HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201100008 Legacy Document 2011-08-22�Si dr
LIkf;11�t4'
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2011 -8 Fairview Catholic Diocese
Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Margaret Maliszewski
Property AT &T Tier III PWSF
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
June 21st , 2011
TBD 2011
Owners: Catholic Diocese of Richmond Virginia
Applicant: Dorothy Burnetti (Clear Signal Towers
LLC)
Acreage: 4.00
Rezone from: Not applicable
(Lease Area: 3,600 square feet)
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for
Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning
District
TMP: Tax Map 130, Parcel 2A
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas; and EC, Entrance
Location: 7240 Scottsville Road [State Route 20] about
Corridor Zoning;
five hundred feet from the intersection of Scottsville
Road and Langhorne Road.
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA - RA - X
Proposal: An eighty -two (82) foot tall AT &T treetop
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural Area 4.
Personal Wireless Service Facility in an avoidance area
Rural Areas — Preserve and protect agricultural,
(This personal wireless service facility will be located
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
within two hundred (200) feet of a state scenic highway
resources/ density (.5 unit /acre in development lots)
or by -way.)
Character of Property: The proposed site is located on
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single family
a parcel with an entrance off Scottsville Road [State
Residential homes
Route 20]. The lease area is wooded and there is an
existing Catholic Diocese building on the property.
Factors Unfavorable: The tower will be located in an
avoidance area (within two hundred (200) feet of a
Factors Favorable: The monopole, antennas and
state scenic highway or by -way [State Route 20
ground equipment will be mitigated.
Scottsville Road].)
Staff Recommendation:
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of this personal wireless service facility
at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree, with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
STAFF CONTACT: Gerald Gatobu; Margaret Maliszewski
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 21, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: SP 2011 -8: Fairview Catholic Diocese Property — AT &T
Tier III
PROPERTY OWNER: Catholic Diocese of Richmond Virginia
APPLICANT: Dorothy Burnetti (Clear Signal Towers, LLC)
PROPOSAL:
Install eighty -two (82) foot tall monopole and associated ground equipment in an avoidance area.
The personal wireless service facility will be located within two hundred (200) feet of Scottsville
Road [State Route 201. Scottsville Road is a state scenic highway or by -way.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Rural Area in Rural Area 4. Rural Areas — Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources /density (.5 unit /acre in development lots)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The personal wireless service facility site is located on a parcel with an entrance off Scottsville
Road [State Route 20]. The lease area is wooded, and there is an existing Catholic Diocese
building on the property.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
No relevant prior planning and zoning history found for this tax map and parcel number. There
have been some sign applications and a variance application made in the late 1980's.
DISCUSSION:
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service facility. The proposed tower is a
tier III personal wireless facility because it is located within two hundred (200) feet of
Scottsville Road [State Route 201. Scottsville Road is a state scenic highway or by -way.
Any location within two hundred (200) feet of a state scenic highway or by -way is identified as
an "avoidance area" in the zoning ordinance.
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service
facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having
a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any
state scenic highway or by -way. (Added 10- 13 -04)
N
Tier III personal wireless service facility or Tier III facility: A personal wireless service facility
that is neither a Tier I nor a Tier H facility, including a facility that was not approved by the
commission or the board of supervisors as a Tier H facility.
The proposed facility consists of an eighty -two (82) foot tall wood monopole to be painted
Sherwin Williams Java Brown. Sherwin Williams Java Brown is a previously approved color for
Tier II and Tier III facilities at other sites in Albemarle County. The top elevation of the
proposed monopole will be is 502 feet, measured above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed
monopole will be ten (10) feet taller than the identified reference tree. The monopole will be
equipped with three (3) flush - mounted antennas, a two (2) foot long lightning rod, and coaxial
cables in the monopole's interior. Supporting ground equipment will be contained within a
proposed 60'x 60' AT &T wood fence and lease area.
Access to the proposed facility will be provided off an existing paved drive. The paved drive is
off State Route 20 [Scottsville Road] and it provides access to the Catholic Diocese property.
