HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000003 Legacy Document 2010-06-16ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 2010 -3 Singleton
Property (AT &T) Tier 11 P1F
Staff:
ARB
Gerald atabu- Principal Planner. Been# Nelson-
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing:
June 22 "°, 2010 NIA --
Owners: Singleton Ann P.
Acreage; 2,089
(Lease Area: 600 square feet)
TMP; Tax Map 58At, Paroel 40FI
Location: 2856 Morgantown Road [State
Route 7381 approximateiy 600 feet front the
Intersection of Morgantown Road [State
Route 7381 and 1 Road State Route 250
Magisterial District: Samuel Miler
Applicant: AT &T. Gerry Sharp
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for; Not applicable
By -right use VR, Village Residential and EC. Entrance
Corridor Overlay
Proffers/Conditions No
Requested ;N of Dwelling Units/Lots: NIA I DA.
proposal: Proposal to install a Tier II
personal wireless service facility. The
proposed facility will consist of a 69-foot
tall monopole and associated
equipment. The monopole will be (I D)
ten feat above the reference tree.
RA - X
Comp. Plans Designation- Rural Area in Rural Area 3
haracter of Property' The proposed site is Use of Surrounding Properties:
located on a parcet with an entrance off Single-family Residential Homes
Morgantown Road [Mate Route 738), The
lease area is wooded and there is an existing
residential structure on the properly-
Factors Favorable: Proposal meets the Factors Unfavorable. This personal wireless service facility
requirements of Section 5,1,40,2 and will be has not satisfied all condlions of the Archttectural Review
installed and operated in comp IOnce with Board.
section 5.1.40,d Criteria (1) through (8)
Recommendation. This proposal meets the requirements of Section 5 .1 -40.a, and will be installed and
operated in compliance with section 5.1.4 (),d Criteria (1) through {8 }, however, Architectural Review Board
conditions have not been satisfied because a certificate of ap2rognateness for this project has not. y, _ ..bep
annrnvpd A hearing an the aooeai of the ARB's denial of the certificate of appropriateness for this project i,
Staff cannot recommend approval of this personal wireless facility-
S'rAFi~ CONTACT'
PLANNING COMMISSION-
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
NER:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL.
Gerald Gatubu: Brent Nelson
June 22 ", ?1110
nP 2010-3: Singleton Property - AT &T- Personal
Wireless Service facility
Singleton Ann P.
Gerry Sharp, AT&T
Rv,q uest for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would he approximately 69 feet ta11( 10 feel above the height of the reference tree). within a 20 x
30 foot lease area. This application is being made in accordance with section 12.2 . 1. (16) of the
Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier 11 - .,.ircless facilities by right in the Village Residential
Zoning District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Tits Comprehensive flan design ws this property as Dural Area in Dural Area 3.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed site is located on a parcel adjoining the north side of MorgantoAm road (State
Route 73$), approximately 600` southwest of the intersection with route 250. The lease area is
heavily wwded and situated approximately 300' south of the Route 250 right-of-way. This
section of the Route 250 entrance corridor includes a mix of small commercial businesses, and
patches of mixed hardwoodlevergreen forest amongst single family homes. (Attachment B').
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
No planning and zoning histan- was found for this parcel.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 pro ;ides the following dertnitions that are relevant #t► this propndiol:
Tier 11 personal wireless serrice, actUiy- A personal - Aireless service facility that is a treetop
facHity not located within an avoidance area,
Tm,extp. fveility: A personal Lkirelm service facility consisting of a self - supporting monopole
having a single shaft of wood. metal or concrete no more than ten (10) Feet taller than the crown
of the tallest tree witldn twenty -five (25) feet of the monopole. measwcd above sea level (A L.),
and includes azoeiated antennas. mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
personal wireless service equipment.
1)
2
voidance vrea: An area having signnificant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge arm Where a pemnal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district. (iii) a parcel witWn a historic district: (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless sen ice facilit }� and three (3) car more existing or approved personal wireless rvice
facilities would be vtivithin an area comprised of a circle centered anvwhere on the ground hav in 9.
a radius of two hundred (214) feet: or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by -way.
Section 5.1 40 {(I), "'Fier I facilities" ,late. (Emphasis Added)
"Each Tier I1 facility, men, he established upon commission approval of an arpplicallon satiq.6,ing
the requirements of subs erion 5. L40(a) and demonstruling that the aci ifY will be installed and
operated in c.'omphance svith all applicable prowsions of this chapter. criteria fT11hr•ough ( )
helou-, and satisfying all condifrans of the archilecturai review board- The commission shall
act on each appficarion within the time periu& esiablished ire section 314.2.6. The commission
shall approve each application. twi isout conditions, once ii determines rlierl all of tleese
requiremenn have beerr satisfied- 1f the cominission denies an application, it shall idea f,.
which requirements ents were not sati.s/ied and inform Me applicam what needs let he done to sa sb?
each requ remunt, "
Per section 5.1.40.d abuve. the T'lanniag Commission can appmvc each lower application when:
al Requirepnew -v of'subsection 5.1.40(a) are satisfied
b) The applicant &mornsrrazexs that rite facilit), will be in stalked card operated in compliance
vs'itlr cr1l upplicable provisions of obis chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
I All conditions of `tire ureliite *ctural revieaF board are srrfrsfred
The Planning Comm ission shall approve each application, without conditions once it determines
that all of the shove requirements have heen met.
The applicant has submiutnd an application that .satisfies the requirements set forth in Section
5.1AO(a) and _ demonstrated that the facility wi11 be installed and operated in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter. criteria (l ) through (S) sho -wn below. The applicant has not
satisfied all con diti ns uFthe Architectural Rev igw Board because a certificare of
aonronriateness ha% not Yet been 4 roved,
,several balloon tests were performed ai the k)-c ation of the prMlsecl facility tAttachment CI- On
Msy 3"d 2010, the Architectural Review Board reviewed this rcluesI far cumpl<iance with
the tvount' %.Is- design guidelines for the entrance corridor [State Route 25111 and denied the
application. lAtUchment l)[.
Section, 5.1.4f)(d)(1): Tire futility whelp cerrrrlrlr toh mbrevion 5,1,40(b) and subsection
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
Staff has determined that the proposed ractlity's location Wraphes with all of the exempiinns of
Section 5.1 A(Xb) and the proposed Nuipment meets all relevant design, rnounting and size
criteria that are set forth in Section 5.1.40(c)(2) and (3). `1'he remainder of subsection (0
3
provides acquirements that are subject to enforcement ifthe facility is approved.
Section .1.40(d)(2): 'the .cite shall prorlde adequate oppormnifies for.screening and the 1arci ir,},
shall be stied to inirrrmize its vivibilio- rom a4acent parcels acrd streets. regardless Df their
distance_ir'om d facilii - ff iher. fficil rtr would he visibie,lrnrtr a slate scenic river or u national
park or rrarinnul hrcfst, re or•diess of whether Me site is a4jacunt thereto, the fucilh), also shall
be srled so minimize its visibilhy ftom +rich river. park r,r writ. if the facdhy would be located
on Ian&, subject w a c'ons'ervation easemew or an n rr xpaee easement. thefaeility shall be
sifed to so that it iw not visible from an.y resources .specr call y idenftfied for protection in the
deed of easement.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 69 feet
above ground level or 662 feet above mean sea level (AMSi,). The height of the reference = is
59 feet above ground Icvel or 652 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located within 25 of
feet of the proposed rnopopole. A balloon test was conducted onj7ebruary 10th, 2010. The
haIIoiPn was flown 14 feet east of theprmpL)sed monopole Site. Overhead branches prevented tlrc
balloon from being gown at the exact monopole Iogation. The hallcoon a, visible for a distance
of upproxirnately 300' along the State Route 250 Vilest Entrance Corridor at the proposed
elevation of 69 feet, or 10* above the top of the reference tree. however it must he note d that a�
we drove down the slope towardti ]vv Lind the Exxon gas station. telephone. boles, electric acrd
telephone wires. sums, and bpi Idings also appeared in our vigw. As a companion. the balloon
Avas lowered so that it was only 7' above the reference tree. or 66 feet. The balloon was visible
for the same di -mute along tb; entrance corridor. At both elevations, the balloon was directly
Asible along Stag Route 230 west as tine approached the Exxon gas station in Ivy. The bal1wn
graduully disappeared from view as one drove do Am towards Demers restaurant and ivy
Commons on State route 250 west. The balloon was minimally visible along Morganto nn load.
In an effort to minirnixe the visibility of the monopole from udjueernt parcels and streets and
haled on the visibility results ol'the first balloon test. the applicant decided to conduct a second
balloon test on February 23`� 10 10. The balImn was f mNm to a height of6 } feet (4 fcel_a_kx yg
reference tree), and 14 feet east of the proposed monopole location. The bal. Ioun was visible for
the same distance along the entrance corridor as the previous balloon test. At tour (`t) feet above
the reference tree, the bet loan was directly visible along State Route ?50 vest as we approached
the Exxon gas station in ley. Telephone Holes. electric and teIgphcsne iAires. signs. and buildings
al so appeared in cur view. The balloon gaduaIly disappearm] from view we drove dawn past the
Exxon gas station towards the Ivy Railroad Bridge. Daners restaurant,* and Ivy Commons on
State Route 250 west. The balloon xvas minimally %isible along Morgantown Road. The results
of the Febmmn, 10. 2010 and February ?3.2010 balloon tests were presented to the Architectural
Review Board on March 15. 20 10. The Architectural Review Beard. by a vote of 4:0, denied the
appli=t's request (Attachment D).
The applicant appealed the A U3 decision to the Board of Supervisors. but withdrew the appeal.
A new location 13.5 feet northwest of the }proposed monopole location that would simulate a
more accurate representation of the proposed monopole location was chosen as a new launch site
for a third balloon test. A balloon test at this new Ideation .had been pdvatcly conducxed by the
applicant and the results included irr the Architectural Review Board appeal tQ the Board of
Supervisors. Upon recommendation from architectural review board staff, the applicant
withdmw the appeal so that staff could attend a balloon test at the new location cited in the Board
of Supenvisors ;appeal. The project was then refermd hack to the Architectuml. Review Board for
4
review and action. To AmArn further effort its reducing the proposed manopnles vi .6bility from
adjacent parcdi imd streets the anplicant aigreed to rnnduct a third balloon test at the new
location 13.5 Feet northwest of the proposed munupole location.
Staff attended a third balloon test on Friday. April 16. 010. Again. due to existing overhead
branches, the balloon %-as launched from a location approximately 13.5' northwest of the
proposed monopole. The balloon wus flown to the height of the mopopole, 69 tcct and 14' above
the reference tree. The balloon was visible and oriented dirertly in front of the viewer while
descending the hill on State route 250 West at [v,' for a distance of approximately 304 ". The
hallaon was visible in the vicinity of three ev"green trees which appeared to the left and right of
the bAoon. Additionally i e lqphope no I es, electric and tcle hone wires. si ns. and buiIdi WA so
a_nneared in our view as we descended the hill at Ivy;. The balloon continued to be visible. but to
a lesser degree, as one drove doom past the Exxon gas station. towards the TvY Railroad Bridge.
Duners restaurant. And iv-%- Commons on state route 250 vves# [Attachment C 1. The balloon was
not visible from ether points along route 250 west. The lease area and associated ground
equipment will not be vrisiblc from the entrance corridor or along, Morgunimm Read. The results
of the April 16'h, 2 D 10 balloon test were presented to the Ar6iicc:tural Review Board on May
3rd. 2014. 1 -hc Architectural Review Board. by a vote of 3:1. denied the applicant's request
(Atiav: neat D). The applicant appealed the Architectural Review Board decision to the Board cif
Supervisors. On June I e ?U 14, the Board of Supervisors by a vote of 6:0 deferred the
Architectural Review ('hoard appeal (ARB -2010 -42) to their July 14, 2010 meeting
The monopole at the proposed elevation of ten (10) feet abavtc the reference tree rill be visible
from State Route 250 west. The Architectural Review Board denied the tower application based
on the degree oFvisibiIity at one location along the entrance corridor IState Route 250 west]
(Attachment Q. The personal wireless facility roust be sited to minimize its visibility from
adjacent parcels and streets. It is impvr1anI to mote Ihat the wireless policy and Zo ttiag
Ordinance aim to mitigate or minimize visnnl impacts as opposed to staking persona
wireless facilities disappear From view. The ".lava Browm- color of the monopole and antennas
is expected to further limit views of the facility.
Section 5.1.40(d)f31: The,facilf y shall not adversely impael resour'ees ideal {fed in the or my :c
opera space plena.
The County's wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities viith Iimited visibility,
facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact Avoidance
Arras, This; -pm rnal wireless facility is not located in an Avoidance Area. The proposed
monopole is expected to be visible for a relatively short period of time at a particular point when
traveling west on the Ivy Road [ Staie Route 2 50 west] entrance corridor. The posted speed Limit
for State Route 250 west is 35 rniles per hour whiIc traveling vkrest towards the proposed
monopole location. The monopole is not visible along other areas of State Route 250 adjacent to
Dun ers restaurant and lyi- Commons. S inularly, the monopole is minimally visibic from most
=as along, Morgantown road.
Staff-,, analysis of this request addresses the cum;ern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic
resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resourrcc on the open Space
Concept Map. Staff bet ieve% there is no significant loss 0fresources related to the installation of
the proposed monopole.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): 7 e jacdiry hall not be locu+ed sya that rl and three (3) or more existing or
approved persiona l would he within an area comprised of ar circle
centered an-where on the ground lwving a ra dim qf fivo hundred (200)-ieei.
There js no ex isting personal wireless service facility located Mthin an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
ection S.1S.1_404d)(5): The maxirrnom base diameler of -rite monopole shall be thirty (3 0) inches
and Me ruarrmum diameter at the top of'ti :e rrronopofe shall be eighteen (IS) inches-
Nines on the site plan for this facility propose a monopole diameter not to exceed 30 inches at
the base or 18 inches at the top. These dimensions comply A ith the maximum width
mquirements for treetop monopoles serving Tier E facilities.
Sect ion 5.1.4kd)(6): The lop of the monopole. measured in eleva dory above mean sea level.
,sholf nor exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall nor he Mnre
than seven (7) feer larller than Me fvflesr tree ii-rthin iwenty -five (25) feet elf the manapole. and
shall include an'y base} fnundarian or grading rifest raises rite pole aba re the pre- exisring natural
round elevation. , provided that the height approved by. the commission ml.5- be up ru Yen ( }0)
feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of thefacility demawrates to the xatis action of l e
commission hurl Mere is nor a material difference in the visihilrrt- ol'the monopole at the
proposed height. rather than at ar heighr .severs {?).feet taller than the iallesl tree: and there is not
a material difference in ad}wrse impacts io resources idennyied in Ihe c�rru"i -V ;s apen since pleat
caused b'y lire monopole at Me: proposed height, rather than art a height severs (o.) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant met), appeal the commissioner's denial of e rrmodi(ication to the
hoard of'stepervisors as provided in subsection 5- L 40(d) (12).
