Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300048 Staff Report 2015-01-09May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 41) County Code § 17- 207(B)(3)(b) requires that the Board set a new deadline to install permanent vegetation on all denuded areas and may include reasonable conditions in granting an extension. Staffs opinion is that extending the deadline to Augaust 14, 2014 is reasonable. Staff does not recommend any other conditions. The Water Protection Ordinance requires yearly renewal fees of $100 per disturbed acre. No changes to funding or staff resources are anticipated as a result of this request. Staff recommends approval of the request for an extension under County Code § 17- 207(B)(3) for WPO 2011 -00068 New Ragged Mountain Dam and WPO 2012 -00066 Ragged Mountain Dam Borrow Area with the following condition: 1. Permanent vegetation on all denuded areas shall be installed by Aug 14, 2014. Ms. Palmer moved to approve the request for an extension under County Code § 17- 207(B)(3) for WPO 2011 -00068 New Ragged Mountain Dam and WPO 2012 -00066 Ragged Mountain Dam Borrow Area subject to the recommended condition. Ms. McKee) seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel. NAYS: None. (The condition of approval is set out below:) 1. Permanent vegetation on all denuded areas shall be installed by Aug 14, 2014. Agenda Item No. 17. Appeal: SDP - 2013 - 00048. Durkin Property — AT &T Tier II Wireless Facility The executive summary stats that a Tier II personal wireless service facility ( "Tier II facility ") may be no more than 10 feet taller than the crown of the tallest tree within 25 feet (the "reference tree "). (County Code §§ 18 -3.1 (definitions of "Tier II facility" and "treetop facility ") and 5.1.40(d)(6)) Among the standards applicable to Tier II facilities, County Code § 18- 5.1.40(d)(2) requires that: "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." Although a site plan under County Code § 18 -32 is not required for a Tier II facility, County Code § 18- 5.1.40(b)(5) provides that a Tier II facility is "subject to the requirements of section [18 -]32 and the applicant shall submit all schematics, plans, calculations, drawings and other information required by the site plan agent to determine whether the facility complies with section [18 -]32." County Code § 18- 5.1.40(d) authorizes the County's site plan agent to approve a Tier II facility provided that all of the applicable requirements of County Code § 18- 5.1.40 are satisfied. The applicant proposes to construct a 131.5 foot tall Tier II facility on the parcel located at 4798 Stony Point Road, which is also identified as Tax Map and Parcel Number 03400 -00 -00 -07000 (the "Durkin Parcel" or the "Parcel "). The Durkin Parcel is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District, is 29.37 acres in size, and is partially wooded with an existing dwelling on it. The Parcel fronts on Route 20 (Stony Point Road), is within the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district and the Entrance Corridor (EC) overlay district. The Parcel also abuts the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District on two sides, but it is not within the district (See Attachment B for a map of the district). Some of the abutting parcels are relatively small, ranging from 0.79 acres to 5 acres, and are used for residential purposes. Other parcels in the area, some abutting the Durkin Parcel, are fairly large and unwooded, and some have dwellings and some are vacant (See Attachment I for aerial photograph of the surrounding area). The agent's designee (staff) disapproved the application because the proposed facility failed to satisfy County Code §§ 18- 5.1.40(d)(2) (facility not screened and sited to minimize its visibility) and 18- 5.1.40(b)(5) (failure to provide all information required by County Code § 18 -32; specifically, an erosion and sediment control plan required by County Code § 18- 32.7.4.1(a)). The applicant timely appealed the decision. Screenina and sitina to minimize visibility (County Code & 18- 5.1.40(d)(2)) Balloon tests were conducted on September 25, 2013 and February 20, 2014 (See Attachment C for balloon test photographs). A balloon test consists of raising one or more balloons from the site to a height equal to the proposed facility (County Code § 18- 5.1.40(a)(6)(c)). During the balloon tests for this proposed Tier II facility, staff traveled Stony Point Road (Route 20), Gilbert Station Road (State Route 640) and Turkey Sag Road (State Route 640), and visited abutting and surrounding parcels to observe the visibility of the balloons. The applicant also submitted photo simulations of the proposed Tier II facility (See Attachment D for photo simulations). The owners of several abutting parcels submitted letters detailing the visual impacts to their properties that would be caused by the proposed facility (Attachment F). Following are excerpts of key passages from staffs disapproval letter (Attachment A) and comments from abutting landowners (Attachment F): May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 42) During the balloon tests, the balloon was highly visible from the residence on an abutting parcel (TMP 03400- 00- 07000). The facility was highly sky lit, meaning that the sky served as its backdrop. Page 57 of the County's 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." (Attachment A, page 1) The proposed location for the tower is northeast of the reference tree and the trees in front of or behind the tower when viewed from the residence on TMP 03400- 00 -07000 and from the Piedmont Manor house and grounds on TMP 03500 -00 -00 -02100 are significantly shorter than the proposed tower, in some instances between 19' and 41' shorter, resulting in significant skylighting. (Attachment A, pages 1 and 2) The owner of TMP 03400- 00 -07000 stated that "it impacts my view shed tremendously as the area is not nearly wooded enough to cover the width nor height" of the facility. (Attachment F, Jones, March 6, 2014) The representative for the Piedmont Manor Land Trust, the owner of not only the parcel on which the Piedmont Manor house (a contributing structure to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District) is located, but also several abutting parcels, stated that the proposed tower would be "located east of the reference tree and deliberately positioned so that the tower is generally 30' or more taller than the trees lying between the tower and the majority of the adjacent properties with a view of the proposed tower." (Attachment F, Piedmont Manor Land Trust (Sipe), February 28, 2014) The representative noted that the applicant's Tree Height Diagram showed that "[a]lmost all of the trees shown on this diagram actually lie west of the tower and provide no screening whatsoever of adjacent properties along the Route 20 corridor." (Attachment F, Piedmont Manor Land Trust (Sipe), February 28, 2014) The owner of TMP 03400- 00- 00 -070BO stated that the tower's proposed location would affect "the surrounding residents, and the view shed we've come to enjoy" (Attachment F, Critzer, January 22, 2014), that "it will affect one of the areas that give Albemarle County the prestige and beauty and that is talked about by many as they pass through the county, from those getting their first impression, to the people traveling the corridor on a daily basis" (Attachment F, Critzer, March 7, 2014), and that it would "most certainly negatively affect the view shed of Rt 20" (Attachment F, Critzer, March 12, 2014). The proposed location for the tower is located to one side of the Durkin Parcel and relatively close to the property line, which increases the visual impacts on abutting parcels. The proposed location fails to provide adequate opportunities for screening the tower and its related facilities. (Attachment A, page 2) The representative for the Piedmont Manor Land Trust stated that the proposed location is "very close to the backyards of several residences to the east and the proposed monopole will loom over them" (Attachment F, Piedmont Manor Land Trust (Sipe), January 22, 2014) and that it "has been deliberately located at a point on the Durkin property that actually maximizes its visibility and negative visual impact on adjacent properties" (Attachment F, Piedmont Manor Land Trust (Sipe), February 28, 2014). Although possible alternatives to reduce the proposed tower's visibility were suggested by staff, no efforts were made by the applicant to mitigate the proposed facility's visibility. The suggestions provided by staff included increasing the distance and buffering of trees between the tower and neighboring parcels, and reduce the height or bulk of the tower. (Attachment A, pages 1 and 2) The owner of TMP 03400- 00 -070BO stated that the proposed tower would be less visible