility as proposed due to its high visibility caused by its height, location and lack of screening. Notably the Piedmont Land Trust property and surrounding lands are located in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, a designated avoidance area for towers. While the tower is not located in an avoidance area, the siting of the proposed facility will have an adverse visual impact on properties in the historic district (avoidance area). Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2) requires that visibility from adjacent parcels be minimized. Staff has previously provided the following possible methods to reduce tower visibility: increase the distance and buffering of trees between the tower to neighboring properties, reduce the height or bulk of the tower, preserve existing trees between the site and neighbors; however, no efforts have been made to mitigate the visibility as required by Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2). Therefore, the site fails to provide adequate opportunities for screening and is not sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels as required by Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2). 2. [Section 18- 5.1.40b(5), 32.7.4.1(a), 17- 200,17- 204(e)] The proposal contains over 10,000 square feet of proposed land disturbance and requires an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to be approved prior to approval of the site plan. The proposal is not exempt under §17- 200(b). The applicant has not submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for review, nor has such an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan been approved for the proposed site. For the reasons stated above, staff disapproves SDP201300048. If you have any questions or require additional information I can be reached at Qerezgalbemarle.org or 296 -5832 ext 3443. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner Planning Services File: SDP 2013 -00048