As mentinned previously in this report. the proposed monopole would have a height of
approximately 662 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is
approximateiv 652 feet above mean sea ievcl (AMSL). The proposed nonopole M] be ten (10)
feet tal Ier than the tal lest tree within twenty -five (2 5) feet, Several balloon tests were conducted
in an effort to minimize the visibility of the monopole from adjacent parcels and streets as
indicalecl above. The wireless policy states that personal wireless facilities that are well sited will
almost always he less visible. but siting does not &, uarantee invisibility. Based on the results of
the balloon tests. staff would have recommend approval of the proposed personal wireless
facility at 7 feet above the reference tree. The app] jcantfoNyner of the facility would have had to
demornstrate to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not.a .tnagG al diffgronee in the
visibility of the monoppo le at the pm2gsLd hei rht of 10 feet above the tallest t.re Tather than at a
height seven (7) feet taller than the reference tree. However. because a certificate of
apMo;Ldateness for this Project has not yet been approved Staffcannot recommend WRLoval rid
lhics pc -monal - Aireless facility. A hearing on the apppai of the ARB's denial of the certificate of
appropriateness for this project is_scheduled for luIv 10. 2010
See Eion 5.1.40(d)(7) Each wDod'rrronopo }ex shall he a dark brown natural woodce,lor: each
meal or concrete monopole shall he painted a brown wood solar io blend into the .surroundin
irees. The amennas, supporting brackeic, and all afire #r equipment attached to the nrorrUI rle
shall he a color that close!}? rtraIcheN- that of the monopole- They ground equ proem. the ground
eqi pment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be ae color Char closely matches drat of the
manopcde, pm ided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color
[i
if rhzes- are encInsed within or behind an approved fagade or. fencing thctr_ fi) is a color
then closely maiehe,% Mar cif Me rrmrrapole,. (ii) is consistent with tyre c harac ter• of the area.- and
(iii) snakes the ground egrriposew and concrete park invisible at anry lime o f :ear ltrjm ant- rather
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 equipment cabinets is Sherwin WiIliaans brown paint (Java Brown) to snatch
existing surroundings.
Section 5.1.40(d)(8 1. Each wood monopole shall be consrrucleds) that all cables. wiring and
similar atrachnienis that run rerticall'y roni the grnund equipment ro the antennas are plated on
Ater pale is faces the interior o f rite properrt, and mveo r firo r public ri" -, as determined b)! the
agent. Metal monopoles shall be r- wnstrucied so that vortical cohles. wiring and.srrrrllar
arrachments are contained within dic mvijapolc .s srruclure.
A note on the site plan indicates that vertical cables_ wiring and similar attachments will be
located inside the monopole.
Section 7041a)(7]4h)11 1011 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The re ulafr'on of the plac-emtmr. conslruc Lion and nmodf lieation o personul wireless. facilities by
am;•safe or lucal government or iaTtrumentat y rhereof.shall not prohibit [ar have the cJfect of
prohibiting the prop *isiDn o f personal wireless .ser4.icex.
`J-he Telecomm unications Act addresses concerns for em+ironmmul effects with the foliow-ing
language. *'No state or focal govenmient or its in=enta.lity thereof Ma}- regulate the placement,
construction. and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commissions" regulations concerning; such emissions.'" In order to operate the proposed
facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency ernissirrns.
'Fhesi requirements will adequately protect the public health and safes % -.
It is stafr"s opinion that thv denial of this application vw nuld not have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless communication services.
RE CO MMENDATION- This proposai meets the requirements of Secdon 5.1.40,& and will be
operated in compliance with section 5 .1.40A Criteria (1) Ihn)ugh (8)• A third requirement for
approval. that the applicant satisfi- all conditions of the Architectural Revi"- Board has not
vet been met because u certificate of appropriateness fhr the praLget_ has not vet heen
ayproved, A hearing on the appeal of the Ale's denial of the certificate of appropriateness for
this project is scheduled for July 14.201D. Therefore staITcannot recommend approval of "this
Tier 11 personal wireless facility at this time because the Planning Commission can only approve
this application when all of the above requirements, including the conditions ofappmvax of a
certificate of appropriateness have been met.
7
ATTACHMENTS-
A. site Flan
B. V-Winity Maps
C. Balloon photos at proposed location
D. ARB March 1 'J' and May D Actinn
E. ARB March 1 io and May 3t' 2010 minutes
F. Letter from Mark- {.iraham (Director of Community Devekipmera)
�r4 v dFIKf �!
RFRit��a�4
7r ��
R#PJa
1le�YC� 1161+
arm a■
iaYl4
1l�1
r w Y 1yYf
l7 isf
��
.il•YI rW
I�Yr
�F Ylri VIfc+J•
i P4f �SKwF
Y•i�d
i!i#Ifl
SINGLE TON PROPERTY
mr
■uYw7I
ftt m bl
4aF.n
nrrr w mT
rtsrwRtu4Yr
V 2 6 pp NEV ES LANE)
rQ wa
Ywfn �F�
Kke>+�Y. rl
7}`#71 i mT
+PTY.A W MUM CM AM TWdMM
..[ •MRF 4 iw11R RIi V 4
CFI silt
yY
DFUM
m 7* M ■
I��G.4�IlAR1FlrFa !<FP lc I16 #l�wrFqilC�7fR �7wYm■
itlur.mn Yw on ,i M 0-M M4 aGnY i.l{+ S +r4 r r xYu
Jibr rY• �i�`i Fy Ifs: Ids Y[ s *1Fi kYO iiiY . IFi�
MXMlr {Cil�
•.wlr
7irl w0
Y.r
l TRw
1741sT
F � i wl i4
���rir
DWM WD
FEY
1 -c mibw
l4
= TfY
I+F
>rt rl w
i--1
Map" RMY 4 900.
1
r++y+llF+aT� i M4�w/14� 1�a+
�J
Kb~$W
1
O
�� i. �r�rr ^a r�.ii .tr�i�.ratir.r•!.t
F4
rim," *M
1
4'
F6 Ym16'YRYY
J
C
rtes �F�.ir�.i�.�awrr..�Yi ti'riw5
t
t] 3
-da W-M
■
f
Y A
uE fi i ra s
-
..aaa a y.a�FCMRi
si r, r.rrr.�ir.r r.�a swrsrvi.r
h�� /(M4L16118 iLYu Cdri I
rk
W'4Fr411>t4}
ell,
" .
*
COUNI.L APPRWf1Y
Y1BEUMFIL tLMNIR11
I '
}
^,
IN1^
aiWl t YM1
Jr
waif[ Mftm"Am - i 211 bi"m Rf Q 11 PEN rim IG D[ qp"
4P[i�
I
fON PRCFEIR y
'
+n ®M %
P1rJ! Gi�OI 7i
r•r:3
(CYP6E3 h1EVE5 I,WE)
�.•- rr
Ho. 0324144
r rr- ti. r.rt i
. � i�
AM3
r �
are L i Y i a 1 i
�
1B1 dISiOE�Y ■
� _ -
ih
1�YY
L
r�
Ewe r+ r F k
_ +ter F �3T
r
r
�T F
k 5
5 w
ra . 5
Y w�#
Dc
• r r t e r r r i� � =iL YDij�¢ ��
r � 1 i n r r ITT. lii16 —aat_
SYQ UP
K F
CW i�4
u o-
Y
Wo *17
0&7
2. jx ry
°w
lip r.T
,
O
SYQ UP
K F
CW i�4
u o-
L mfr, _.-
PME Vbd
-
aoR aah�sr
+le! e=xroLn
nr. ra.00
1 x �
l
Y / /
1/! �,1R
I�Pr# r f a 4ilrrl4 Y OCIOL i SIR
r Irr1A
4
..1
35 'J�1 794 590
Y #Klwe {I ;71'7"�1F`lhK
TN.[ �Yrb'1lMI-
[!tR FIFH [F.x
i�;�-
SU CLEa0R PMPERtY
(CY4269 HEy£S �pVE�
r
�—�
as�eea
�. j �
#SAL
��wa#owwo
IMI�?Lmm f
id[ rwl
Y
x
�-0 i
~
UrJ� - ZI RI 711 R Iii
!�! 7d RS RY
=14, V S
_
R• ii Riii BYO �
y- r- -.•aa� w � �}k V IiP! '+n
Th4RP Y
4 r / Ry Is
■ aA�
� � F�
— _ — — �� �
■� r
1
I
r
�
y F �
aR r h
NAM M
-- z }�
- '
�v
*�rtl �iis- t
k�a
0s 4
#
hit }
yam +�
/
a� • "f
;
wm��Iwl
w0 � wFt-z
EM>
�
F
h
03v
ELEV-wN 7 i'
_
_ }x4
R
f iar �►nir
y■ #
f�Z
4L.�r�Rr- �.1�r�
�},�t FOIIW'Mf jQ
IiM, i rm W *4W
1
u�lr i7r
rerrr�yr
5
a�aaiai.ay�l}�.
Cfix~
I+
i� i I
��iOO�■
"`ti
iVwRr�}Wi*RFI
_
Fw�l �iFY QIFI
/
J
i ! '
LL R K I�il i % �MiiF
— RYRi�r� :f }�
lYdl rwf m
l}
Rr li r I,i} 4{` r'
•awo war oaf i V
� loer�u. �s tir tm
ll„ c •
fQT
4 +.}lrrP9 M+7
'Ilk Y
N f�
�l
oa I,•11
ce"
ho 65
o- i io N m
i TRUE KWH
r
SING Vi% PROPERTY
r
1 '4
ALAqL6
(CY M WDIFS LANE)
.rr�lFfi41
r rr. rw
x -I Y
t�yY � � i ra
lati
•1 raT�r w wwa�l w` wl 7R l� r M rTl• 33! r41 w
erra a s� 4 MM ylYy
r
}.,,y aTrT Y�I I�r � TTTTY IY•P{X llr w iwi v+ar w�
.
P�i14 r � rri ra a oR
Z MMIP O ti a' IM
� 4rT>w ■nom + rrli r rr ewrdr r a rrY
w q� 111
♦ice w0� r 411! 4
E 441! wa cwMYl•i111Y1ti PIL !! R T 10.5 #tl a r
1 Y i �� T IllawT w 1rE11P.� it '-NNM W $4
m m
mellm� ears ��� 'r awaowvrlr per1is
ru a Slav W'R F~ gym ns am waM
alf�a �olr � � w a nn IITr 1
d !s ri a r W m m � °IS[�s �I�
wra >rwl ■ 9 Y sat Pm a ■ si id i s�
. �•1.`� ra r4 a ww 6 Leo. ITV e y = r #
aYa31m Y vb IR � R 4r1 � M r.r r
laow asa��s:aM wr lfaslipr�s
e! w Tw Tawl r ah
eKr r>•r[aarere�m�a�la awlr +� *+
Y awlrnl u!e oarlAf SK #!s w a Jti is. ie! tiLm
asi
sY 7• ri na utT?f ws n Irla ■
iRW Ym 1.11111. 11 yYYMl �iw rhl
1 Vk 4.11"a»V R.OIYRIY w rlro ■
� r tli.li � Ym •et M TIIYI av � t a.Ya 9�p�
;C,M
4+aeF4r�A�Fa.rrra ee�rF� � r�
1 PlY 4Y Ira s R S TaP rlPl
R°�. --•rte a�.� � �
1 t Y1Qi r � a ero � � !L ara rs wrr � w.s
" " {M Wl�LMR
SM1'�
W.°�e�a erirlw w
Iba m
1
a{ vhpkmo
suawrf FlM — la�iaa
.
#r!•[wL 7r�1 Wpm
4'Ry Y�K�rT a'sa it rLLllae
�rtlr.11 +t
awa Rl3 wIN aRY Y if ib1
�
4aPF1�W Y}Q4
�I11
� r
. "1
r errr w Tar
rw �
rrrwiw�
� 7t
A #
ii11tl3T�F}LL�R LF.*
fSIk1.7LE1¢If FR�P�RI�' �}� e • dl—
&-I
° �.1 Ili �25� it .4E] G WL { .. H3m PC rarm apaa
1 . s 1 ■ 4a'w.� � F ig �,... •�..t• a,a f Y." rrY ii +o-
T ha a * *e■ ��h?: rf G
IF
w r rl�
w•�w
�
�e..i ruy
n orr
�
ens
{
�
r
CARL€ 71FiyMSIIbN
T6 CA�CMQ
Cii41yCT
504 _�
r
s�u•ex ni
IYi�
r r�--
��
mew
er rf
�.t
M b_
M+ F {YF-O
7— 7 .S
" �4+G•T
S1l a
k
Ar �L
C.LEINR
FYIOHI ELEYAi1�FF
•w
aiwS7CrPHea n.5
SH4CLfi0
ec auma
Wc{6Y3266
r1MS IANP
xa
:., ;.:;.
F
r r r i i. r i* IIF Fi
M
,oazao�
,yr� drr rY
�/�ri
er awn
m
F
re iiL
h1w�M�al
III
r M -r1 if
Mill
III�Lyyil
•�
. -flit ��
rre P111 �eG�F
- •irY[0
1
M
�J lEOd
,��
.tr arr r n..t trr. urr
■�
5
4 �ialilr
1
■ R Itf �
ttw �
rr }il
+F wt
ore t� r
rcw
R MI
e rlM
alwl
r
a d rr
■� m
fRf;gt�S QG�fABDRlB11S
1C t1tGOUt l� iwECI S 1899N u
DI'y
WCdEON PPoPF4
as
r.mLSrWks
%T.URCA
I Sr
i
s]
r
ran �
F
L7F''�� ..