The gravel access road leads to a slightly wooded area surrounding the location of the proposed
tower. A balloon test was conducted on March 30, 2011. The balloon was raised to the same
height as the proposed monopole, ten (10) feet above the reference tree. The balloon was visible
and almost invisible from various sections of the entrance corridor. Visibility of the proposed
monopole at ten feet above the tallest tree is not expected to have a negative impact on the State
Route 20 (entrance corridor and avoidance area). The ground equipment will be contained within
an eight (8) foot fence. The fence must be screened from Scottsville Road, and should not be
visible from Scottsville road when the proposed trees are mature or fully- grown.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
Based on the results of the balloon test, it is staff's opinion that the use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed tower will have minimal visual
impact on adjacent properties. The equipment shelter will be screened from adjacent
properties by a fence and proposed landscaping.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The character of the zoning district will not change with this use. The site of the proposed
facility requires little to no additional land disturbance. The addition of the personal wireless
service facility at this location will not adversely affect the character of the area.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the "purpose and intent" set forth in Section 1.4
of the Zoning Ordinance. The review also takes into account the intent specified in the Rural
Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). The public health, safety, and general
welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures
that uses approved through the special use permit process are appropriate in the location
requested. This request is consistent with both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The addition of the personal wireless facility will not adversely impact the visual character of
the area, and will not restrict any nearby by -right uses within the Rural Areas district.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process. The special use permit process assures that proposed uses are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposed facility will give AT &T the ability to
offer a choice of personal wireless service communication where none exists. In addition to
personal wireless service communication, cell phone users along Scottsville Road will be able
to use E911 call out services. This contributes to public health, safety and welfare.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e)
are addressed as follows.
Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilites. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of
a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, and it shall
be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the
following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and
subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use
permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The
County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and
5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(h (1 -51 Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations
in this chapter.
AT &T's equipment shelter will meet required Rural Areas setbacks, area and bulk regulations
and minimum yard requirements. Site drawings and equipment specifications [Attachment A]
have been provided. The site drawings and equipment specifications demonstrate compliance
with personal wireless service facility (PWSF) regulations, and site plan requirements found in
Section 32 of the zoning ordinance.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
(i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only
during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located
within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county's landscape
planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the
al
existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose
width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be
installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of
the installation of the facility, the applicant shallprovide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed monopole will not require installation of guy wires or whip antennas. The
proposed grounding rod complies with the stipulated Zoning Ordinance size requirement. The
facility will have one outdoor light fixture attached to the proposed shelter. AT &T's technical
operations staff will use the light fixture when nighttime maintenance is necessary. The proposed
light fixture must meet Albemarle County's lighting ordinance requirements. The fixture,
operated by motion sensor, is for temporary maintenance and security purposes only.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall
not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one
hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond
the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each
antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For
purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted
toward the limit of three arrays.
The proposed antennae configuration will consist of three sectors each with a panel antenna. The
antennas will not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches. Antennas
will be installed using 2 and 3/8 "pipe- mounts ". The pipe mounts allow for any required amount
of down tilting without exceeding the County's requirements for flush - mounts (12- inches
maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antenna). Antennas will be
painted to match the tower.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree
conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for
review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan
shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be
removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for
the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease
area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
AT &T must /will provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the
arborist's report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is
later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was
5
approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended
plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
AT &T must /will provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the
agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed
as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a
certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be
to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be
required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or
pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was
not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or
conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and
(vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
If the antenna site is discontinued at anytime in the future, AT &T and/or its assignee(s) will be
required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier
than May or and no later than July I of each year. The report shall identify each user of the
existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which
equipment is owned and /or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users
on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
After the proposed personal wireless service facility is installed, AT &T must submit annual
reports updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility within the required time.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory
uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed.