from his parcel if it was 50 to 100 feet further back in the woods on the Durkin Parcel. (Attachment F, Communication Summary, page 1 (Critter)). This sentiment was repeated by the representative of the Piedmont Manor Land Trust, who added that "plantings should be provided to ensure the facility is screened from these neighboring residences." (Attachment F, Piedmont Manor Land Trust (Sipe), January 22, 2014). Based on the foregoing, it is staff's opinion that the proposed Tier II facility fails to satisfy the requirements of County Code § 18- 5.1.40(d)(2). Providina all information required by County Code & 18 -32 (County Code & 18- 5.1.40(b)(5)) The proposal contains over 10,000 square feet of proposed land disturbance and requires an erosion and sediment control plan to be submitted and approved. County Code § 18- 5.1.40(b)(5) requires that the applicant submit all plans required by the agent to determine whether the facility complies with County Code § 18 -32. The applicant has not submitted an erosion and sediment control plan as required to determine whether the proposed facility complies with the applicable requirements of Chapter 17 of the County Code, as required by County Code § 18- 32.7.4.1(a). Staff recommends that the Board affirm the disapproval of SDP 2013 - 00048. If the Board reaches such consensus, staff recommends that the Board provide direction to staff on the basis for its decision and instruct staff to return to the Board on June 4, 2014 with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. Ms. Dittmar said that she had two calls from constituents wanting to know if this was in the Scottsville District, and she couldn't figure out the confusion — but the district wasn't listed on the agenda, and asked Mr. Foley if staff could be sure to add it. Mr. Chris Perez, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that they would be considering an appeal for SDP 2013 - 00048, a Tier II treetop tower on the Durkin property. He said that this tower was reviewed administratively per the County's wireless policy, and it can be no more than 10 feet above the May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 43) reference tree — and the applicant has followed through with that. Mr. Perez said that the agent and the designee disapproved the application on May 27, 2014, and the applicant had since appealed the decision. He stated that the denial was based on two factors in the ordinance, Section 5.1.40.D2 — facility not screening and siting to minimize visibility; and 5.1.40.B5 — failure to provide all information required by the County code; Section 32 — specify an ENS plan. Mr. Perez stated that staff was up against a 90 -day review process on this, as dictated by Section 5.1.40.H1, and they must make a finding within 90 days of application. He said that they got their third review done at approximately 89 days, and requested to the applicant that he extend the 90 -day review process so he could continue to go over the issues with regard to visibility, but the applicant was not at liberty to extend the period. Mr. Perez said that staff went ahead with final action and disapproved the proposal, and staff believes that the visibility could be mitigated for the proposal if the applicant were amenable to that — but through the reviews that happened, no efforts were made to mitigate visibility, and that's where things stand today. Mr. Perez reported that the Durkin property is Tax Map Parcel 34 -70, zoned Rural Areas, and is 29 acres. He said that it is located on Route 29, Stony Point Road, which is an entrance corridor overlay district, and the project was reviewed by the ARB, which did find approval as the visibility on Route 20 was deemed to be "minimal, in very small segments." Mr. Perez said that the property abuts the Southwest Mountains Historic District, and while this property is not specifically in that district, it is in the avoidance area. He stated that the surrounding areas of this property are some small lots — 0.79 acres to 5.0 acres — mostly residential, and the other surrounding areas are larger, unwooded properties. Mr. Perez pointed out the location of the tower, stating that it's near the Critzer property and the former Davis property. Mr. Perez stated that the proposed tower is 131.5 feet tall, 10 feet above the reference tree, which is within 25 feet of the tower, and presented a site plan. He presented slides and noted the location from where he took the pictures, on the Jones property, and said there were two balloon tests that happened on the property — one in the fall when there were no leaves, and one in the summer when there were leaves. Mr. Perez stated that the Jones property is approximately 1,600 feet away from the tower, and pointed out where the picture was taken from her property as well as where the tower is located. He said that the first balloon test was held on September 25, 2013, with the second taking place on February 20, 2014, and from the Jones property the balloon was highly visible and extremely skylit. Mr. Perez said that the County's wireless policy states that the backdrop of the facility must be considered, which staff did. He stated that Ms. Jean Jones contacted staff on numerous occasions, and she is opposed to the project for visibility issues, with regard to enjoyment of her property as well as property values. Mr. Perez said that staff requested photo simulations from the applicant from this viewpoint because of the extreme visibility, and he presented to the Board what was provided. He presented views from other properties, including Tax Map 35 -21, owned by the Piedmont Manor Land Trust, and said that during the first balloon test staff was not invited to that property — but during the second balloon test, when all the neighbors were notified by the applicant, staff was invited to that property and was able to take photos. He presented photos taken during that visit, noting the distances as generated from the County's GIS system. Mr. Perez reported that the Piedmont Manor Land Trust had hired Mr. Sipe as their legal counsel, and he is present at the meeting, with his correspondence in the staff report. He said that he and Margaret Malizewsky of the ARB staff had driven around the property to see areas where they could see the, but because of the mountain backdrop, the visibility was minimized. Mr. Perez presented a view from a property 3,000 feet away, and while the ordinance doesn't consider distance, it does discuss minimizing visibility— so to go 3,000 feet back wouldn't be a stretch. Ms. Mallek asked if there were also photo simulations from that view, because a large brown tower would look different than a small pink balloon. Mr. Perez said that they didn't get one because the view was so minimized by the mountain and the trees. He presented additional balloon test photos from other properties including the Critzer property, noting the mountainous backdrop and minimized visibility, and noted that staff didn't have issues with the height of the tower but did have concerns about the ground equipment. He said that staff discussed this with the applicant, given that the pine trees are not all on the Critzer property and could be removed at any time, which would mean increased visibility of that equipment. Mr. Perez said that staff had suggested putting in a six -foot tall wooden fence for screening purposes, as other towers have done, but no efforts were made to provide that screening prior to reaching the 90 -day window. He said that the proposal includes a 12 -foot wide gravel access road and a 25 -foot wide access easement, which contains over 10,000 square feet of proposed land disturbance, and because it is over that limit, an erosion and sediment control plan is required. Mr. Perez emphasized that the applicant didn't submit that plan nor does one exist for the property. Ms. Dittmar asked if the applicant had given any reason as to why they didn't want to provide an extension in order to allow more time to get everything done. Mr. Perez responded that the applicant said they weren't at liberty from AT &T to extend the time period, and wanted to stick to the 90 days, so staff took action before the shot clock expired. May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 44) Ms. Mallek asked if there was any response from the applicant as to why they refused to provide the E &S report. Mr. Perez said that the applicant said they wanted to wait until they knew the County would approve the location of the tower, and then submit the E &S plan. Ms. Mallek said that's not the way the County's procedures work. Mr. Perez confirmed that was the case. Ms. Dittmar noted that the ARB had gone ahead and approved it. Mr. Perez explained that the views from the Entrance Corridor, Route 20, were fairly quick when driving down Route 20, and one of the things