4i� it ='rYL'
4 lk::�ilf'4�4�k��
r ar. •aa�i .i ar�i i r
_�Jfli yirL:i.li�ILLi�YirYiYrf
IE ���. p iaL>_aaaaaaaaa�
- LIL.kIY ' i °l la�lLi_aaaaaaaaa�
<.�Sr.��Jik:.1 �L: �IY��
�IF�r�k_ ' �5'�i'� 17�i�
aaa�aa��ar aa�e . +aa�l aaaaaaaaa�
IC '•'� �I�I as . i �r �f aa�i Caaaaaaaaa�
�'�- ��Ifk:�L11�i L�IY� �
L.�a:,,,,�.iY�Eaa��� iaaa�aaaaaaaaa�
� ['�L{ ' krY�IL*a� raa�i� ��`�
-7`� F�Y�Yk.J � {. �I�iFi
t�CC N���k:�11�H!3�FC�iI�
��'_''.r�aaaar tea'.' aaaai'
'�YYd .��.r•aaaar�aa�F�•aY�l La � �r
^fit "Z�: �arik::�rif! �
�.w11Lr�;-.www� a4ast. ��
a�:.� aaaaf: ��I 1�*
�: ^Aaa�� #k.:1lLG7A�
l:li�;� aaaairY iik�:� �a
��
omc � ___ c� w5
�� i
-�k F3rxaffG AND ARMMNC
v `r
PW s� Ivor
- eir
rl••kJ f
+I OM
I.
iMlEYMY YGLIFITINC ;�, aN7[HN�I lid PR
iwft pu no
OW I o x
r srrr No
rs.r. sr�
' yyY yn�ooy a m� yK+w
r ere s■ r
ir�ooR�
xmmmm i # �4P
yR id rer � f � vu
- &
Cppw WY
on
�R� FAY! •1�1
t
T ; +,
R ONC 5 ? ? Fi Y HT � -7J�
6 -�
SIWLEI�P1 PROPERTY F MORM (CUM NMS LMEj x4- a32984
irc Ml p 0i is
LOE OD
99E W= EEWERAL HUM,
+a •rrseYL: •.. erle rLn ubr �+ wo .
it 1♦)b { ��
i � ovw: I[.F w4 ■1R Ya una i1 sO we
roe up�Lrap ..y rr. �yY it ily� rt ru � �
t it4 !w M 104 ®f Y YsYti YYY� ;
t�M,4 WSmI F U.RiyR 0 l0
f •S L�e>• e5u oeYiie w Iryly +# KAY � yr1
�+.,wk ■auy.rEa LrrL �11wY w� iwa 1w F[ i•rr
t+a Ye w< Ynrc Lr r s us � � nhL 1lli
i.rL !Q O TLOPY eitR A sseie a ♦YU�
] iL A i lYL ■ ti YYlsIY d K Y� � +�orrr
41 Y bdo me FFi 19
Y iL S>'NrL irsk srtR �. WA aR y Pro nFn
4 �sf 7f M em+J•1 f M •� Y..L Y rp.ly
EE L� #T LiGy .A/[I
i \iGd`h2Yti *L OEM* � V ra w s
r
41r •.R)rPrN[�! !r4 wine R i`r .n w
� A
i 4e iM1 i.. M �. o WR ��4 FlF 4 rarF � r.OY
4 n w5or +r ,t5ir Yy.a
i. XI a4 w 9iiQYP YAL\a �.� i F� d• ISr �.¢
MW 1X41X4 p
5k K ilre M i! rrtr FrPI�YM ¢ER.�Y R FL w # wl
W� Yint. FrrL= 5Y fefrlr lryP, ■ reraY ■ r
to s:mrLrL�r �.. �! FRw.rti ewe 1R Lry
CSrSrF4 �F eF� iellt4 r verve rrr
9P�P14 Flu i F m+lrYR rw x rIL>a arr�1
8E6ii1 iM ir4 i iYY.Y �q.
SSwuCTuPAL STEEL mMM
v slN; �ynv r �i w rs #m
>rmat�ii +� s I� f lLl o�ry �1is� ra
L u . "� 4.. ire yYY Clr UN-= wLli •rY�
rx �L AYY wN sL w w ws At R rlrll
u wr rl r. . LYj � �4FL Y � LtlYry7lFt Mb
+.al ua, r mq i
Y wy] rtrM�4! is i rr YlarrL lit
+x mYi�K rt sr�rirr � r � Yr� ri
YYi� � laL e4��0�1i�■Y1r!
i ids r �. ��q,Sgq FPVL wri � q
�!.]IY5 rerr i�+Yr /.dr ti m A4 T4
. � � r y� . Lr>• w.F . re �e .� �P
ai�k s inl9 � i Wa � Piif i4 T`
€�e1C11 TE 11N0 pEINfCIRGLG.S=L -wjf*'
r �.K i. ra wvay! R n1 ..Ia
L is a 4 Yrr Ml +i W MdMK fir■
r ri .I r . -..LIY YsA vi+L
Y iii•fY'.Y Ilm u. ortr 4 l !R i �wY Y.LS 114
EI.�L s��+or wa alwFa awoLSaa
�roY- il�Yl ■WF � M NLLF Y yf r4 OFwN ■
Yk fws wLra mofL,< a411N ■ +va lv svo-a va
r ws •4y vest M Yi
mist Oss i Ilr ■ ifs
r *--AJP
IPLR if a Gs M ■ Ms
WK Mo
i ti✓Mtw'W.�ryL�O YO r'wFaiLw•
4 -AA TLL rL141b ML F rJ
i18io'L .nY LLL11rta� �1PLFii i[ 4 wf rr. r i
ML 811114 F.rl5L1sI] dpisll � �!i Yrw . tl is
i 1e s tlLrt R ■ 81 .� b r�s ws Nr
PYIK � Mu V k 'll 7S lsiiY s13 Ya. f R�+O F 4rJ� 10MC
iYYiLW --I=S
ti Y �A a sl/ssl sYSi N ALLY sal 54 rill.
7 _
LdrON' slat siei PiOIrt
iY - a�Ow rawp w�
Y �rlr diesi��r �'w�a MKs Y��mr�a
� I• y �m P� r a4+L A.a w� a fcxr 3 4
fR�� P OrISN
i .iY FYi4 YEYLe iYW ■ • Y1r �� r• yL +wK�IF
PRi. r�r..t � PP�Ii MCPs->P PY !�i �l I1�4rf SXI} 0
=r�Y L{L =22 ac W4P4wL�r��itYysi
0l1� Oi[ M iiRf 1[ i
rr e+F }e Y18Y11F i u riiayy �l � nw aF�
Mb� a o},y MFFilY AY Plrrl�!! yryl[ ■W VPL
5 wr �Fi � i f \ Zre r H 11ea i Yi rwr ai
Y BLS � iii. Y � it was e�1 �L 1Pe�rt
Y Y IifLf N AWL i� S/IM is rL><I Y �d rY
i•�5�1 � i0 wawrt ssl }ei
+ 1Ws a �■i ■YYris rLYI
1r3Y!•i �[ . asYYF �� ti Try Y L
q * M
r sryX w yy.l f w *! P.rPi w art R+la1`a
1 Y LIQS7• FY. Ma bw L.rvYW m
PKiQ � #�1! � rrt. f ■!50 M Yl]+YdY� iYYi � Y
lrllf r �� �
i0is iL YiYG IYa Y2
s ■ Y YllaYd Hv4
r• 1iEiis Mr Lk-d HMO. U. Po
a sie>d LYyt epigr i wetr {Daa41TF9 Ulm
w o W dill s i el se'
Er/.i Lei f Y( yOii Y sFl eur! wise M� Y� �
ya Isi64ri a rSra
r,� � � wFIF Y �Y i•fOwll F a WY sPI1N01
1 a a {i�r . #R� R� iwVGR H ArsPlsl sl" K 1i1L s
GYhA i 3/ •i ISlrtr. �✓� F� o r'i� 1141! +R� 51rr14
ur•b Ai�alll
. IL.K70 Yii Y4 t ti� * yyF �k C ww PLls ws' f w
nYnn■ y r r, rcr e.ree fr 8rl � N � . iMPIF rr �
CQSiPACT�N Ff11�1F4FNT:
r .ir.Y ..r: � �I1C �'� iLrrL I>Irrf! ■ awa rave
♦PMS
4 -W Se.IS ILYSL
YI rS I�.w nras
}] LlYlrl
W tlsiY
yi L wt w 1G+11
W
,on 1qf
rY* YMi
P iiFrYF �� Yr
+rs �� Ile YID[
4 4v.lYr rYtir
5t} TL SPrQ �
P! rw 5rrs�Q SL]R lIR2
R4 �MIP
4 y�lt PRr� TF 1.'/al
wY i5W !IS WYA
sTbeols
� m i>db LY1 nr
�LilALLS[+EY, sW Qil[#
i�91i YYL iK.IR
lr{r r.r!
P4rii �W 41
�j Pd� Ylr
91s.Y YGF .! Yif4G 1� '.11�
�a
� mlr�l iPrY wwmlw
PCYFw� •t
OF
51N=ohT PROKYTY t� a wti R Rw Own
Y 5a jFjr Em
art W L i. e i. ti Pet r m YOI�IIIV1 16 i' S Fp i tr * L . . * r, YR nW co-IIt
rr wi _ _ 4'44E wrs w1r tr
AYC1 ar.ar.
it i�W1 �i ti,45 cold *M .i. MN-*- WPM PC =a
sm � g rar oma Yq r rr� � �
7oR ti! aeaR W i Aa .rkY ri in ifllj
i piak YFI ti.>�
la no • nre e` i ra i i+al eir YY1m IaW
k ylialll Pra
+ f•+rkl w
al41iF +Illr „L K yd&
a irx
ru rl.�s at r Rk4as i.lre w�rr a>.r
. i1Mie ser miAn rur.A
ai �aa u ■ +� rakat li'4" iNf s Y 7R a.s r[rYO ti r ler
r x vfynur iF r!o 1• i6i.[ �w r rtAJ� s.lra flea,
y,r
.k Mee rrrrr,:i'l:
41 16f1 {klaiM 4a� r rya • ieF 8f rro �lr rrrA drµ lz � �m
mkrr•�•ml +I.an nr. wn nsr � .a Ir5 . Ial r.ded rrll
ru a._ar r4 v rw of w,l.a�.
`Jleao r - 5 51
u atom � i.ky .,. a IR PwMk � rie llu ! irl sra a ielF
!J! Ati/.VI \WiFF tt'.lRO� ralkRk IiYWI iii e�tr r
>u r!r rr. rroa a r•r ylr {r Kkl, •,r n_ }-rwa r r. r r
tit hers r. rata i .
>Q Aar iRL ! .RD L lal Fi raWa d �1 Igel
. ; WAkCSy Air! rti r u•6 h r'2.ffi W ar rIr tl �' rraY i+
Iwre .i. a •rru alt �Ir r.yp FrM1 pan .rtr r�vgr
am• r yore
i re �l a ry dkiid >� r r � {krt ■kk � 4�
-k mr -44 rh .tea I�! P•� p
ri�i�r dS d i•i *�.r�[� r? i� �YCa � �L Ir kr� P
+b 111r4k= R k'riTJ 1A ryrh,•� f Y R,yf MF
i lll{ M i/4.rM1R I+rl FI MYP*ILL �P ht km. - RW,-i P
k r��r 4+� 4191R�rP � q�orirr Ir w..as wl a 1[+6 •r
+* AT. 111 14 In IINSAI SM ■ wM4 •rlil YA44 V Y CW.+
�v
L 7Q naml�
Ir[S i(arR1� iGsl s 41A1• � � } P#T i,r �� �
K FUR � nell[rol IrlBi. 4 Rrr YQ rrann I5>s 1161 r-y
• s5 HA4&� n rn—n A- -4 --w- w idreb
1 ■i 1 ■ Yar 4 r p Iglr{ F N �
Y ■,pa 1lI,S awa w w lkk4 ylPlk �. rS wA kppn . +� .v,� nnaskk
e! eie rlr m a e
i is r�,� Y•lrR �P AF„mw„ LU_ �I+R16 yWRasrr! +clA�+krmRu
hlr4 � Ir•Flk lal r.L ■ Nrol� kfEq i uMW � w>•1 � '< �
■ � 1[ hr�1d I a_. h Iyrr I,N iaWk � ��
p� w wxrAa ��w >ru ■
Apra y,/,r+lyrR PP�F !•rr� YrF�i TS, R �P
s �A6rr� >•A� �b �... •wr ..� i � >•nr s >•r+� +. •�.y
C �.a
`
kr a.emka �a � rer� .nw r+arlka . +da awero.a � ,r•.ao rs
AYR, . � aFbM1GK ✓yr6 iVaYid Y anre r8 K AuBrr
AQ ®!S w!a a �4Nnm YIR• a �+yry ire R T9 410 ■ 1 M 1•mM T4 M+L LQP•GL
ltrT Y »fk} lef E J ir[ Ert K LSYG� !I !Y � Je411a � Ir RM M
d 4� iTC irF rF +Yip YF k F4 Jit Yl ! IE'k fM �K rt 41 14
� i�r aI.L a A!4 �i +1.4a R Ik1 ,+•5rkr T rFrrl! s a� .
ItalaY<Z iR rikkrl rrJ t�.r6 WRiCI AL„leb rF •A1e y5e�d
PR�p�.. w a>!r araa * agrl yr� M,
R 1�IIR ellvai RR TRI A>ma {�J•lla SaRi iN+ a 0 4 #Ja y[ LrGM R
RrM 3 -0Mya !w[ IIIRR M 901eRF 3 i1lGlre 91+e1Clf6 N M bF V K R■
YM F Tf laOl if #Ca aQR• 4 Ai! ,IR tiN
0!!C is R i111C1Y art salRlL
�, ti r� *.ry PaL ML r F+�■ A• W� Ai+.11e.l
ae.lf t `armil� I�i`i aerc�.n�eex.•y r1. el Q0
rl eklp � art k,ir<. atlq r irkls,r a� ar�eerr
�, •IIYR Rm UL 9Ae SIIaF llPla lihL R,VOIY ii �4IQ. 159Y1e1{R �. rS
yIIAlkt•1 F SMIArd >L� IfEI IOalilk IfYl6 -0/F A+4l�OGll
!R[I! #L ! �1 F •A VIL 6,aL ael.rcw PM ll[�Ifi3� � v yY M1
� � {iYh �, ♦L 1•/F ya�IPrl •JP r IP>!IO �y � Ao91rF ��
I! ILL Gall a Ir/R b, ■ ird FAY iWk�R
OF
51NrAEION PR�F'FR7Y ' . vowti k
r pia. ' {le, 45KU11 -Y '�S CIIRiL la
to 4Q�[
w
■ a # 1 w rt rt r $ la LIkF
i iw X'd 4
=x
al�+4r 4SL —.
1Ri•IOmF.tf {
° m wattrr �-
F rr.p F4 M
r sieu
+' =�N { r ��rm�rr•rari Ewa
fiStE E6 M
r
fSV r�
+i4 4r}
L ■et wY�rt F. '+ w
If ■.i:rt.
AT5VF5 I
,�
51KAE1#N PROPERTY
{WM WrES UNE)
S4� m
N', M m15
1�J
rRrrr
re a tt� rr
'
I
x
r ■ a
rnrciar
I
37
i i.-F. • 4.n r 40, OjgRhJ
oxr ruo1 PIA +W au.s
-,1
a �• ■ r 'AL R'
E.«,.w
I -- L.. x-9 1
M.M.4
x.i
=x
al�+4r 4SL —.
1Ri•IOmF.tf {
° m wattrr �-
F rr.p F4 M
r sieu
+' =�N { r ��rm�rr•rari Ewa
fiStE E6 M
r
fSV r�
+i4 4r}
L ■et wY�rt F. '+ w
If ■.i:rt.
AT5VF5 I
,�
51KAE1#N PROPERTY
{WM WrES UNE)
S4� m
N', M m15
1�J
rRrrr
re a tt� rr
'
Ti.
rCAAW--D
I
�x
rm" minx
i i.-F. • 4.n r 40, OjgRhJ
oxr ruo1 PIA +W au.s
-,1
a �• ■ r 'AL R'
E.«,.w
I -- L.. x-9 1
mu N Fir
b 25 5n Nm
r
r'
_ I �
r�
I rQ.,"_maaF. *IF
� II -
MM -COMM PDAU - RT756
I
4
LRIiF :4i'.�1�,
'
VAE U Fill
0 n
50 rm
ABC
i t s L L I r S • 4 YfN
—
'
uoHippYERy' p0ap RT731
I$1a1k( LiiLYyi - VYL71
r
'
L7lR1Si4PEl ER ' •
SEVCLM PRQPERIY
(CY376H NEVY5. ?.ANEI
IRA W. x fl
—
MORIN
Ham. u4 OS2 m
-� I f}
I r
�•—�• ,••°
1f'll OL'.Y� X/L1�
�OYSi12UCFJ4v OY A S1L1' FFNCS
rwavour WIRE SUPPORT)
I re i,r mn. ■ .rwha i r, f AXL X
iT1R il.�l i Ii�F W
Rim
:Iht.• F[m mtlLlAtM
{�mr .y.7
t '
;r¢rr xsrn�s� - J
CONS7'RVVYION OF A Sfi6T PENCE
(WITH WIRE SF PMRT)
4RilY��• +.r L��awsa �+rrs�
vas �+.w wRrY
a�
STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
y
r r
X14 !Yr'li� s�; \rte
:cc.ildN [I .R
�.r u rtu Wf RIR.O � M ww. rtA. y nw m+n wsOC•_ M. mw �
W Ylrl� i•� IF r x 1! lOr�l ! � Yf rl.lY �.4 A[.l�L �.�!
SO FENCE e'`'-0 343
-_ SUF'ER SILL FENCE SM 406
-2 R� = NC1 STD � oP
L�J
LL11
zx o�.
r
C 11 o -r
PR9F
" �
ABC
�C4326B NMS UHE}
V326B ME
�',°�'.Siae#
�I�Ri'
�
..����
aHxrlil.caftl,pu
. f f K 4 4 r. 4
Y[
i,...
4L
�� �� i
w tFICS
.,..
.wt r �. • .... rr
- - -
1 R
■
AVMN
Mu PVOL
Lim "UO" DMM10"
LWCVJM
.4w *F
IN.
� \ \`�`���
\
/ �
��.
��_
/
|
_ _
� FF[kFp
-�Wm
%,xf iN Mr
|.' k .
lco PM
TM WNM
J�-
■
AVMN
Mu PVOL
Lim "UO" DMM10"
LWCVJM
■
� ! | J � � � � | � � | | � | � � �
El 11 f 0 1 1
4J:
[ ..z
47w,
IT
F
�} |� » � �
LU
0
�-lz
�� %_� \
Qd
fL
CD
[ ..z
47w,
IT
F
�} |� » � �
LU
0
�-lz
i
i
Qd
i
i
Air-
40 y ,5
4 IJ r
l
K x . r
w pp
IRS
r'5�+
dE
Jwyy
r. w Zv
a ID
ow
cp
OAd
� •.� :- �' ;,'� } � it ii '. '. : '� " -
r, I i
x JPF
r e rt
0
lie pwoP05A locirh
��' � t� *�..M�' {' `;tip .',..,� - e. -•jam.. +.
' r
{.�y ♦ %I • M 4
ti i"'ri.4 as _ � .ii .':Y•' "i� *�� `�a'. .-.iY`
j[:l�l[711ti�
I
4-
Y ni , OTT
ry j�
7 Wkov�f
AV
-4
Atr
li
�\
--, I
���� ~ �\ \�,
j }k , �� � ��\
r�
Ag. /
--4Pk
IV
W
C
'p
r-
5
- •• �# • +rte? , *• - -
970..' ' F'
I
d
AL
CL
r r
4'-
# -u A
�• Ig L
+ dv. �*
*- Y 0.
` *# - o�
,....' --
4F }' '' ca
0 L
4
Cn
Attachment III 20 ._
r U
.,.. CL
CL
*� 18
r 7}
k
a,
I
-, -
P
a
f
}
a
o
O
s
• F
VL
T�
orti
O
CL Lq
� 4-J > � m
'" a ■ �
F 4-1 cc 'o 0.
0
to
c C4 .*� C
' M> 2 CO
LZ .� ,.I
c C
Cd
ail
lllplw� M,
R ,
AAA
1 — L
dL
vdp
� •M
4 5 J
� 4
Y xl }
T G-
LF-
cr
I h
tE
'c
l0�
1 Or
L14 ir-
5
r'
- jIB
� L
S tz
- r
f s
� K9
,i�ia r4�ao- r9/oiF 'tuY•t tiL Vk." y�- i Viw It Fw-M go &'m GI- 9x'IF.
17 AttaGF1mant ti
L)
E
r
UPI,
1 Or
L14 ir-
5
r'
- jIB
� L
S tz
- r
f s
� K9
,i�ia r4�ao- r9/oiF 'tuY•t tiL Vk." y�- i Viw It Fw-M go &'m GI- 9x'IF.
17 AttaGF1mant ti
L)
E
r
5
r'
- jIB
� L
S tz
- r
f s
� K9
,i�ia r4�ao- r9/oiF 'tuY•t tiL Vk." y�- i Viw It Fw-M go &'m GI- 9x'IF.
17 AttaGF1mant ti
L)
E
r
COUNTY OF A LBE MARL E
Department of Cornmunit�r Development
401 McIntire Road, Nortli Wing
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 --1596
Phone (434) 2x► -SS32 fax 44341972-4126
March 19, 2010
Williams Mullen
cto Kathryn M. Carmichael. Esq.
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
CharlottesviIle. VA 22902
RE: APB- 2010 -02: Singleton {AT&T)
Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 44F1
Dear Ms. Carmichael;
The Albemarle Gounty Architectural Review Board reviewed the above -noted item at its meeting on Monday,
March 15. 2090. The Board. by a vote of 4.0 denied the request to construct a treetop personal wireless
service Facility with a height of 10' above the reference tree.
If you have any questions, please da not hesitate to contact me.
incerely.
Brent Nelson
Landscape Planner
cc: Singleton, Ann P
P 0 BOAC 58
Ivy Va 22945
Gerald OatobU, Current Development
File
A til it el] mel, I if]
IL L Al
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department ii) FCommuoity Development
491 Mcfn[ire Road. Norlb Wing
Charlonesville. ViMinia 2290 4596
Phone (434) 296--5932 F11% (43 4) 972 -4126
May 5, 2D10
Kathryn M_ Carmichael
c10 Williams Mullen
*321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville. Va. 22902
RE: ARB•2010 -02: Singleton JAT&T}
Tax Map 58A I, 'Paroia l 40F1
Dear Ms. Carmichael:
The Albemaft County Architectural Review Board, at its rneebng on May 3, 2010, reviewed the above -noted
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. By a vote of 3:1 the Board affirmed the Architectural Review
Board's March 15, 2010 decision to deny the Certificate of Appropnateness for ARB- 2010 -02, Singleton
(AT &T) Final Review of a Site Development Pla n- noting that there was not a s u f ient amount of i nforrnation
or change in information to warrant a change in decision.
This decision may be appealed to the Board of Su pervi sors within ten (10) caliendar days of the decision-
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do nOt hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296 -5832 ext 0272.
Sincerely,
Brent Nelson
Landscape Planner
cc: Singleton, Ann P
P0 Box 58
Ivy Va 22945
File
AItaChnient 1)
ARCHITECTURAL RE' U BOARD MINUTES
March 15, 2010
The Albemarle County Architectural R.evie w Board ntci on Tuesday. March 15, 20 10. 1:00 p.m., Second
Floor, Auditorium, Cuuntr Office Duildiag, Charlottesville. Virginia. Those members present wem Full
Daggett, Vicc Chair, Charies T. Leb4r, Paul Wright and Brvee Wardell_ Fred Misscl, Chairman was
ainsent, Staff members presenl were Margaret Mahi ,=%vski, Eryn Drennan and Brent Nelson. Greg
ampttter, Deputy County Attorney, was present.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Daggett call l the meeting to order w 1:0? p.m. and established a quorum.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Daggett invited public i om tent, There being no public commertL the ntecting rnovcd to the next
hero.
RIEGULAR REVIEW ITEMS
Alm - 2010 -02: Sin Oleto0 (AT&T) - Pre Iiminar� Review €sfa Site Development Plan T (Tax Map 5SA1.
Parcel 40Fl )
PnPpwwl: To construct a treetop personal wireless service facility with a height of 10' above the
reference tree,
Brent Nelson summarized the smff report.
# This is a preliminary review of a telecommunications facility to he located on :r parcel adjoining
the north side of Morgantown Road approximately 600 feet southwcm orthe intersection with U
Route 230. The facility as originally proposed would consist of a 69 foot tall steel monopole, with
threc antennas all painted Java Brown at a height 10 feet above the I I" caliper Ash reference tree_
One proposed equipment pad and one future generator would be located on the concrete pad
located in the 30' X 30' lease area. The lease area is heavily wooded and situated approximately
65' above and 300' south of the route 250 i4 w right- oi*way. Access to the site is provided by
an existing paned drivewa� located within a proposed ?0' wide ingreWcg it �s utiIiity easement,
+ athn -rx Carmichael. with Williams Mullen representing the applicant AT &T, is present and has
received the staff report.
'"he ARB staff attended a balloon test on February 4.'010, The balloon was raised from the
location of the proposed monopole and to the height of the monopole 10' above the reference
tree. The balloon was highly visible and sky -lit fmrn a srsctiGn or Route ?50 East of the railroad
ovens. &s_ The balloon was oriented directly in front of the viewer and visible for a distance of
approximately 650' while descending down the hill westhound into Oic village cf lvy . Lowering
the balloon from 10' to 7' did not result in a material difference in its visibilihr. The balloon was
not visible from points along Route 250 west of the site. The ball€ on's visibility from paints
along [route 250 West adjacent to the site was sufficiently mitigated by the wooded area in
between. That location is dirmby in front of the Duner's Restaurant, Tike lease area and the
associated ground equipmciu are not expeeted to he visible.
• Due to the 1 lloon's high degree of visibility ai both the 7' and 10' elevations the applicant was
asked if reducing the monopole height it) 4' above the reference tree would }provide the coverage
AI RFMAKI FC[lU- nY AKCIATLCTURAL REVIEW BOARD- PAGE t
3 -15 -2010 FINAL MINIMS Attachment F
needed. The applicant indicated that a 4' freight would be acceptable: however. the 7' or 10'
elevations would be pr6erahlc. A wcond hal loon test was conducted ors February 23 with the
balloon raised to a height of 4' above die reference tree. There was not a material difference in
thr balk*n's visibility betvwcen the 4', 7' or 10` elevations from the section of Route 250 east of
111E overpass where it was previously viewable_ The balloon continued to be sky -lit and highly
visible.
.* A phow simulation provided by the applicant. known as attachment D in the report demonmrases
the high degree of visibility and the Nky-1it appearance of1his proposal at 4' above the reference
rree.
i The primary issue-. have to do with.
1. Anticipated visibility of the monopole from tine Entrance Corridor. and
. Impacts, by grading and site desigm. an the reference tree and other existing bees descigtl:ttecl
to remain.
Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed telecommunications faciIity at file 4'. 7' and
IW elevations above the reference tree_ if the propu ed facility is approves the following
comments would need to be addressed as outlined in the staff report.
. Revise all applicable drawings to indicate which type of tree protection is to be temporary.
which is to be permanent and what grading. if'any, is proposed. Provide verification from a
certified arborist that the location of the proposed concrete equipment pact_ monopnie and all
required grading will not harm the existing trees currently designatW as remaining. Provide
a tree conscrvat ion plan with measures prnpnsed that would limit impacts of this proposal on
all existing trees designated as remaittinrg.
2. Consider replacing the proposed double staggered row of Lcyland Cypress trees with
Virginia Red Cedars. 10` sin center, located in an irregular, natural pattern. as pem6twd by
the limits of the planting, area.
Mr. Daggett invited the app Ii can t to address the ARB.
Applicant Presentation.
Kathryn Carmichael. with WiIIiarns Mullen r+epre writing AT&T, presented a PowerPoint presentation and
explained the proposal_
• AT&T is proposing to imprnve wireless telecommunications coverage in Albemarle County
along Route 250, which is a heavily traveled area as well ax s busine,s and residential area.
There are currently locations whcrc~ customers drop their calls or have no covtxnge at all. So
AT&T is proposing this tower in order to provide better climlity and reliable service in the area_
# The application meet all of the standard requirements contained in ft County's nrdinaince.
Staffs remmmendations would be addressed at the very end of tlie presentation. Generally,
AT &T carefully chose this location and went through a number of different evaluations to
determine the location. The location is at the corner of Wrgantown Road around Route 250.
She reviewed several photographs taken in the summer when they first evaluated this area to
provide a better idea of the location of titre lease area.
The existing driveway will be used for the access route_ There will not be avy further disturbance
for access. The lease: area will be to the right of the driveway. They are proposing, with the
installation of the compound as well as the tower. to remove about seven trees. For the most part
it is a v'ery heavily wooded area and the remainder of the trees is going to stay the same. They
will screen the tower and the compound from both the land owner as well as from the
AI ZEMAr LE COUNTY AJticI IrrLt'1'1 kA4 - RmEw to Rb - PAGE=
345- 10 FINALMD;LrrES
neighboring land owner. The application in front of the ARH is proposed for 69', whic11 is 10'
above the reference tree.
6 In her Po eri Prot presentation leis. Carmichael reviewed photo simulations from various
locations in both the surnmer and winter seasons. She explained how the tree coverage in the area
would provide screening, to mitigate the visibility, of the monopole from Route 350 and several
neighboring propertic5_
• The Wireless Policy for Albemarle County is a compromise system where they traded 20Q'
towers, which would be visible from more areas, for smaller, less visihie towers_ But,
unrortunately the way the wireless communications works they cannot make towcr5 invisible..