that the ARB considers is how long the visibility is — so there may be a little blip before you hit a tree line. He also stated that Route 20 is a scenic byway, but because the tower is far more than 200 feet away from the road, it wouldn't be considered an avoidance area — and if it wasn't an avoidance area, it would be a Tier I II tower, which would have to go through the special use permit process. Ms. Dittmar asked what would happen if the Board upheld staffs disapproval of this application. Mr. Davis said that the application would be denied, and the applicant could make a resubmittal with a different location on the property or appeal it to the courts. Ms. Dittmar said they could remedy what the problems were. Ms. Mallek said they would have to resubmit the application and then remedy, because once it's denied they can't just come back with more information — and that was their choice. Mr. Davis said that was correct, and if the Board approves the appeal, the recommended scenario would be to approve it contingent upon them submitting an approved E &S plan before disturbing any area for the driveway, and that approval would allow them to proceed under the plan they've submitted. Ms. Dittmar stated that this would buy time to take care of the second objection from staff, but doesn't address the first objection. Mr. Perez said that there was nothing to address with what is in the proposal in front of them. Mr. Davis said that the criteria considered is whether or not the facility has been sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, and staff's position is that it had not been sited to minimize the visibility and that there could be other locations on the site that might meet that standard if they chose to do so — but the applicant didn't want to resubmit or work further to find a different site on this parcel. Ms. Dittmar asked staff if they felt there might be another site on this parcel. Mr. Perez said that staff doesn't site these locations for the applicant, and he didn't know any other sites on the property that had been presented. He said that they could lower the height of this tower, move it to the left where it is closer to a tree where the visibility is less, add buffer by moving it back a little bit — but at this point what he has in front of him is what he has reviewed. Ms. Dittmar asked if people could withdraw their appeals, and asked if it kept them in the process if they wanted to remedy this, because it sounds as if everyone was running out of time. Mr. Davis said that the applicant could request a deferral and work with staff in the meantime to see if there was a solution — but withdrawing their appeal would leave them in a state of denial. He also confirmed that the applicant would have as long as they want, and there wouldn't be a one -year holdback after the denial because this is a ministerial application. Mr. Preston Lloyd addressed the Board, stating that he represents Williams Mullen law firm and was before them on behalf of AT &T. Mr. Lloyd said that the essence of the appeal is to answer one single question — what is the appropriate standard for minimizing visibility. He said that they got to a point in the application process where staff and the applicant disagreed on how that was being applied, and at that point they felt the Board needed to weigh in on this. Mr. Lloyd stated that they feel there is "a major misunderstanding" between the County and a major carrier that operates here, which they need to clarify before they move forward. He said that the next step involves a lot of engineering — the E &S report — and typically that would be submitted after some indication from staff that the general tower location is acceptable. Mr. Lloyd said that this would provide AT &T with the confidence needed to move forward with the expense, figuring out the layout of the road, and if the Board says that the site doesn't work, that money would have been wasted. He stated that what they're looking for tonight is a recommendation for staff to find that this is a site that has effectively minimized the visibility and that it's approvable, and AT &T then needs to submit an E &S report — and upon its approval, this would be an approvable site. Mr. Lloyd said that this was the process that AT &T was looking for. Mr. Lloyd reported on the process that AT &T goes through when finding a new site, stating that there are a lot of reasons they may need a new facility — the two major ones being there is infill needed where there is a lack of coverage, especially in rural areas, and the other is a capacity issue whereby too many people are trying to ping onto the same towers. He said that AT &T hires an outside consultant — a site acquisition specialist — and then provide them with a search ring in which they must site a new facility. Mr. Lloyd stated that the specialist then goes out and searches that ring to try to find properties within that ring that meet three criteria: it's leasable, it's constructible, and it's zonable. He said that the County May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 45) sends a signal to the provider in terms of what they want in terms of the facilities that can be approved from a zoning perspective. Mr. Lloyd said that originally, when the technology was new, it was the Wild West— without a lot of guidance available from the County— so every single facility had to be brought before the Board and considered on its merits every time. Mr. Lloyd said that it was a very cumbersome process that took a lot of the Board's time, staff time, and there wasn't a lot of confidence from the carrier as to what would be approved because the decision would change every single time based on the variables associated with each individual site. He stated that over time, Congress got involved due to NIMBY reasons, but they felt it was a necessary technology and decided that the best way for the siting to be regulated was local governments. Mr. Lloyd said that local governments were given the power to figure out where the towers would go, but there was a limit to that power, which was that you can't prevent them from coming or create regulations that deny certain areas service. He stated that this set the boundaries for the counties and what they would do in trying to develop the zoning policy that was then given to the wireless providers to determine where to put facilities in the community. Mr. Lloyd said that in December 2000, Albemarle adopted a personal wireless facilities policy that said this is the guideline from a policy perspective for the carriers, and that had one specific policy recommendation for the rural areas — and that was for treetop towers, those just visible above the trees. He noted that these are "line of sight" technologies which means there must be an antenna that has a clear line of sight to the area they're trying to reach, or the "coverage objective," so when the site acquisition specialist has a ring to work with, they have a coverage objective they're trying to hit. Mr. Lloyd said that the treetop tower concept is that it would be shielded by the trees for 90% of the tower, but all of that antenna must be above the treetops, and if not then it won't be effective, and it won't be worth sinking the money into the construction. He stated that the County adopted the Zoning Ordinance to essentially codify that policy; they took the policy recommendations and they made them law, creating a three - tiered process with existing facilities as Tier I; new facilities that meet design criteria provided by the County as Tier II; and facilities built into an avoidance area as Tier III. Mr. Lloyd said that there is great advantage to both the County and the providers in having a clear articulation of the policy; it has to be predictable from the carrier's perspective, and if the carriers don't know what's approvable, the system doesn't work. He stated that there must be a clear expectation, and the skylit criterion has multiple viewpoints, and what may be skylit from one perspective may be back dropped from another perspective — as was the case with staffs review of this particular site. Mr. Lloyd said that the zoning ordinance states very clearly that the site must provide adequate opportunities for screening and shall be sited to minimize visibility. He said that there is a misunderstanding, which is why he is before them, because "minimize" visibility does not equal "invisible," and if it is an invisible cell phone tower it will never work, because that means it doesn't have a line of site to its coverage objective. Mr. Lloyd stated that the question is how you design a facility to be built and constructed in such a way that they've shielded the ground equipment and have tried to prevent it from being something that obstructs the rural view to the greatest degree possible. He