The tovrrers have to be able to see each other as well as to provide signals in order to provide
coverage to the areas. This is a unique area because the coverage that they are trying to get on
Route 250 is essentially down a hole. The reason this to3wcr is situated where it is. would he to
cover that hole. The} cannot make the tower invisible_ There are telephone poles right next to
the road that are not screened by trues. The tower is actually screened. They have dome a goad
,fob of mitigating the vices of the to,v%vr by placing it on a heavily wooded area. which also
pnivides.screening for the ground equipment.
+ The fact tiitat the%- will see it easier perhaps more than other inwers that she has recently+ brought
before the ARB did not mean that it was riot worthy of approval. They can't always. make towers
as short or ;Ls invisihlc as they woWd like to be_ During the winter months there are other trees
around the site including pines and deciduous trees.
■ As mentioned, they arc aware of the concerns of the neighbors to the right of the Singleton's
property. They met with that neighbor and had discussed planting some landscaping so as to
mitigate their +sic %y. There also will be a fence around the compnund that will help mitigate the
ground equipment visibility,
a In a display she noted the holes in coverage along Route 2511 fur building and vehicle coverage
used by consumers, which was the coverage they are trving to provide_ In stm-et coverage it
basically means that they will have to be standing outside their vehicle or out of the hailding on
the street in order to get a signal. In a %matI area along Route 250 there are three holes that they
are covering, With this tower being, built they will gain significant coverage so that Route k50 is
fully covered in buildings and vehicles, They also cover roads that arc primarily residential along
ensville and Morgantown Roads as well as Martha's Way. Even on Dwensville Road and
along the first part c Mlorgaatown Road th re is limited to no coverage for AT&T.
a Shc spoke specifically to how% this location was chowri. AT &T always first lacks to othcr
buildings that are alrcadv built or other Lowers in the area. In this particular circumstance there
was nothing that worked to rover the area. They appmached St. Paul's Church with a request. to
cxrlcit:ate as they have an Jntelos facility in their steeple. Unfortunately, there was not enough
room for AT&T to locate* ew4uipmenI in the building. Therefore, the church was not willing ui let
AT&T go in their church facilities. The next best option was this projwrty� They ted this
propenN meets all of the requirements, provides their coverage and is a good option_ They
certainly looked first at buildings iri other areas.
■ In addressing Staff's concerns regarding tree protection they will provide an arborist's report_
There was a suggesti€rn that a Rod Cedar could he tised instead of the proposed L.cyland Cypn.s,
which they are amendable to. She suggested that Holiv or something similar might ward. They'
are open to the ARB's suggestions. She stressed that the technology does not allow• for towers to
be invisihle and they feel that this site is as mitigated as it possibly could be. She would be happy
to answer questions.
Ml r. Lebo asked stag" if the base of the tower is far enough back so that it will not be visible from the road.
Mr. Nelson replied that the base or ground equipment would not lx visible From the T-vud.
AI.BFMARI.P CrstPN- Y ARCIirrEC"1'LlR L RE- V[E%1' kx[ APT) - VAG1 3
3-15 -2010 FrNA1.MINMS
Mr, Daggett invitud puhlic comment.
Jirtt Soffit, resident of 3854 Morgantown hood. noted that lie appreciate what Ms. Carmichael said about
trying their hest to mitigatt the scope of the lower. In order to keep this brief he would speak ror a
number of his neighbors who were unanimotz in apposition us this project on several grounds. They
have collected a number of signatures from Coultty resident-, con"med shout this since this tower request
is not limited to just the intermediate neighbors, They certainly fee shat Lire proposed monopole wou Id be
a very bad idea and mcommended its rejection for the following reasons.
I,. The first is what they see before the A They have their own photographs taken during the
balloon test at both the 69' and 63' height, which de,nonstmw that this is going to be n radical
change in the sight lines part icularly f om the western approach on haute 250. but al w from
the neigh horhmid. Fie felt that speaks for itself in terms of the impact that this is going to
place along the Scenic Route 30 Corridor.
2. The othcr issue is in regards to the houses being concentrated very c la -gely along Morganto }vet
Road, Both Mr. Gfton's and his property share the driveway with Ms. Singleton at 2856
orgatttown Road. The lower is pretty close iri the middle of a residential neighborhood and
not something that is simply removed as one is driving in along Route 250. 'While the base
itself may not be visible further off; it would certainly be visible in the winter months tram
28511. fnim his upstairs and the Gibson property_ During the summer Virginia Power did
some pruning along the mad that removed a lot of the vegetation that covered up tilt
drivmny to 2856. That is the area when the main power lines run up to the back of the home
and along Morgantown hood. This created a thinacd out look in that area prior to the balloon
tests.
3. Generally from an architectural standpoint this is a histo6c neighborhood where all of the
immediate houses across Ivy Dcpot Road and along Morgantown Road. except Iwo. were all
built before 1900. Owners such as himself take enormous pains in compliance with the
County's recommendation that he received when he purchased the house to keep the property
original and to spend a great deal ofcwe in maintaining the historic nature orthe Village of
Ivy. To place this type of tower dead center in not only any residential district, but one of this
agc. is someLhing the-, think is a terrible idea. For those remsens and the sight litres they
oppose the request.
Trevor Gibson, resident or2853 Morgantown Read, said that he moved in about a month ago and found
this request very surprising. He passed out photagraphs taken froirf his hotj,*e from various rooms. This
is a residential neighborhood and not a commercial area. The lots are enc and two acre Io s. The tower
location simulation is nic o;, but they all know Ill ai in the spring, winter and fall there is no vegetation on
the trees. Them is only vegetation can the tree; ror about seven months of the year and not nine or Wn
months. ne proposed lower location is in the middle of the residential neighborhnod and would have
negative effects. The tower will be considerably visible from everywhere in his yard and from many
other places along Route 250 including the Duner Restaurant, Ms, Singleton does not live on the
property. He would not talk about diminished property value. Jbe proposed monopcile would have a
significant impact on sight lines. visibility and the history- of the ncluliborhood. Bringing the cite out to
the Ivy area is very frustrating. AT&f may have some issues along that way, but they do have same
coverage because his father has been out there and does have some coverage. He and most of his
neighbors fire on other networks. In conclusion. lie opposed this tower.
Amy Viligente. resident (if 2930 Morgantown Road, said she had AT&T. She has been monitoring the
coverage and occasionally drops coverage under (lie raiiroad track. Site has coverage at this paint and
on I%- drops coverage occasionally. It is not as bad as the simulation showed,
AI.BFMAR I F {t7d rWT Y Ar #CI I k I'EC °I,LIIRAL Iti�v ivw BoARL) - PAUL a
3- 15 -2 010 FTNAI- ItINUT£S
There being no further public comment, Mr. Daggett closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the ARB,
Hoard Discussion:
Mr. Wright said that Ise understood the views from the homes From looking at the pictures, But. IegaIly
he is not allowed to use those in his consideration and can only consider the view% on the Envance
Corridor. The view going west coating into Ivy on Route 250 is a long view and will be seen for quite
some time, Deferring to two photographs provided, he noted that long view is what made it unacceptable.
If it were just a brief view for a second or two. he could understand it- l le had not seen a cell tower in s
long tithe that is this prominent visually for such a long period of time. The view coshing into Ivy is
prominciii for a long period of time. He would be able to see this hzemlly for 30 to 40 seconds, which
makes it unacceptable, The base and hove it is seen frorn the neighbors is not unimportant. but it does not
override that one view, For that one view he could not sec the ARB °s approval cri` ilie requcst i May -
Mn Lebo agreed with Mr. Wright. When hr first saw this application he thought that the tower would
just be a few feet above the trees and not be visible for a very long period of time. later seeing the
photographs he agreed that this is too large of a project for that arcs.
Mr. Wardell noted that one speaker refemd to Ivy as a historic village. He was unav►= of its
designation.
Ms. Mal iszewski said that it was not a nationally registered district, but it has historic properties in it. She
did not know if there are any historic properties in the intermediate area that are individuaIly I isted on the
?National Register list, That also does not mean that thcv would not W eligible if that work had been
done. f
Mr. Wardell noted that this vwas something, that staff might be able to provide. It would be interesting to
we if there was a comprehowive stud car that area in terms of what options they have for providing
covesge- He questioned ifthis just happens to be surnebod) that is willing to prox,ide a site. He asked to
see a technical study of tiwhal other options they have. He had similar kinds of visual concerns, but was
tool �tire that the }. could not be L)vcrcarne. He did riot think; that view is a significantly offensive view in
terms of the monopole. He would like to see what other options there are. He asked if the applicant has
any information that would help them there.
Ms. Carmichael replied that she could briefly address that. GIs mentioned this is a small area of coverage
they arc trying to get. So the search ring for whem they try- t {w find locuticros for land owners who are
willing is quite smtrl.l in this arcs specifically because of the tap%,rapkv of the area - They approached 5t.
Paul's Church. They alma sent letters to 5omc of the adjacent laud owners. She believed Pair_ Soffit did
receive one of the letters. Obviously, in this circumstance as goon as the % - find a property that works with
a wiI [in g land wkvacr they stop searching. They were the only ones in the area who were a wiping land
c,wner. Aga in. because of the topography it is a unique situation where evf= though there are sites acrnss
the street on the more cr }mmercial side, it does not work to cover the area. The higher elevation is what
helps to cover the three areas. Otherwise. they Nvould have multiple poles in the area, As, Mr. Nelson
mentioned the visibility was about 650', which was less than ten seconds where the monopole is seers at
the view he was coneerned with. Obviously, the monopole is visible at the bottom at the Exxon StILLitsn.
But, it is a short period of time when going the speed limit along that road. She asked that the ARB keep
that in mind.
ALBS MARL. EC Ot1NT Y ARCH ETECTURALREVIE.WtiL}AkD- PAOLS
3L- 115-2010 FINAL MINLI RTES
Mr. Lebo noted that some 0 the neigh hors reported that if they had Verizon or other users that they scan
to have a strong* signal. He asked if AT&T might be abler to rent a portion of one cal" the other provider's
cell tower so they w(w[d not need an extra one.
Ms. Carmichael replied that the engineers looked at shat at the very beginning- There is no tovver in the
area that AT&T could co- locate on that would get the signal strengths to the area that they were Looking
at. Just hrcause Veri7m coverage gets to Route 350 their signal strength might be able to reach longer
than what AT &T's signal would. There is nothing in the area to co- locate on in order for AT &T to fill
those three holes. The simulation provided for the propagation maps showed the coverage, althout it
had heen mentioned that there arc certain areas that do drop the: call such a0 ,ip=ifically underneath the
bridge. Those are definitely hNes. The informanon provided as to where the holes are is actual
information and not simulated information. They am trying to provide reliable coverage whcrc someone:
does not drop a cal I. That is the whole point.
Mn Va'ardell said the most offensive component', of this are components that they don't have under their
jurisdiction. The view from 50 lie did not find &% a terribly off'ertsive viemr. If it were a historic district
and they had some contral in the historic district, he finds the small views in the introduction of this kind
of faciIity into this nei gh horhood more problernatie than the view of the monopole from the sky line out
on the street, But. the ARB does not have that jurisdiction, The frustrating thing in this is when he sees
their photographs of what it does to the netighboncm-,d he feels that it is really nasty. When he secs the
view from the highway it is only ten seconds of that which he dues not find overly sitTensive.
Unfortunately. the most distress that xhis installation would create is sornethittia that the AkB does not
have a jurisdiction ever.
Mr. Wright felt that the view for ten seconds is wildly optimistic traveling, at regular speeds ten the road_
Fie fell that it was a much longer vies+- than that. This tower would be significantly higher above the trees
than an} thing the ARB has approoved in a teumber of years. It ems to make a mockery of the tent foot
rule. It is ten foot on one side, but it is not ten foot on the side that chatters. With the view frxim the
Entraom Corridor being his purview, he left that it was going io be eery hard to tell the, next person yes
that they just did it in this case. He also thinks that a lot of time they haver hear if they dropped this down
to a level at which it would conform to what they look at in terms ear tree tops. He asked if it would be 80
percent. 60 prrLen1 or 50 percent of what they are looking for. It is not his job to make sure that they
have 100 percent of the signal that they are looking roe. It is his job to protect the view first and foremost.
I It has approved a number Dfthese towers_ In fact, they automated this project so they ►would not have to
do this. But, this, request was kicked out of that process for excellent reasons that are substantiated h
photos and by staff.
Mr. V4 ardel I nr led that ht: his on] y been on the board for a short period of time. He asked if this is in tact
si gn i fican fly a worse condition bran ethers that have come throt _a before.
Ms, Nlaliszewski replied that there are very few if any that staff has brought to the ARB and not
recommended approval of or approval with conditions. Therefore, she would say yes.
Mr_ Nil lsan noted fliat there is one thing that makes this a little bit different, which is the orientation of the
view. One dews not have to look to the left or right.. which has been the case a 1114mNr 41 times bef< +re.
Mr. Daggett pointed out that during his time on the board it has been the case where h has not been is the
major sI0l f line of the road, or if it is it was trapped in the visual clutter of the trees. I. le agreed with Mr,
Wright that hccau5c or the way one enters Ivor and the prominence of this vtow the fact drat it is dead
center and sticks out from the trees as far Ls it is that even at 4' there was no rnateriat difference. He
agreed this particular location is net one chat this County needs to encourage for its Lntrance Corridors.
AC_BEMARLE COUNTY ARCHrrFC ' n)R. t_REVIF- WRO.+M)- pAQL6
,3- IS:QCO FV%A.LMNU'F'E5
T1tcrr wi11 be other locations as they have to Itxik- for if this dne5 not pass. Hilt the idea is to place these in
a location where iT is not visually disturbing along the Entrance Corridnr. It might be measured at ten
seconds, but if one gets the slightest stop in traffic they could be lining there looking at it for quite some
time. Given what he has seen and the experience that they have had in tower locations normally being off
to the We so zltat one almost has to strain to find them. he opposed the request.
Motion: Mr. Wright moved for denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for APB- ?410 -0 . Singleton
(AT&T) Filial Revie3�, o r a Site i vekipment flan.
n Lebo seconded the motiort.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (M inset ahsent)
r. 6aiohu pointed out that he was the planner for this project and just wanted to let the neighbors know
that the request wiII be going to the Planning Commission on April 0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of tree issues: n- siIchif7 site protection
Gireg. Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney, discussed off -site tree issues with the ARB. Mr. Kampmer
reviewed the EC" Guidelines that pemin to trees and surrounding chaltactcr and the parts of the EC section
of the zoning ordinance that relate: to landscape and buffering. ft was clarified that grading and buffering
in ax proposed development can be addressed by the ARB if maintaining the character of the corridor
requires it.