said that the County's wireless policy shows two photographs of a treetop tower, and states that this is the type of facility supported by the County — which looks very similar to pictures they saw today. Mr. Lloyd said that this is what carriers are being told the County will approve, and yet they have a staff recommendation that says the AT &T facility is too visible. He presented examples of sites that have been approved over the past decade that look just like the one before them, including an example of a balloon test that's labeled "highly visible," and it doesn't have to be invisible so the question is whether it's highly visible. Mr. Lloyd said that they must use the context from what's been approved before this application to decide what the comparison is — what's in the County and what they've seen in their communities and districts. He said that the adjacent neighbor has said that the trees will not totally cover the width and height of the tower — but that's not the standard, as it doesn't have to be totally covered. Mr. Lloyd stated that there are other sites around the County as well, and he presented pictures from Walton Middle School, which was approved as a Tier II; Scottsville Elementary School; and Mill Creek from Snow's Garden Center. He mentioned that there is a big difference when there are leaves on the trees, and presented a photo of a site that was taken in wintertime and stated that many of the pictures from staff for the AT &T site where taken when there was snow on the ground, so this is "apples to apples." Ms. Mallek said that the thickness of the trees on the AT &T site was radically different from the site that he was showing. Mr. Lloyd also presented images of Taylor's Gap and Monancan Trail South, and an excerpt from the policy— which says that "Albemarle County requires less visible and less intrusive solutions, such as those shown here." He said this was a best practices picture that carriers were supposed to use when siting facilities in the County, and noting that they were much less screened than the AT &T facility before them. Mr. Lloyd said that they are just looking from guidance from the Board and seeking a recommendation that this meets the County's policy for visibility. Ms. Dittmar asked where the closest towers were to this facility. Mr. Lloyd presented a signal propagation map, which showed two other facilities located to the north and south of this proposed facility, with the southern facility being the fire station on Route 20. He said that the reason they didn't want to move the facility back from Route 20, as proposed by staff, was that it created gaps in two specific locations, and also because they felt confused by the visibility standard. Ms. Jean Jones addressed the Board, stating that she was the owner of the property that is affected dramatically by this proposed tower installation. She presented a picture of her property taken earlier that day, showing a swing in her front yard — and a picture of her sitting in the swing with the proposed cell tower in the view. Ms. Jones said that she is not opposed to progress and technology, and May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 46) was on her cell phone all the time. She stated that she bought this piece of property to retreat from the assault of social media, the scenic views, the rolling meadows, the farm across the street, and the beautiful mountains. Ms. Jones said that the installation of this cell tower in this location is an assault on her quality of life, and she has heard four Supervisors mention that their job is to protect that. She stated that she cannot fight "this giant gorilla" who has arrogantly started the installation of this tower, drawn lines, and even started an access road without even having approval. Ms. Jones said that this isn't about stopping progress or "not in my backyard," as this is in her front yard. She stated that this needs to be stopped, and it isn't about enhancing services, it's about money and greed. Ms. Jones said that she went to the County when she bought her house, which was assessed for just under $1 million, but the bank assessed it at $300,000 less because they don't like funding land. Ms. Jones said that she went to the County, and the assessor said that he "would not lower the value of her property" because she was living in one of the most beautiful corridors of Albemarle — and if they lowered her taxes, they would have to do the same for all of her neighbors. She stated that that the County probably couldn't make that assertion today. Ms. Dittmar asked Ms. Jones if she had good cell service. Ms. Jones said that it was not as good as what she got in the City, but it was fair and she was able to talk on her cell phone when she was in her farmhouse and on her property. Ms. Nicole Lewis addressed the Board, stating that she lives at 4894 Stony Point Road, a few doors down from Ms. Jones, and the impact on her farm is significant — but not as much as on Ms. Jones farm, which is "right in your face." Ms. Lewis said that the pictures shown by AT &T look like commercial sites, and they aren't even remotely similar to the Stony Point corridor, which is the most beautiful corridor in Albemarle County. She stated that they have nesting bald eagles behind her farm, and she didn't know how this tower might impact them. Ms. Lewis said that the Piedmont Manor property is the most pristine property she's ever seen in her life, and the impact of this tower on it would be huge. Mr. James Critzer addressed the Board, stating that he lives at 4742 Stony Point Road and noting that the proposed tower would be 220 feet from his property line, and the pictures they showed with the balloon were taken when the foliage was on the trees. He said that what the balloon test doesn't show is that the tower would be visible six months out of the year. Mr. Critzer said that it's visible from his deck out back, it's visible the minute he turns onto his driveway, and from different parts of his yard he would be able to see all of the structure that supports this — the building, the fencing, and other ground equipment. He stated that he uses all of his yard, with playgrounds for the kids and a built -in pool, and they would be able to see the tower from everywhere on his property. Mr. Critzer said that when people come from Orange into Albemarle on Route 20, he has heard for the 30 years he's been there how beautiful it is there, and it really is beautiful. He stated that it is one of the most beautiful corridors in Albemarle, and when this tower is put there it will change that. Mr. Critzer said that staff has done a good job in approving many towers around the County, and when they got to this tower proposal they didn't approve it— and there was a reason. He emphasized that staff has done a very good job in their review of towers, and added that they really know what they're doing. Mr. Maynard Sipe addressed the Board, stating that he represents Piedmont Manor Trust, a historic property located directly across the road from the proposed cell tower site. Mr. Sipe said that the trustee and owner of the property, Ms. Ellen Hampton, is at the meeting. He stated that she had contacted him because of her concerns about the visibility of the tower and its negative impact on her properties; she owns Piedmont Manor as well as a small house that directly abuts the site. Mr. Sipe said that she wanted to have someone analyze this who had experience dealing with cell towers, and he has worked on over 30 sites in the County and is well acquainted with the ordinance. He stated that he feels that staff got this one right and did a proper analysis, and the Board should uphold their decision. Mr. Sipe said that the ordinance is well- crafted as a scheme to balance service provision with limitation of visual impacts in the rural areas. He said that this is a Tier ll, a treetop facility, but in each case the applicant must meet the specific requirements of the ordinance like setbacks, the width and size of the tower, and the size of antennas; and the second and most important part is to meet the ordinance requirement to minimize visibility from adjacent properties — which they did not do in this case. Mr. Sipe said that the ordinance provision that's at the heart of this is cited as 5.1.40.D2, and it's important to recognize that and in doing so, to uphold the decision. He stated that he was present at the balloon test in February, and presented a general location map showing properties in the area surrounding the tower site. Mr. Sipe said that from Piedmont Manor, you can see the balloon directly across the road, and it is visible from almost the entire property. He presented an image from a parcel to the south of the tower, owned by the Wilson's, and stated that the balloon is substantially more than 10 feet above