EC ZTA: Update
Staff updated the ARB on the status of'the EC zoning text amendment, noting that the l3DS asked to have
the categories of the county -wide Certificates added to the L,exi of the ordinance, and indiuming that staff
"Mild bring to the April 5 AR13 meeting, some proposed revisions LO the list of eategorkN and to the
henchma&% the AItB previously recommended for those Cerdficaltes. Staff further noted that they would
be working on a mfomiatting of the EC Guidelines to mnumber the t"t for easier reference in staff
reports and at meetings.
Staff Reports: Email to ARB?
Staff asked the ARB if they would like to have staff reports sent to thcm vial email. Mr. LeW and Mr.
Wright said they did not require tie email version. Mr. Daggen and Mr, Wardell said they would like to
have the reports emailed. Mr. Wright suggested that the staff reports be made avai.14bie on line at the
County's website,
Sion Handout:
Stab' presented a handout including twelve photos of freestanding signs in the Entmoce Con-idors to he
used as exam fries of designs approved in [lie ARB, In consensus, the ARB made the following
comments:
1. A] 1 of the iniarges need cxplanalton- captions. especially the Southland sign.
'_ Remove the McDonald's sign.
3. Because they are similar, r:hmiw the Riverside or Holly Memorial gardens sign, and removc the
Hess sign.
ALBEMARLEC04NTY ARCH FIT�C" PRAl.klN 10ARV- FAUE7
3- I5-2GiI FINAL MINUTES
i. Becaus; they are Simi la r. choose the dams Teeter sign or the Chrysler sign.
5. The animal hospital, BMW' and Village Green signs are good examples.
6. The lack of planting at the bases is troublesome.
7. filenwood isn't complete.
S- The Wachovia sign 1no6 atimere-
Brawmville Fence: Security Fence
Regarding the proposed security fence around the basketball court at Brownsville Elernentan', the APB
confirmed that the proposed fence without the tap rail in the darker &Preen color would be acceptable.
Approval or minutem: January 19, 2010 and February 16, 2010,
Motion: M r. Lebo moved for approval of the rninuies of January l9, 2010 and February 16. 2010 as
submitted.
Mr. Wright seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0,
01ber issues from the Board:
1. Mr. Lebo noted that the Sam's Club roiling had been repainted.
2. Mr, V4+right noted that the utility enclosures at the Shop% at Rio Road still were not revised to meet the
ARB's approved design, lie also noted that ane enclosure is left open a signi Nan t amcsunt of time.
3. Mr. bright suggested that ordinance u pdaw, he conveyed by email rather than in hard copies.
Next ARII Meeting. April 5. 2010
ADJOURNMMN"C
The meeting was adjourned at 2:27 p.m. to the nest AR$ meetipig on April 5. 2010 in Room 241, Second
Floor. County Office Building at 1.00 p.m.
Bil l Daggett. Vice Chairman
(Recorded and transcrihed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk- to Planning Commission &r Planning Boards)
AI,BF.MARI,F C'MNTY ARGI IP1'Lt't'URAI-UVILW l3VAKI) - P.1U S
3 -15 -21010 FINAL MIA ES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
M y 3, 2010
The Albemarlc County Architectural Review Board met an Tuesday. May 3. 20 10. 1:40 g.ni.,
Room ii 241, Second Floor. County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were Bill Daggett, Dice Chair, Charles T. Lebo. Bruce Wardell and Fred Missel,
Chairman. Paul Wright was absent. Mr. Wardell arrived at 1:03 p.m. Staff members present
were Margaret Mal iszewski and Brent Nelson.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Missel cWted the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and established a quonim.
PUBLIC CQ14fi1VENT
MT. Missel invited public comment. 'There being no public comment, the meeting rooved to the
next item.
REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS
ARB 241{1 -U2: Singleton (AT&T) - Preliminary review of a Site Development Plan — (Tax
Map 58A1. Parcel 401 -1)
Proposal: To construct a treetop personal - ,vireless service facility with a height of 10' above the
reference tree.
Brent Nelson summarized the staff report.
The applicant proposes to establish a telecommunications facility consisting of a
proposed steel monopole painted Java brnAn 69 ' tall. %vith a height 10' above the top of
the 11" caliper Ash reference tree in a 24' x 30' lease arcs located on a parcel adjoining
the north side of Morgantown Road approximately 6W' southwest of the intersection
with Route 250 West. The lease area is heavily wooded and situated approximately 65'
above and 300' south of the Routs 250 right- of -way.
Balloon tests for this proposal were conducted on February 14, 2414 and February 23.
The results of both tests were presented to the Al R at the Hardy 15, 010 review, 'The
Board, by a vote of 4:0. denied the request. On March 19, the applicant requested an
appeal of the ARR's decision. An April 5. 2010 letter submitted t�y the applicant in
support of the appeal referenced another balloon test (conducted un March 31) which
staff hW not been invited to view and at which the balloon -was flown from a new
location approximately 115' northwest of the proposed monopole location.
With that new information it became evident that the location from which the balloon
was fln n in February was also not the proposed monopole location, but appraximately
14' east of the monopole. In each of these tests, it was overhead tree branches at the
location of the monopole that did not permit a balloon launch directly from the monopole
location. The applicant's April letter states that the launch location for the March test
more accurately represents the proposed location of the mortupule as dewed from the
ALBEMARLF COUNTY ARC'INTFURPRAL REVIEW BOARD - FAG€ I Attachment E
$-3--2010 FINAL MPAn ES
westbound lane of Route 250 while descending into Lhc Village of Ivy. That view was the
problematic view in the ARB*s prcvinus review of the proposal.
Staff explained to the applicant that it would not he useful or efficient to present
information to the Board of supervisors that the ARB had not yet reviewed. so the
applicant agreed to conduct another balloon test that could be attended by staff. using the
March 31 balloon location. That test was performed on April 16 and was attended by
stag. Due to existing overhead branches the balloon was launched from a location
approximately 13.5" northwest of the monopole location and to the height of the
monopole 10' above the reference tree. The balloon was highly visible, sky lit and
oriented directly in front Of the viewer while descending the hill for a dis=Cc of
approximately 350' westbound into Tvy. The halloori was visible in the vicinity of three
evergreen trees. which appear to the left and riphi of the balloon and which did not
provide a wooded ba4 drop for the balloon. The balloon continued to be visible but to a
lesser degree for another 300" while westbound on Route 250,
0 The balloon test did not replicate the balloon location shown in the appiicant's photo
renderings from their March 31 test due to the brew conditions that day with the balloon
consistently appearing to the right. or north. of the location in the photo renderings. The
balloon was not visible from points along 20 west of the site and the balloon's visibility
from paints along 250 adjacent to this site were sufficiently mitigated by the wooded area
between the site and the Entranoc Corridor just as in the February balWn test. The lease
area and the ground equipment are not expected to be visible from the orridor-
a Due to the inability+ to reproduce the March 31" test results it was suggested that the
applicant provide a drawing demonstrating that the balloon location and the resulting
photo rendering was based upon the launch location witnessed by stag' on April 1 Oh and
that it was a more accurate representation of the view of the -monopole from the
westbound lame of route 250. the view that was problematic for the ATM's previous
review. That drawing was provided., it shows the launch locations used for the February,
March and April tests, the proposed monopole location and two evergreen trees that
appear to the left and right of the balloon in the field and in the photo renderings. Those
trees are located to the east of the proposed monopole and are cuff -site. The drawing does
appear to vcri#y that the balloon location shown in the photo renderings is an accurate
representation of the view of the proposed monopole location viewed while traveling
westbound into Ivy.
0 The applicant rnaintaitts that visibility of the propnscd facility is sufficiently mitigated
due to its proximity to existing evergreen trees that appear to be ofd site evergreen trees
located can the Sofka property, 2850 Morgantown Ruud, exist of the proposed site,
Whereas. the applicant's photo rendering does demonstrate that the monopole would rise
between two of these trees. helping to reduce the pale's not iceahiIity, the small number of
trees and their off-site location is an issue. Typically, off-site vegetation is not relied
upon for mitigation of a proposed development in an Entrance Corridor due to the lack or
control over off -site resources. However, the ARB has given consideration to off- -site
screening for wireless proposals whtm the number of uses was significantly larger,
cresting larger masses of tree canopy and typically an adequate wooded backdrop. This
proposal has no wooded backdrop as viewed from the route 250 West hill and the
mitigation for this view is provided by only two or three off -site trees_ The Entrance
Corridor guidelines specific to this review and how they am addmssed in the proposal are
listed in your report.
AU1,LMARU CX)U NTY ARCHFI- ECTLRAL RFV M % DOARD - PAGE 2
�5- 1-2010 FFNA - M INLnT S
■ Staff cannot support the proposed monopole due t4) the degree of visibility as the viewer
descends westbound into Iv-v and due to the lack of on -site mitigation_ Should this
application be approved as currently proposed the issues relating to grading and tree
protect Ian listed in your report should be addressed.
a Staff reviewed the trtaterials on display, which included drawings. photographs and photo
simulations of the various balloon tests.
Mr. Missel invited questions from the AM He asked for clarification regarding the
photographs and photo simulations that correspanded to the March 31" balloon test and which
photogmphs represented the most accurate view from the westbound lame leading! into Ivy.
Mr. Nelson provided clarification regarding the photographs and photo simulations and indicated
that the photograph -, and photo ,irn uIations frara the March 3 i' test appear to represent the most
accurate view.
Mr, M issel asked if the reason this view watt chosen is due to this being the most significant view
of the monopole.
Mr. Ni lson replied that is correct. The monopole is not visible west of the site on Route ?a {} and
is sufficiently mitigated frorn the section of Route 250 adjacent to the site, as demonstrated by
they photo taken from Duner's Restaurant.
Mr. Lebo stated that he viewed the balloon test and ashen who else did. Mr. Daggett indicated
that he also viewed the balloon test.
Mr. Missel invited the applicant to address the ARB.
Applicant Presentation:
Kathryn Carmichael, with Williams Mullen representing AT&T, presented a Power -Point
presen1ati0D. She noted that her colleague, Valerie long. was present. She thanked the A> B for
reviewing the application in light of the additional information they have provided.
• She started out with a big picture overview with a now on why these facilities are treated
within Albemarle County not as utilities, but treated separately as a wireless facility
subject to the Wireless Policy and the Wireless Ordinance in the County Code. The
standard applied in the staff report by the ARB is incorrect in that they applied the
standards to review a utility rmd not the standards of the Wireless Policy.
+ The County Board of Supervisors. when they adopted the Wireless Policy, it was lased
an the fact that wireless fatalities could not be made invisible, wbich is why the Wireless
Policy spews of mitigating the view. limiting the visibility and not making facilities
invisible. The way you mitigate the visibilin, is through design and siting.
■ Referencing a photo, she stated that Albemarle County made a policy decision that they
wanted towers to be painted broom. f1wh mounted, treetop facilities, narrow at the top,
and be no taller than 10' above the reference tree so as to avoid things like this. 1r1
numerous locations in the Wireless Policy it references nvnimizing visibility for facilities
where limited visibility is encouraged and that the Count} wnuld approve those
applications that comply with the adopted plan -s policies and ordinance and deny those
AWEMARLE COLr.\- Y ARCHrfWrURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 3
5-3- 201i1 f NALMINUWS
that don't. The R.B's role is to confin n that the application before them meets the
design criteria, which this application does,
i Numerous balloon tests were conducted on this site. The first two halloort tests were in
Match. "ose photo simulations were provided at the first hearing,. During the last
hearing there was one viev -point that was the most discussed because that is the one view
where you can see the very top of the tower. [n the rest of the views from the 1r'ntrance
Corridor, you actually cannot see the tower. As a result of this one view that the ARB
decided to focus on. AT&T met and reevaluated the coverage objective area. During that
time they noted that the balloon location because of the tree coverage over the proposed
tower area, they had to fly the balloon ofd' to the side. It was noted that off to the side
view, which was 14' off. could have had an impact on the actual perspective from the
pbuto simulations that they provided. As a result, for their own purposes to see if it had
any impact at all. on March 31 they flew the balloon at the more accurate location to
provide a more accurate perspective from the Lntrance Corridor_ To their surprise cvcn a
small shift in the location provided a change in the simulation. vdth the tower getting
closer to the adjacent pine trees.
• At Brent's rccommendation they provided an exhibit that showed ca rnera location 41.
which is the furthest to the right, about 1,500' away from the actual tower location.
Camera location :1 is from the first balloon test done in ?larch. Camera location 42 is
basically where the second photo simulation is from, which is about 1.200' away from
the site. Thev think the trees that you arc seeing. the pine trees that arm lactated near the
top of the tower. are the ones on the Sofa property. They did not go on the Sofka
property to confirm that those are the tree. but they believe those are the pine trees that
are of question. It is a heavily wooded area. Thcre are significant other trees in the area
as well as on the applicant's property.
• The previous simulated view from 250 is, again. fmrn about 1.500' away from the tower.
The next view is when they moved for a more accurate perspective. The very top of the
tower is the only part that is visible. and it is visible for a very short period of time. She
took a video of the location %%rith the last balloon test to show that the balloon was only
visible for about nine seconds. Unfortunately, they had some technical difficulties and
she wa-� not able to shove the video. She emphasized that it was a very short period of
time. less than ninc seconds. and that only the very top of the tower is visible. Them was
more than 50' of the tower mitigated by significant tree cover that is located both on and
off nfthe app4cant's property.
To address the staff' report i sucs - first the wireless facility is not a utility. The
applicants are tasked with minunizing and mitigating the impact, which they have done
through careful design, siting, and location. This is not new development and they are
not required to comply with historic architecture. This application complies with the
design guidelines that are listed in the Wireless Policy =d the Wireless Ordinance. The
proposed development is sensitive to the existing landscape in that it is a tree top facility
no higher than 10' above the refercnee tree. It is painted bromm. has flush-mounted
antenna and only 18" diameter at the very top of the pole. Again. it is only the very top
of the pole that is even visible from that one vantage point. Applying the standards in the
staff' report, no %�itclew facility arould ever he approved. The monopole does riot
significantly alter the vista of this area.
• She reminded the ARE again what the Wireless Policy indicates as visually intrusive
guy towers, shiny metal poles. and facilities as shown at the beginning, of the presentation
ALBEMARLE Ct UKTY ARCHrrECTL RAL REVLEW BOARD - PAGF a
5-3- 201UFTNALMINUTES
that would he visually intrusive and substantially alter the vism A flush mounted tree top
brown facility is not visually intrusive.
• Another point made by staff is that the applicant is relying on two or three pine trees
located off the site for mitigation. This point is actually inaccurate in that there are over
30 trc�s on the property in the surrounding 200' of the site that were surveyed and in the
plan provided. Again, it is only the very top part of the pole that is near the pine trees.
The rest of the entire pole is mitigated through trees that are located on site.
• To summadw, as was recognized by the County{ early on, wireless facilities cannot
remain invisible. Antennas must be visible at the top of the pole and extend above the
height of the trees in order for the signal to be effective, The way wireless works is that
the igmal has to bounce off of the other antennas in the area, So in order for the facility
to work they have tU be able to communicate with the adjacent facilities. Failure to have
a tower have its antennas visible renders it entirely useless and prevents the federal right
of wireless carriers to provide coverage. They can't male them all invisible and cannot
always make them as well hidden as they have %ith other AT&T sites. It is a matter cif
relative visibility.
• The application is entirely compatible with the Entrance Corridor and is sensitive to the
landscape in that it is a brown pole with limited diameter. flush mounted witenna and
within a forest of trees. Compared to all the other telephone pales, sip ge and the
railroad bridge right next to the road, which are not screened at all by trees. and the
relative short distance that this monopole is .;isible along 250, which is nine seconds
While driving the speed limit, the limited visibility is mitigated by its design. The
vantage point that they are focusing on here is the very trap of the facility that is visible,
Again, that has to be visible in order for This tower to work. The ARB Design 0Llidelines
do not contain any provisions which prohibit a wireless facility from being visible from
straight on or for any period of time from the Entrance Corridor. She offered to answer
any questions and expressed appreciation for the ,B "s consideration of this application.
Mr. Missel invited questions.
Mr. Daggett rioted that in March the question was asked if there "rem other sites that had been
considered. He recalled that the answer w, that once they found a willing prcperty o Amer their
search stopped. He asked if [here was still a potential there that there are other sites available
other than this site.
iuis_ Carmichael replied that the answer back them was they did look at other sites. Thcy always
look at co- location on ether buildings. They looked at a church and althougb there was an
antenna in the church they were not able to fit within dial steeple. So thev ended up at this
location. When they went back to reevaluate to look at this balloon test and decided to do one in
another location. they did look at other possibiRtics in the area. This is the site that provides the
best coverage as the most minimized visibility that will pmvide the reliable coverage, that is
required along 250.
Mr. Daggctt noted that he felt that was important for Nis`. Missel to hear that answer.
Mr. Wardell reiterated that Qw said it provides the best performance and it is the least visible of
the other sites that they considered. He asked if that was what she said.
ALHEMAR{t.E COUNTY ARCH tTt:C7l k3 L REVIEW BOARD - PACI S
5-34010 FWAL MINI rFB
Ails. Long clarified that there are a numbs zr of other locations where it might work and where
there is probably adequate tree screening, but the land owners were not willing to enter into a
lease agreement. It is a challenge to find a site that meets all of the necessanr criteri a and works
to provide the coverage they need or to have the, necessary tree scr ning and an existing access
road that does not require cutting down trees. The way the process works is that AT&T has a
site acquisition specialist similar to a real estate agent who goes out and looks at maps to try to
identify, areas where it might work. The site Inquisition specialist identifies the area on aerial
photographs. Then letters are sent, phonc calls rnade and personal visits to land owners to make
proposals. Often they might go to 15 or 20 land owners and only 2 or 3 will be interested.
Therefore, they work with those 2 or 3 to figure out which is the best location that provide the
hest options from a zoning perspective, engineering perspective. screening and so forth. Of
those willing land owners they were able to work with this is the one that provided the best out
of all of thee. The church would have been a wonderful opportunity if there was room in their
steeple which there wasn't. We even approached them about having a treetop facility, like this in
the woods behind the church which might have provided better screening. We don't know
because they would not even let us come out and do a quick simulation.
Noting that they'd seen the shifting of the balloon 1W one dirmtion or the other, MT. Missel
asked if there might be a location either within the lease area or somewhere on the parcel that
might be 10' to the tight or left that would be hidden by the evergreen tree and ther rom less
visible.
Ms. Carmichael replied that they have to stay within the confined restriction area from that
reference tree. Based on their analysis there are no other likely locations that would be any
better. Thev have to make sure it stays rear the reference tree.
Ms. Long noted that they went through a reanalysis after the March ARB meeting and denial,
pulled out the plans and revisited the site to sec if there was anywhere they could move this.
Could they move it a few feet so that it would be behind the pine tree? if it was behind the Pine
tree it probably will not work. if the antennas can't been seen from 250 it is not going to roach a
car or person that is driving along 250. That is a critical element_ It has to be visible and have a
line of sight. She noted that they were restricted by the power lives. critical slopes in the back of
the site and setbacks from adiactV properties. They cannot cross the power Iines with the cranes
and other equipment required to construct this proposal. They also tried to stay away from the
residences and meet the setbacks.
Mr. Wardell asked if Iocatians ether than St. Paul's Chu rch had been explored.
Ms. Long indicated they had looked at a number of other locations but none o then Ilad willing
land owners. It is a challenge,
This is a difficult hole in coverage to till. Because the monopole is only visible from this one
location for such a short period of time in one direetion they fell they could mitigate the visibility
as long as the pole is brown and met all of the design requirements of the Wireless Policy, They
felt it w-as a site worth pursuing even though it did not have a wooded backdrop. It wuld be seen
for 9 seconds while westlxmnd into ivy. It could be seen from Duner's only in the winter
ALUE&tAkU COLiNT -F ARCfin- ECTURAL RFV3FW RDARi]. PAGE d
5-3-' =414 FINAL MINUFLS
months. They feel that in totality it is a site worth pursuing. Tlicy feel very strongly that the site
meets the design criteria of the Wireless Ordinance. As Ms. Carmichael said. if all sites have to
be invisible no site would ever be approved because they can't Function that way. It is a standard
that is not realistic for this type of technology. it is not the standard that the Wireless Policy
contemplates being a part of.
Mr, Missel asked staff to answer a question. It was mentioned about a utility rather than a
v&-ireless policy and also confusion about mitigation rather than risibility. He asked staff to speak
a little about that in terms of how they communicated that in the staff report and how they should
focus on those issues,
Mr. Nelson replied that the Wireless Policy speaks about mitigating the appearance of the
facility. Staff believes that adequate wended backdrop is one of the primary reasons that you get
mitigation in a facility. They lack any backdrop in this view under discussion here today. It is
not sufficiently mitigated. in staffs view. in appearance.
Mr. Missel reiterated from staff -s standpoint it is not an issue of being invisible, but it is an issue
of judging. mitigation.
Mir, Nelson replied yes, for that portion of the !facility.
Mr. Wardell naked if staff has access to the language of the ordi.n=e that covers the
telecommunication facilities. That is important heause of the reference cited in the staff report.
The Entrance Corridor Guidelines state that mechanical equipment and above ground utilities
should be screened to eliminate visibility from the Emtrancei Corridor. He asked what the
ordinance says that covem telecommunications.
VCs. Maliswski noted that the 'wireless Policy talks about the degree of visibility. The
Entrance Corridor Guidelines do say eliminatc visibility, but the AR$ has never applied that and
Chat is not what is being suggested here. There are dozens of wireless applications that the . ARB
has considered and they never said that it has to be invisible. The A B has always taken into
consideration the fact that the policy is trying to gO COT monopoles rather than the really tall ones.
ones that are trecrtop sites. As Brent Nelson suggested, the wooded backdrop often helps with
that mitigation. What they are saying here is the degree of visibility is not sufficiently mitigated
in this case at the top of that hill going down into Ivy.
Mr. Wardell asked for reference if it would be passible to pull up the language of the Wireless
Ordinance that talks about. visibility.
Ms. Long replied that in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy that was adopted by the
Board of Supervisors in ' 0GO there are numerous references throughout in terms of mitigation.
On page 60. it says a personal wireless service facility that scorers high in the visibility sole need
nest he rejected i f the visual impact can be mitigated in one of the following Ways.
• The first is camouflage. which requires minimal changes to the frost structure that is often
described in the context of what they call ca- location. That would be attaching it inside a
church steeple or to a water tank, for instance, or changes to the host structure or the
wireless facility site setting to accommodate the wireless smic:u facility. Treetop towers
AL13EMARJ -E COUNTY ARCHITECTI FRA G R 1 -V iV VY WAR 13 - PACA r
5- 3- 2010FiNAL M1NL'TF5
are a form of camouflage. It talks about other methods as well. It talks about concealment
within the side of a structure, like a church steeple or disguise to change the appearance.
Treetop Cowers are a form of camouflaging a facility so even if it is visible it is not
excessively- visible. It is not like some of the earlier slides of a giant 200' tower 50' to
100' above the taps of the trees and helps it blend in. It is all about the design.
Throughout this policy it discusses the fact that they can't be invisible in all arses. So
you l we to mitigate the visibility in some fashion. "Treetop towers are one way. It talks a
lot about the design standards. such as to make sure it is a brown pole with the cables
inside with flush mowited antennas being no tinier than 10' above the reference tree, Soo
they meet all of those criteria.
• The Wireless Ordinance itself is in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance. That makes
these wireless facilities essentially a by -tight propo,4 in ever} zoning district ; long as
they nneet the design criteria, the things she's mentiona plus some others. One is to
make sure that the trees appropriately screen the facility- Anothcr is to make sure to
meet setbacks. Those are the critical ones. They have been working hard to make sure
they meet all of those criteria. There is no question that they meet those criteria. It is lust
a matter that in their opinion about what the scope of review is here today.
* 'Whey contend that the scope is does this facility meet the design criteria in terms of
visibility. It is about relative visibility. They think that they have mitigated the visibility
primarily thmugh the design cif the structure, but also through its careful siting and
location. They put it near the reference tree. When viewed from this one location they
can see it for onl
color, the wires have to be run inside the pale, it has to he 30" at the base and I and flush -
mounted at least 12" in terms of the distance from the pole itself. He looks at all of that and
whether the base equipment is visible from any herc else. That is how his review goes. But he
has to tell the Priming Commission that the ARB either denied or approved the request.
Mr. Lebo asked if the base equipment would not he visible from the Entrance Corridor. and Ives.
Maliszewski replied that it would not.
Ms. Long clarified that this is called a policY, but it is technictdly a component or piece of the
Comprehensive flan. From their perspective it is their "Bible" or guiding document of what
they plan and use. The ordinance in Section 5.1.40 is basically implementing this
Comprehensive Flan component. She hoped that would help explain the relationship between
the two.
Ms. Mal iszewski rioted for further c I ari fication that they don't disagree about that at all. What is
at issue is that smfl'thinks for that Martian of the view coming dove the Corridor from the top of
the hill they don't feel that it is sufficiently mitigated and the applicant does. That is basically
what it comes down to.
Mr. Missel inNited public comment.
Jim Sofka resident of 2550 Morgantown road. passed out two photographs taken from the
Febru ' test. He was speaking for himscif and a number of his friends and neighbors in that
they were sort of surprised to have this go forward again because it does not appear that much
has changed. lie made several points, which he would reiterate for the record:
1. 'This is very high in the skyline and visihte on the Entrance Corridor (Route 250) in their
view.
2. It is vety close to adiacent houses in the mi€idle of a residential neighborhood.
3. Most of the houses tha# surround it. except nwo. were built in the lace 191x' century. It is a
very historic district in terms of its character. but not formerly an historic district under
state I av►r.
4. From his understanding the ARB has full jurisdiction over this because of the Entrance
Corridor issues.
Mr. So#ka noted that the front of his hmLge is surmunded by four evergreen trees. In the
photograph distributed he circled the two Hemlocks which are referred to in the staff report.
Those two trees are the highest on the skyline and suffer from a blight that has been killing the
trees on the eastern seaboard. At a ;ignifjcanc cost he gets the trees pruned and sprayed amually.
The problem is that it is not 100 percent effective. He would hate to lose the trees. The treks are
within 15' of the house. If the sprays are ineffective the trees will have to carne down
immediately due to the safety issue given the proximity to the structure, lf" the Board wishes they
have an open invitation to come and visit the property to view the trees. He would be happy to
provide a statement from Ws arburist along with receipts for the treatment of those trees
certifying that they are in fact diseased. If those trees are no Ionger there, that is going to makie
that pole stared out even more along The skyline. Again. he has no intention of removing them.
Renicmbcr this is a 25 year lease and it is very possible that those trees will be gone by the time
that lease expires. He asked that his comments from March 15a` be entered into the record.
A1- RFMARL.C: COUNTY ARCHITECRTRAL REVIEW HOARD - FAGF 9
Mr. Missel asked if he saw the recent photos. He said he was the April 16 photos.
Trevor Gibson. resident of?8 2 Morgantown Road. said that his concern was that there has not
been an actual balloon float from the actual location. The reason there has not been a balloon
float From the actual Incation is because there is too much tree branch coverage, which is part of
the 30 trees, with six trees being alcove the 12' to 15' in [hat imerrrlediate gets. In order to
conduct a proper balloon test from this location it is his opinion that the tallest trcc will have to
be removed, When they looked over the original balloon test it was noted that it would not be
easy- to cut that tree back. The trees in that area are being choked by ivy. The trees are not
healthy in that area. Many of the trees are losing branches and dying. As fir. Sofka mentioned
most i f the trees in that area are over 100 }Fears old and. unfortunately, many of these trees are
starting to die. He reiterated that they have not seen an aecurme balloon test. Iarorn the ball.wn
test we were invited to, you can sec that it will be very visible from the Entrance Corridor, He
was concerned with the precedent this may set. The windy conditions at the last balloon test
made the resullts very inaccxate. He felt that the balloon was visible for more than nine seconds,
He oppose the request due to its visibility from the Entrance Corridor.
Phil Beaurline, resident of 2962 Morgantown road, submitted photographs. He noted that he
was unaware of the last balloon test and was unable to take a picture of it. He pointed out a very
accurate overlay of the current vegetation on top of his original photographs # 1 so they could see
the effect of some of the vegetation. He noted that was in the 4' above the reference tree and not
the 10'. The balloon diameter is about 37. which he had #cased all of his scale representations on.
In drawing #2, he noted that the north arrows were not the same a<s the sketch and the aerial
photograph. He had to Totate the sketch to match the north arrow of the aerial photograph. and
then superimposed the line of sight onto the drawing so they could we how the line of sight
relates to the two different balloon test locations. It goes basically right in between them. At the
scale as sho"m on that dmwing, it is less than a balloon width dUerence as far as the viewer's
point cal" view. The balloon shifted 18" or less given that there was no wind during, the
photo ph. He pointed out that the second balloon test really was immaterially different in his
opinion. From the problem location, the Entrance Corridor, it is the same. The two balloon tests
really are not different. Regarding the point ofaccuracy, looking at the 3131 photo, the balloon
test locaflon is slightly south, or to the left, of the point of view line and the alder balloon test is
slightly to the north. On the inset drawing. it is the opposite. So somebody screwed up when
they transferred the information. The two balloon drawings do not agree. Mr. Missel asked if he
was pro or con. He said he opposed the request; it is a had idea.