the average tree line. Mr. Sipe presented a photo from a site that's over 4,000 feet from the property, noting that you can still see the balloon and would be able to see the tower with the naked eye, which would be skylit. He stated that there aren't a lot of problems from the west, but the reason the visibility to the east is so intense because the terrain rises. Mr. Boyd asked if he felt there were other locations on this particular site where the tower could be placed so that it wouldn't be so visible, as previously mentioned. Mr. Sipe said that there absolutely were, and there's proof of that in the County's records — including an application from another carrier that shows a site on the same property, and they had designed and engineered an application to provide coverage to the 20 corridor in the same area — and that tower is 105 feet tall, and located in an area that's less visible from adjacent properties. He stated that other steps could have been taken, and other choices the applicant had but did not make. May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 47) Mr. Lloyd said that the Verizon proposal that was put in previously was closer to the road, within 200 feet of a scenic byway, making it a Tier III proposal — but it was withdrawn because it wasn't going to be approved by the Board. He stated that the site has been scoured for alternatives, and it is very difficult for AT &T to get coverage on Route 20 — but the challenge is the topography. Mr. Lloyd said that this is the only big stand of trees within the search ring, and this is the ideal site, with topography playing a role. He stated that this is not a perfect site, without a big hill where they can put a facility and have it back dropped; and they've used the best screening that they have. Mr. Lloyd said that to deny this site would essentially say this isn't good enough, and they should come back with something better. He stated that if they move further away from the road, the land drops in topography, which would require greater height — meaning they would need to go more than 10 feet above the reference tree in order to shoot back down at Route 20, which is not what the policy wants. Mr. Lloyd said that the industry had tried to do the big lattice towers, just a few around the County, but the County said they would allow short towers at just 10 feet above the reference tree — which is essentially screening and mitigating visibility. He stated that the ordinance builds in a little bit of a cushion that provides for extenuating circumstances in the event a tower meets the easy requirements for design but still may be too visible. Mr. Lloyd said that "minimize visibility" is a very subjective standard, and that's the standard AT &T is asking the Board to clarify today — what the standard means, and what constitutes "appropriate" amounts of visibility. He stated that if it is dropped down into the trees so it's invisible to all the surrounding property owners, it won't work, and they are asking for a consistent application. Mr. Lloyd said that this is a good site that will provide service, and it's a health and safety issue, including for school buses as they use AT &T for their service. He stated that this site has been scoured for a number of years, and this is the site that has produced the least visibility — and the question is how many times AT &T has to bring an application forward before they finally get one approved. He added that the question is what burden is legitimate to put on AT &T, so it's also an economic development issue, which is one the County struggles with. The Chair closed this portion of the meeting for public comments and the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Boyd asked if the visibility determination as to whether something was skylit or not was done by a single planner, or if it was a group effort. Mr. Benish explained that the planner brings it to a staff meeting where they discuss it and try to look at the comparables, but recognize that there are unique circumstances to each site that bear unique consideration, but they do try to remain as consistent as possible. He noted that the applicant did a good job of outlining the issues. Mr. Boyd said that he wanted to ensure that it was a joint decision to determine that this tower was too visible from too many vantage points. Mr. Benish said that the applicant provided a good presentation of the issue, and the intent of the policy and the ordinance is to try to be as prescriptive as possible — and going into their Tier II analysis, there is still additional information and guidance that can help in their decision - making, but there are still gray areas and staff felt there were ways to further improve the site. Mr. Boyd said that he couldn't support the application as presented and would agree with staffs finding, and suggested that the applicant consider deferral to look at a different location either on that site or in a different location. Ms. Mallek said that there didn't seem to be any middle ground, based on what Mr. Davis had said. Mr. Davis said that the applicant could choose to defer to try to improve their application, but if the applicant doesn't want to do that, then the Board would need to either a pprove or deny the appeal. Ms. Palmer said that Mr. Critzer had mentioned that the tower was 220 feet from his property line, and to her that seemed really important in deciding where a cell tower should be — as it is would be really visible at that distance. Mr. Benish said that it depends on the vegetation, and these towers were never intended to be stealthy— it's just impossible, as there would always be some visibility. He stated that given the circumstances of that site, they have located them as close as that or even closer. Mr. Benish said that there isn't a rule other than the fall zone, and an applicant would need easements if it was beyond the distance — and depending on the type of coverage, vegetation and angles, they could be acceptable or not acceptable. Ms. Dittmar asked about the comparable towers shown by Mr. Lloyd, and asked if staff agreed that they were comparable. Mr. Benish said that there were two in which the Board weighed varying benefits, including the Scottsville tower, which staff had recommended for denial — and the Board's desire was to have service in a lacking area. He said that the Walton Middle School site skylighting was from the school, and staff has given deference to allowing schools to be target sites, accepting the fact it may be more visible from those sites. May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 48) Ms. Mallek stated that the photo shown was taken looking almost straight up, and the photo that was part of the Scottsville application showed much more protection than this view. She said that she didn't like having this game played with her, and it made her mad. Mr. Benish said that there are sites that are skylit, and there are certain angles and mountainous areas, so staff tries to look at the preponderance and the amount of the visibility, the distance, etc. — and try to be as consistent as possible, but all sites are somewhat unique. Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Perez if either of the reasons for disapproval were more important than the other, or if they were considered to be fairly equal. Mr. Perez said that it was more the visibility, and if the applicant had been willing to come back and do the E &S plan, staff would have just waited until that was done. Mr. Boyd said that's why he had suggested that there be a deferral, because it may be possible for the applicant to find another location on this site. Mr. Lloyd said that they would be willing to defer, but if the Board feels the tower is too visible, then it would be helpful if they would say why. He said that they don't want to end up in a situation where they keep submitting applications only to have them told they were not quite there yet, and to try again. Mr. Boyd said that's why he asked staff how the decision process was done at their level, and the reality of the situation is that it's a somewhat subjective observation by individuals — and unfortunately, they can't provide any more than that. Ms. Mallek pointed out that the County went to court for the ability to use aesthetics for the reason for their siting choices, and it's important that they not relinquish that too easily. She said that hundreds of tower applications that have gone through in the seven years she's been on the Board, so there are obviously many proposals that are meeting the requirements and who don't withhold the information needed to start the process. She stated that she is very concerned that this "running out of time" is being used as a weapon against the staff to be able to make the proper decision. Ms. Mallek said that staff has done exactly what the Board has asked them to do, and it's up to the applicants to live up to requirements. Ms. Dittmar said that she's in no position to give any feedback, and perhaps when they get through the changes to the ordinance, there may be more clarity. Ms. Mallek said that "scenic view" looks different to every set of eyes, and they just have to face that Mr. Davis clarified that the standard is "visibility," not "aesthetics," and contrary to what the applicant said, a facility doesn't have to be invisible — and that is recognized throughout the policy — but there is a requirement under the ordinance to minimize visibility on any particular site, and in this particular instance, they have not met the burden at this point. He said that there is substantial evidence before the Board that would justify upholding staff's recommendation, but ultimately that's a determination that must be made by the Board. Mr. Boyd said that he was willing to let the applicant work on another site for this facility. Mr. Lloyd said that the Board has signaled that the applicant should go back to the drawing board with staff, and they would follow that instruction. Ms. Mallek said that if it's a new location, it would require a new application Mr. Davis said that they can work with this particular parcel, and the application has been made for this parcel — so they could choose to relocate it on this parcel or decide to improve the existing site to ensure visibility is appropriately minimized. Ms. Mallek asked if they had the enabling authority to make sure the clock doesn't start until all required elements have been submitted and the applicant has complied with the requirements. Mr. Davis said that in this case staff met the clock requirements, and at this point it would be a deferral from the applicant, and staff will work as expeditiously as possible. Ms. Mallek said she didn't want staff to feel as though they were backed into a corner again with an 89 -day response. Mr. Benish stated that staff would work as expeditiously as possible so that the applicant can get a decision on this, and find out whether this is the best possible site and assess it from there. Mr. Boyd moved for an indefinite deferral until the applicant and staff reach a position as to whether or not the application is approvable. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion. May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 49) Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion and Possible Action, re: Route 29 Advisory Panel Recommendations. (Removed from agenda by previous vote). Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were none. Agenda Item No. 20. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda There were none. Agenda Item. No. 21. Adjourn. Mr. Davis said that it was his understanding that more than four Board members were going to attend the roundtable for the proffer discussion, and they would not need to adjourn to that if they were only going to observe. Ms. Palmer moved to adjourn the meeting to May 27, 2014 for the public hearing on the Route 29 proposed solutions. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel. NAYS: None. Chairman Approved by Board Date: 11/12/2014 Initials: EWJ Citizen Communication 1) Tag Map Parcel 03400- 00- 00 -07000 Property Owner: Jean Jones Ms. Jones called and wrote an email to staff to voice her concerns that she is opposed to the project because of visibility issues with the tower which will affect her enjoyment of her home and land values of her property. She also wrote staff the attached letter in opposition dated March 6, 2014. 2) Tag Map Parcel 03500- 00 -00- 02100, TMP 04800- 00- 00- 079D0, 03500- 00- 00- 020A2, 04800- 00- 00- 079D1, 03500- 00- 00- 020A3, 03500- 00- 00 -020A4 Property Owner: Piedmont Manor Land Trust Legal Council: Maynard Sipe Mr. Sipe met with staff on two occasions at the County Office building to .voice his clients concerns, he also attended the February balloon test. He has also written staff two letters of opposition dated January 22, 2014, and February 28, 2014 (see attached). 3) Tag Map Parcel 03400- 00- 00 -070A0 Property Owner: Jeanette David Ms. David called and wrote an email to staff to voice her concerns that she is opposed to the project because of visibility issues which will affect her enjoyment of her home. She claims she can see the reference tree from her back yard, and will be able to see the tower's ground equipment and the tower itself. Since her initial phone call Ms. David has sold the property to William and Lauren Miller. 4) Tag Map Parcel 03400- 00- 00 -070BO Property Owner: James Critzer Mr. Critzer called and wrote a couple emails to staff to voice his concerns about the proposed location of the tower. He and his family are opposed to the project because of visibility issues which will affect the enjoyment of their home. He claims that the reference tree is very visible from their home and they are concerned that they will be able to see the tower while enjoying their back deck/pool. They said they believe it would be less visible if it was 50 —100 feet further back/ deeper into the woods on the Durkin's property. Mr. Critzer attended the February balloon test and permitted staff to view the tower from his property. He also wrote staff the attached letters in opposition dated January 22, 2014, March 7, 2014, and March 12, 2014. `- "^==="AC1 March 6i2Ol4 Christopher P.Perez / Planning Services County ofAlbemarle 40l McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA229O2-4S96 ` Re: SBP2013000048 Durkin Property AT&T Wireless Facility. Dear Mr. Perez: Busada Manufacturing Corporation Louisa County Industrial Air Park Louisa, Virginia 23093-4105 540.967.2882 540.9672884 Fax 800.645.7062 www.busada.com |arn the owner of the farm adjacent tothe Durken property where you are considering installing acell tower. K4y address is4826 Stony Point Road. (Jones 34-7Dc\ Though |ann not opposed to modern progress, |arn vehemently opposed to the site where this tower is being installed. It impacts my view shed tremendously as the area is not nearly wooded enough to cover the width nor height of this eyesore. |t will impact the quality of my life as the farm was purchased to enjoy the rolling hills, meadow, cattle, and southwest mountain views, not steel towers and flashing lights. i have spent thousands of dollars in hiring an architect to design a sunroom with outside facil ities/landsca ping to take advantage of this view. When | first bought this property, it was appraised much higher by Albemarle County than the bank would appraise it for aloan. | went to the county tax accessnrot that time hm make sense of this and get a break cnrnytaxes. He refused to lower the value of this land appraisal as he told me it was one of the most valuable corridors in Albermarle County and he could not lower his assessment of the LAND. He went on to tell me why he valued the land so highly... for the views. I don't believe he could justify that appraisal with a cell tower interrupting those dramatic and peaceful views. |n fact, our taxes were just raised. This installation would have significant impact on that value for me as my view would be devalued, not to mention less beautiful. >s there not another location for this tower that we could consider? Maybe in the back of the property? ! would like very much to set upa meeting with you to discuss this further. { can be reached at434-99G' Thank you for your consideration. J lv�h B. Jones Boyd sipl 126 Gar ., Suite A I PO Box 237 1 Charlottesville, VA 22900oydandsipe.com MAYNARD SIPE Attorney at Law (434) 249 -9134 maynard @boydandsipe.com January 22, 2014 TARA R. BOYD Attorney at Law (804) 248 -8713 tara @boydandsipe.com Christopher Perez, Senior Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP2013000048 Durkin Property AT &T Wireless Facility Dear Mr. Perez: Thank you very much for.meeting with me on Tuesday, January 21 st to review the pending application by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC to construct a new personal wireless service facility (PWSF) along Route 20 north of Stony Point (referred to as the Durkin Property AT &T site). I represent Piedmont Manor Land Trust, owner of properties abutting the Durkin property. The Trust is very concerned about the how the planned facility is proposed to be located on the Durkin property, and how it will negatively impact both adjacent properties and the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. After reviewing the application, I request that a balloon test be required as provided for under Albemarle County's PWSF regulations found within the County's zoning ordinance. Such a balloon test is essential to properly assess whether the facility is located in a manner that minimizes its visibility from adjacent parcels and