Amy Vigilante, resident of 2930 Morgantown road, said she was surprised they were here again
since it was denied last time. They were not invited to the last balloon test. but there appears to
not be much of a difference. In the past balloon test the y had it at 61Y, which looks like what
they are proposing. When they lowered it to 4' you could see no difference from the Corridor.
It was based on the evergreen trees. which appear to be on the Sofka property. She felt that the
location could also be seen from other places such as 0vxTnsvillc Road w, well w, 250. and fTorn
her neighborhood. It was very close to her neighborhood. She had never received any letters
and felt they could find another spot vdth more research_
There being no further public comment. Mr. Wssel closed the public comment to bring the
matter before the A RB for discussion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARC@nlZM IRA LFtFVIFW BOARD- FACF 10
5 -3 -2010 FINAL MIWTFS
Mr. Lebo stated that he didn't attend the First balloon test but he did attend the second balloon
test and felt that someone would really have to he looking for the monopole to safe it_ While
driving, on route 250 he felt that one would really have a difficult time looking for the monopole
because of the traffic and other clutter in the area, There are two gas stations, utility poles with
wires. VDOT signs and train tucks. There are so many Other things going on that you would
really have to be looking for the monopole. The question is whether monopoles are really that
ugly or inappropriate. He felt that was in the eye of the beholder. They arc not as obtrusive a_q
the larger poles demonstrated on some of the slides. The monopole was pretty vmll hidden
except for the S. 9 or 10' of it. At this time he did not have any problem with the r anvpole
based on the fact that there is so much clutter going on in ivy to begin with that you would have
to be looking for the rmonopole to find it.
Mr. Missel asked how- long he was able Lo sec the balloon, and Mr. Lebo replied that it was
visible for nine seconds while he wus driving in his car.
Mr. Daggett said that he attended the balloon test. He timed its visibility, for a little longer at
around 14 seconds. which was from the time he first caught the balloon in his eye until he almost
got down to the bridge when it disappeared in the treetops. The issue is the visibility. While
there is a lot to look at, if someone lookod up at this balloon test it was purely sky -] it. Ilow that is
wing to look when it is a monopole he did not know. But it was clear that the balloon was slty.
lit and it is pretty 1nuch right in the center of the view. Coming down the hill the balloon was
almost level when he first saw it. Re had to look up more and more as he drove further dovm the
hill but it was visible for a period of time. He thought this was wha# the AL" focused on last
time. The applicant acknPwiedged that the ARB focused on this view. Of course. the ARB
focused on this view because it is -,kv -I it.
He reiterated, as the ARB did in their first discussion, , the issue was what they can judge
from the Entrance Corridor. While they appreciate the neighbor's concerns over some Of tJte
outer circumstances involved with this. they have to look at it frorn the Entrance Cor6dar only.
He found it to be very sky -lit. In his experience on this board everywhere else that they have
approved monopoles. and most have been approved pretty easily, they are usually Off to the side
of the read and not dead center in the view for any length of time at all. When the monopoles
were tuff to the side of the road they are generally in amongst trees to the extent that as one Iooks
tip at than there is tree coverage behind them. He thought that this was what struuk hurt about
this.
Seeing the balloon test in reality in three dimensions and seeing it in photo aphs are two
diiferent things. Seeing the balloon test in reality is much clearer. Given the language the ARB
has to deal with the question is if it is mitigated. The fact that it is fully sky -lit makes it so that it
can't he mitigated. Most, if not all, of the towers the ARB ha.; approved during his tenure have
had foliage and aces behind them. The monopoles were not seen sticking up and sky-lit. The
ones that were sky -lit. staff always asked that the monopole be brought down so it could be in
that camouflage of trees surrounding, and this is not He felt this was inconsistent x %ith what they
have previously approved a<s mitigated visibility.
AIBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHTM -71AAL REVWSW HOARD - PAGE 11
3- 'k211 1U NNAL M[NVEa
Mr. Wardell said during the presentation he looked at this almost ignoring the pine trees. When
Jooking at the site plan he felt that the pine trees had to be ignored because of their distance from
the site and how little control they have aver that. Once the pine trees are gone what they
basically have almost a relatively consistent top of the tree line. This photograph shows the pine
trees on either side of the telephone pole. if the pine trees are gone they have a relatively
consistent top of the tree line coming across. That is the thing that disturbs him the most. Not
knowing much about the engineering of wireless. this little hole in coverage is probably the
toughest nut to crack around our region. Ile understands the difficulty they are having in finding
a site that actually covers that area. But he was not sure be would feel right depending, on the
pure trees and visualizing that treescape without the pine trees. Without those pine trees he
thought that it does have a visual interruption of that landscape that he finds excer -6, what would
be acceptable. being relatively new he did not know what other scenarios they have or have not
approved. He was basin, it on that observation.
Mr. Misscl said that he eauld basically understand evI<r}'thing that had beers said. He thanked the
public for showing up and speaking to this. It is all very helpful_ He confessed that he did
expect a few- members of the public to stand up and say they do business in this area and
absolutely need to have coverage and are lined of calls being dropped. They did not hear any of
that. That is interesting.
He looked at this from the subjective and objective sides. as they do everything else. From the
objective side he felt that there are still a lot of gags or questions that are kind of loose. One
would be the balloon location. Thcv sec what difference ii means to move the balloon 10" to the
right or the left. They still do not have a location that is acttrally right where the pole is going, to
be. So he did not know how much difference it A,&,i going to make when the balloon is actually
floating in that area.
The second issue deals with the conflict on whether ether sites have really been looked at. Inc
believed the applicant that they have looked for other sites. He heard at one point that if this one
dm,s not Fork there is going to have to be two or three other sines. On other sites they have run
into that vvith other pole options as well. They have said drat two or three other prlrelY mitigated
sites are better than one that is sky -lit and very unmi#igaied,
Another thought lie had that sort of falls under the objective is Dave the changes that have been
represented today been significant cnough to really reverse a decision that occurred back in
[March. He was not at the meeting and did not have the benefit of that discussion, but what he
has read aborxt in the staff report and heard toda }y it seems that the answer to that is no. There
really is not amthing, substantially different than what they saw before. One of the things that
strengthened that is the angle of the view.
Next. the time span of 9 to 14 seconds in a day is not a whole lo( of time, but if it is a very
important location and the people arc very interested in their vicwshed and take it very seriously.
He sees the point that there are existing unsightly other facilities there, such as sighs, evcryfthing
else, utility poles, etc- but they have to look at today and what they are seeing and whether that
will contribute to the unsightliness.
AMEMARLE COUNn ARCH rMM MALRt:VIFW BOARD - PAGF t2
5 -3- {I10 FINAI MrNVMS
Lastly. he agreed with the concepi of this being a uniform line and that having those evergreens
was very much unknown. If the height of the tower was somehow lowcT than the evergreens and
they were not relying so heavily on those. then they have a reasonable wkv to say that this is
either not as backlit as it appears to be or it is mitigated better. The subjective is a shorter list.
but he thought that it should be. In this sense he thought that the objective outweighs the
suhjective in the fact that it is not being rnitigatcd to the level that it should be.
Mr. Wardell asked. ignoring the pine trees, how much higher would the toyer be than the
hardwoods immediately adjacent to the tower.
Mr. Nelson replied that the tower wmild be 10' above the reference tree, which is the one 25'
from it
Mr. %Yardell asked if the reftmmctc tree i5 typical of the height of the Lop of those trees. i11 the
tree diagram it had 662' Aith the reference tree being at 595%
MT, Missel noted that was the ground elevation.
Mr. Wardell asked what the top of that was. and M r. Missel replied 652%
Mr. Nelson pointed nut the crown elevations of the surrounding trees.
Mr. Wardell noted that it was 10' above that. That tree is a participant in the horizon of the top
of the trees.
Ms. Lang clarified that even during this time the hardwoods were not Ica €ed out. Mr. Sofka's
photograph is actually quite helpful. if you look carefully behind the balloon and behind the
evergreen trees the limbs of the hardwood trees can be seen and the fact th,t they are not leafed
out.. She thought that it demonstrates probable the one that is to the right of the balloons, slightly
lower, may well be the reference tree. It is barn to know for sure. There arc trees back there
other than the evergreen m-cs. She thought that the evergreen trees may very well black the
deciduous trees_ In the sumuner months when these trees are leafed out it wold probably be a
hackdmp. 11 may not be a perfect full wooded backdrop. but it would have some trees. There
are trees back there. which can lac seen by the limbs of the trees. She clarified the point that it
was not entirely sky4it. During the winter months when the trees are not leafed out the trees
would not he seers as much,
Mr. Daggett noted that about the top ten feet was sky -lit. The reference tree is ten feet below the
top of the pole.
Ms. Long noted that ever} in this photograph one can see that essentially right bevveen the two
circles another deciduous tree is visible by its bmches.
Mr. 'Wardell said if that is the reference tree and the balloon is 10' al uve that, then the generic
tree line is 15' to 0' bcluw the balloon.
ALBUMAR UCUUNTY ARC'HrMC URAL REVIEW BOARD- PAC F. 13
5 =31010 MAL MrN1 ITPS
Ms. Long painted out that brings u5 back to the Wireless Policy, which is the goveming rifle.
The Wireless Policy permits monopoles to be 7' to 10' above the taps of the trees for that very.
reason. The monopoles have to be above the trees in order to function.
Mr. Daggett noted that he understood that.
;Iris. Lang said that there were a few comments made during the public comment period that they
would l ike an opportunity to respond to if the bowl would allow. There were a few things stated
that were not quite true thw they wmted to correct for the record.
Mr. Daggett noted or that they would 1ik a to take objection to.
Nis. Long rioted that there were a few things that were not quite true that they wanted to clarify
for the record.
Mr. Missel said sine the public hearing was closed that they would hold off on that.
Ms. bang noted that they could possibly submit a letter.
Mr. Missel rioted that they have the right to appeal.
Motiow Mr. Daggett moved to affirm the vote of the ARB at the Maxh 15, 2010 meeting, to
deny the Certificate nf' Approptxateness for A.R.B- 2010 -02, Singleton (AT &T) Final Review of a
Site Development Plan. noting that them was not a sufficient amount of information or change in
information to warrant a change in the decision.
Mr. Missel noted that before the vote ►vim taken he wanted to make sure that staff would provide
the additional documents submitted today to the applicant.
Mr. Wardell sec ended the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 3 :1. (Mr. Lebo voted no. Mr. W right waS absent. )
OTHER BLSINE S
Screening Fenc". Discussion
The ARB discussed design criteria for screening fences and made a nu. ber of comments and
suggestions regarding materials (vinyl could be an issue), colors, scalelproportions, location.
compatibility with the development. the rued for planting. transitions, connection to the building,
maintenance!durabilityF. It was suggested that guidelines for screening; fencing should by
articulated such that an applicant has a reasonable chance of knowing when they've met the
guideline. Staff will draft rnt: guidelines bawd on the conversation and bring the draft back to
the ARB for further review.
EC ZTA : IDS public hearing May 12, 2010
ALBEMARLE COWN ARCHMCTITRAI. R1:v1 EW DOARD - PACa E 14
5.3.2010 F INALL MINUTES
Staff reminded the AR13 that the EC zoning text amendment YmWd be heard by the BO on May
1?.
Approval of Minutes: April 6.2009, May 4. 2009. April 4. 2010 and Janumy 4, ?010
Motion: Mr. 1 ardell moved for approval of the Tni notes of April , 2009; May 4, 2009; April 4,
2010 and January 4. 20 10 as submitted.
9r. Daggett seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4 -0.
Sign Roundtable: Staff told the ARR that a roundtable had been scheduled for May 13 to
discuss changes to the sign ordinance.
Next ARB Fleeting: May 17, ` 010
AlDJOU RNMENT
The meeting was adjaut-rmed at :46 p.m. to the next ARB mecting on May 17, 2010 in Roam
?41, Second Floor. County Office Building at l :00 p.m.
Fred Missel. Chairman
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor. Clerk to Manning Commission & Planning
Boards)
ALBEMARLE COIN 7YARCHIi%L'7 RAt_ krVIF W ROAR rA{if. 15
5-3 -2010 FINAL 4 MI'ES
A
Co" of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Planning C±ommimion
From: Mark B. Graham,
Director of Comm utaity DevelopmenI
Date: ,June l4, 2010
Subject: Si ngletun PWSF. Tier II
in corsidering this app ication. I asi: that the Planning Comm issiov note that the appiican( agmed its defer their
June 90` appeal of the ARD decision at staff's request. This request to the applicant was made by me after
consulting with otherf, with the understanding that the Planning Cam mission could decide to approve or deny
this application indepcndent of the A Rl3`s action. With that undcmandin& I believed it would be premature to
bring the ARH appeal tv the County Board without the Planning Comm i�ision first having the opportunitfv it)
consider the appiication, Subsequent to my request to die applicant to appeal. I was informed that my
understanding was wrong and the Planning C=ommission could w approve the application without the ARB first
providing approvaI conditiLins for this application. While I disagree with this interpretation. ii appears both
myself and the Planning Commission arc ix)und to honor it. J sincerely apatogUe to both the applicant and
the Planning Commission for nny confusion or problems this costs have caused. In your deliberations, I
huge that the PInnninr C ommission mmy first decide the merits of the applica loin with respect to Sections
5.1,40 a and 5.1.44) d (sectiun,,; 1-11) Ktf the 7Ai ning Ordinance witho01 heiFig prejudiced by the ARB's
netinn.
If the Planning Commission determines this apps ication would he approve& except for the ARB denial. 1 request
that you defer your decision until County Board has the opportunity to consider the ARB appeal and to also
direct sta(Fto inform the County Board that the ARA denial is the only reason the Planning C=mission cannot
approve the application. In this way, the County Board may consider the AR133 appeal with the understanding
that the application would otherwise have been approved.
Ori the other hand, if the Planning Commission determines this application does not satisfy the above referenced
sections, the Planning Commission must den} the application, As part of that denial, the Planning Commission
is required to identify the requirements that were not satisfied and what needs to lac done to satisfy each of those
requitements. Assuming the applicant would then appeal this Planning Commission denial, the County Board
can then consider tooth the Planning Commission and A R B appeals at their July 10 meeting,
Chtce main, I sincerely apologize for the confusion this has caused. Reco izing the planning Commission may
have additional yuestionx for me: I wi II make myseIr avai lahle to arguer any questions you may have at this
meeting.
Attachment F