protects the Rural Historic District. The proposed facility as it is presently located on the site, fails to minimize visual impacts on adjacent parcels. It is located very close to the backyards of several residences to the east and the proposed monopole will loom over them. This could be avoided by locating the facility further away from these residences. The Durkin property comprises almost 30 acres, of which approximately half is wooded. There is sufficient opportunity to locate the facility deeper within the wooded area of the property, further away from the residences. The facility as proposed also fails to ensure conservation of trees lying between the facility, these neighboring residences and Route 20. In addition, plantings should be provided to Commercial Real Estate, Land Use & Local Government Law ensure the facility is screened from these neighboring residences at times of year when leaves are off the trees. Equally important, the facility as proposed will negatively impact the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and contributing structures and properties within the District. This Historic District and its contributing structures and properties are important historical and cultural resources. The rural area and open space components of the County's Comprehensive Plan make it clear that these resources are to be protected. The PWSF regulations state that such resources are not to be adversely impacted. It is thus important that the proposed wireless facility be critically evaluated for its impacts on these resources. A balloon test would assist such an evaluation. Most likely, the proposed facility could be relocated on the site so as to further reduce its visibility from these resources. 1 trust that further steps will be taken to ensure the adverse impacts of this proposed facility are minimized and it complies fully with all zoning ordinance requirements. I would also appreciate receiving a copy of all staff comments related to this project. Sincerely, M4nd Sipe, Esq. cc: Piedmont Manor Land Trust Boyd& Sipe 126 Garrett St., Suite A I PO Box 237 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902 boydandsipe.com MAYNARD SIPE Attorney at Law (434) 249 -9134 maynard @boydandsipe.com 28 February 2014 TARA R. BOYD Attorney at Law (804) 248 -8713 tara @boydandsipe.com Christopher Perez, Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Re: SDP201300048 Durkin. Property AT &T Tier 11 Wireless Facility Dear Mr. Perez: I appreciate the opportunity to view the balloon test conducted on February 20, 2014 for a proposed new wireless communications tower to be located on property just northeast of Stony Point. The balloon test confirmed that the proposed tower will be visible from a wide area and would result in an adverse visual impact on many adjacent properties, including those owned by Piedmont Manor Land Trust. The results of the balloon test, coupled with information available from a prior application for a wireless communications tower on the same property, demonstrate that the present application by AT &T does not comply with the County's siting requirements for Tier II facilities. The application should thus be denied. The balloon test revealed that the proposed tower will easily be visible from much of the Piedmont Manor Land Trust farm property which lies directly across Route 20 from the proposed tower site. The tower's visibility from Piedmont Manor house and its grounds will have a significant negative impact on the property. The house is recognized as a notable historic resource and is a contributing structure to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District (See photos attached as Exhibit A). The tower facility will have an even worse impact on a residence owned by Piedmont Manor Land Trust located at 4760 Stony Point Road. This residence is on one of four separate parcels owned by Piedmont Manor Land Trust that directly abut the Durkin property. The proposed tower is located too close to the common property line and will have a significant negative visual impact on these parcels, as Commercial Real Estate, Land Use & Local Government Law not only the top of the tower will be visible but also the lower portion of the tower and its ground facilities will likely be visible through the woods from these parcels. I also note that the proposed tower will be visible from many adjacent properties. During the balloon test is was confirmed that the proposed tower will be visible from properties described in County records as Tax Map Parcels 48 -79C, 35 -16, 35 -70C, 35 -17 and 34- 70 (see Exhibit A, Views 7 and 8 as examples). This illustrates the wide area in which the proposed tower will have unnecessary visual impacts. What is most troubling about this particular proposed tower site, is that it has been deliberately located at a point on the Durkin property that actually maximizes its visibility and negative visual impact on adjacent properties. This is directly opposite of what the Personal Wireless Communication Facilities section of Albemarle County's zoning ordinance requires. Section 5..1.40(d)2 requires that "the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility." In this instance, the applicant has sought out one of the tallest available trees, which it purports is 124.7' in height, and then used that as the reference tree to enable it to propose a 131.5' tall tower. This reference tree lies west of the proposed tower and is notably taller than almost all other trees surrounding the tower site. While it is strictly permissible to choose the tallest tree available on site as the reference tree, in this particular case, the tower was located east of the reference tree and deliberately positioned so that the tower is generally 30' or more taller than the trees lying between the tower and the majority of the adjacent properties with a view of the proposed tower. The applicant's choice of tower site and height will result in the proposed tower being skylighted as viewed from many adjacent properties (again, see Exhibit A). The Tree Height Diagram on Sheet A -2 of applicant's site plan submittal illustrates this problem with the tower's siting and height. Almost all of the trees shown on this diagram actually lie west of the tower and provide no screening whatsoever of adjacent properties along the Route 20 corridor. In contrast, a 100' oak (TR7) that does lie in the visual path from adjacent properties has only a top height elevation of 658.1' AMSL which is 29.4 feet below the top of the tower, the elevation of which is given as 687.5' AMSL. This shows how the existing trees located.between the tower site and the adjacent properties along the Route 20 corridor do not serve to adequately screen the tower. While it is important for wireless service providers to site a tower so that it will be effective in providing service, this particular tower design goes beyond what is needed to provide coverage to the area to be served. A review of a prior wireless communication tower application filed on behalf of Verizon Wireless in 2008 (SDP200800039) demonstrates why this is so. In this earlier application, Verizon Wireless proposed a similar tower on the Durkin property, designed to provide wireless coverage to the same area along the Route 20 corridor. The tower proposed at that time was to have a height of only 105'. The tower 2 was located in the same woods on the Durkin property, but was sited in a different location that, instead of maximizing the visual impact of the tower, better attempted to mitigate such impact. ` The elevation of the top of the tower proposed by Verizon Wireless was 664' AMSL, 23.5 feet lower than the tower presently proposed by AT &T. The Verizon site plan resulted in not only a lower tower height but also better screening by immediately adjacent trees (see Sheet C1 7A of Verizon Wireless site plan). The Verizon Wireless site also allowed more opportunity for the proposed tower to be either screened by off -site tree lines, or mitigated by wooded backdrops as viewed from adjacent properties. Verizon Wireless also proposed a wooden fence to assist in screening the ground facilities from view of residences on adjacent properties, which AT &T has not (see page 3 of Verizon Wireless application narrative). In conclusion, the proposed tower is simply too tall, and has been located and designed without any attempt to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets. There is insufficient screening of the proposed tower, and its design and location will result in it being skylighted as viewed from many adjacent properties. The proposed tower will have a significant negative visual impact on the historic Piedmont Manor house and properties owned by Piedmont Manor Land Trust. It will also have a significant negative visual impact on many other adjacent residences and properties. On behalf of Piedmont Manor Land Trust, I ask that the application be denied. Sincerely, '�faxzr — Maynard Sipe, Esq. EXHIBIT A VIEWS FROM PIEDMONT MANOR View 1: View from edge of patio. View 2: View from driveway (Piedmont Manor house to right of viewpoint). ty�N f View 3. View from barn area to rear of Piedmont Manor house (house in view to right) View 4. View from driveway to barn area. VIEWS FROM ROUTE 20 View 5: View from Route 20 heading northbound View 6: Second view from Route 20 heading northbound. VIEWS FROM OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES View 7: View from rear yard of residence on Parcel 48 -79C View 8: View from front yard of residence on Parcel 35 -17. 0 • January 22, 2014 Christopher Perez, Senior Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Durkin Property AT &T Wireless Facility Dear Mr. Perez, I am writing to you about my concerns of the new personal wireless service facility to be placed along the service corridor of Route 20 north in Stony Point. As a homeowner with property adjacent to the proposed site, I am not opposed to the placement of the facility on the Durkin property, but I am concerned about how the current proposed placement on that property will affect the service corridor, the surrounding residents, and the view shed we've come to enjoy. The original balloon test was conducted in September, when the foliage was still present on the deciduous trees surrounding the site. An additional test during the winter months, when the trees are bare, would reveal the true effect of the facility on our view shed. Furthermore, it is my understanding that according to code, the facility cannot rise more than ten feet above the tallest tree at the site. I am concerned that the tallest tree appears to be a great deal taller than the rest of the tress, so that if a facility meeting such specifications would not blend into the view shed as the code is meant to ensure. Also the addition of the proposed two foot tall lightening rod would cause the facility to protrude twelve feet instead of ten. I appreciate your consideration of this matter. Again, I believe the facility could be placed on the Durkin property to the satisfaction of all surrounding residents and in a manner in which the view shed would be minimally affected. A different site on the property, I believe, could solve the problem. Sincerely, James A Critzer Jn Christopher P. Perez tc� Senior Planner Planning Services County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 (434)296 -5832 (434)972 -4126, fax Mr. Perez, I am writing to you regarding the proposed construction of the AT &T wireless facility tower at the Durken property site on Rt. 20. As an adjoining property owner, I'd like to further document my concerns. The top of the tower has been talked about the most, but the full 132 feet, top to bottom, is going to be visible from my property and that of my neighbors. Such a tower at the proposed site would affect the view shed from all points of my property. From entertaining on my deck or pool, to looking out the west facing windows of my home, to simply entering my driveway, the tower would be a constant eyesore, and other adjoining and surrounding properties would be similarly affected. In the event the tower is approved for the present location on the Durken property, I want to also point out that the nine trees on the Davis property to the north of my property block some of the tower from my view and that of the cars that travel north on the Rt 20 entrance corridor. These trees could be renounced at any time by the Davises or a subsequent owner, and the responsibility for screening the whole tower and any building or any fencing at the tower's base should be the applicant's. Are these trees going to be replaced if they are damaged. Will there be a privacy fence put up? Will the fence look natural during the part of the year I can see through the woods? Concerning the entrance corridor, as I pointed out to you the Thursday of the balloon test, the tower will even be seen from a good portion of Rt 20, and all who drive on it will be impacted. If the installation location is approved by the planners, it will affect one of the areas that give Albemarle County the prestige and beauty and that is talked about by many as they pass through the county, from those getting their first impression to the people traveling the corridor on a daily basis. How many such beautiful areas are left uncompromised in Albemarle county? In a meeting I had recently with John Vermillion, the president of the Stony Point Fire Company, I learned that AT &T had a site approved for the tower on the fire department's land, and Mr. Vermillion indicated that the tower would be eagerly welcomed on the property. (The fire company's land was donated to them by the owner of Piedmont Manor Farm). Such a site would be better suited as it would not encroach upon the Rt 20 view shed, and the money paid to the fire company would in turn benefit the entire community. The proposed site for the tower on the Durken property is too close to homes and the Rt 20 entrance corridor. I am sure AT &T could find a more suitable location, whether the fire department or another. I am asking the planners to please protect the view shed of Albemarle county and its residents. Even if they fail to find one with the maximum signal they would like, the county's protection of neighboring residents and, the view shed, and the beauty of northern Albemarle will be in everyone's best interest. That is, in short, what I am asking, for planners to please protect the view shed of Albemarle County and its residents. I appreciate your regard for my concerns as you consider this matter, and I am available to answer any questions or clarify any information should you need to contact me. Thank you for your time. James A Critzer I Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Planning Services County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 (434)296 -5832 (434)972 -4126, fax Mr. Perez, I am writing with a few more thoughts about the proposed AT &T site on the Durken property before you make your decision. All who live on the Rt 20 entrance corridor pay high property costs and taxes for the privilege of owning land on a road with a protected view shed. An example of this is one such neighbor pays in excess of ten thousand dollars a yearjust to keep the grass cut beside the road of the entrance corridor. When one neighbor, Jeannie Jones, asked the tax assessor to lower the rate on her land, she was told that it was out of the question as her land fronted this particular entrance corridor and Albemarle County valued her property highly In addition to the expense of living on our properties, we also abide by numerous rules and regulations to maintain the beauty of Albemarle County along our entrance corridor. Stony Point Market, a mile down the road from me on the entrance corridor, is limited in the number of colors they may paint their store, I am prevented from putting up wind mills or starting a business on my own property because of how it might affect the view shed. How consistent will your actions be as a representative of Albemarle County if you pass the installation of this tower when the decision does not include the same rules that are imposed to its residents that live along the corridor The proposed AT &T tower will most certainly negatively affect the view shed of Rt 20, so it seems the question being considered is how much of a negative effect will the county now allow. I would ask why such a compromise is even being considered. The precedent of the tower even being considered is that we should all be able to do any of these things so long as it now only affects the view shed to a certain point. If the tower is approved, am then free to erect my own 132 ft tower in my backyard? Regardless of language that might be used, the county is deviating from and altering the law considering the protection of the Albemarle County view shed. It seems a blind eye is being turned to the rules and ordinances that have been put in place over the years by past generations. AT &T's orange and white utility poles have already compromised the entrance corridor for those traveling on Rt 20. The entrance corridor and the view shed were established to protect the beauty of Albemare County. Every adjoining property owner to the Durken property proposed tower sight has opposed this tower and giving you that documentation. Residents along the corridor such as myself, the Wilsons, the Davis's and the Piedmont Manor Farm have owned our properties for over thirty years. Each of us, as well as every other resident I've spoken to is against this tower. I cannot understand what other consideration might have as much weight as our unified opposition. James A Critzer