The installation of this facility and accessory uses does not create slopes steeper than 2:1 or
greater.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be
fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the
facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural
areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the
character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
0
The proposed wood fence will not be detrimental to the character of the area, and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible
from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately eighty -two
(82) feet above ground level (AGL) or five hundred and two (502) feet above mean sea level
(AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately four hundred and ninety two (492)
feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the tree is located 25 feet from the proposed monopole.
A balloon test was conducted on March 30, 2011 [Attachment D]. During the site visit, the
balloon was launched close to the proposed monopole location. The balloon was raised to the
same elevation as the proposed pole, ten (10) feet above the reference tree. Staff travelled along
Scottsville Road [State Routes 20] to determine the extent the balloon was visible at the
proposed location. The balloon was visible at various points along Scottsville road, and at the
Catholic Diocese entrance (off State Route 20).
The location of the ground equipment and lease area for this tower is not ideal. A location this
close to the road without significant existing vegetation for screening, even when a fence and
landscaping are proposed, could still be overly noticeable based on the proximity to the road.
The wireless policy is very specific when it comes to tower sites in avoidance areas. Tower sites
in avoidance areas should be highly mitigated, and if not well mitigated, must be denied. The
monopole at the proposed elevation of ten (10) feet above the reference tree is not expected to
have an adverse visual impact on the State Route 20 entrance corridor; however, the balloon will
be visible at various points along the entrance corridor. The monopole will be noticeably less
visible when trees are in full foliage. The ground equipment and fence must be adequately
screened from the entrance corridor. The remaining trees and the "Java Brown" color of the
monopole and antennas are expected to further limit views of the facility.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county's
open space plan.
Staff's analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic
resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space
and Critical Resources Plan. Staff believes there is no significant loss of resources related to the
installation of the tower. The property [Tax Map 130 Parcel 2A] is located along Scottsville
Road [State Route 20], which is a scenic byway or highway and entrance corridor. The tower
will not impact adjacent properties, and there will be no significant loss of historical resources
related to the installation of the tower. The ground equipment must be screened from the scenic
byway or highway. The lead architectural and historical review principal planner offered the
following comments:
7
Regarding the ground equipment
The plan shows additional landscaping — a mix of trees and shrubs — to be planted east of the
entrance into the site and between the EC and the lease area. The proposed plants are expected
to help reduce the visibility of the compound from the Entrance Corridor (as compared to the
original submittal), and the mix should help maintain a somewhat natural appearance.
The location of the ground equipment and lease area do still cause concern. A location so close
to the road without significant existing vegetation for screening, even when a fence and
landscaping are proposed, could still be overly noticeable simply based on the proximity to the
road. More distant locations with more dense vegetative screening already in place are more
appropriate for the Entrance Corridors. Once constructed and planted, the resulting visibility of
this facility can serve as an example — good or bad — for future proposals of this type. Also note
for future proposals, that simply enclosing the ground equipment with a fence is not necessarily
considered sufficient screening. A fenced compound will typically look like a fenced compound,
especially when sited close to the road, and when the road is an Entrance Corridor, the structure
(fenced compound) should be fully integrated with the surrounding landscape.
Regarding the siting of the pole
The balloon test revealed that the proposed siting of the facility would allow the pole to be
visible, at intervals, a distance of approximately 1.5 miles along Route 20, from Dyers Mill Lane
on the north to the vicinity of 7534 Scottsville Road (TMP 130 -18) at the south. Traveling
southbound, the view of the pole changes from a very distant view above the trees at Dyers Mill
Lane, to the pole in the trees in the vicinity of Totier Creek Farm, Maple Hill Farms and
Langhorne Road, to a nearly clear view of the pole at the entrance drive to the church. Traveling
northbound, the pole was visible above the trees just north of 7534 Scottsville Road, then was
hidden by the wooded area along Route 20, then was visible again above the trees at the
entrance drive to the Scottsville pool and on to the site. The balloon test was conducted when the
trees were still without leaves; consequently, the summertime view of the pole is expected to be
better mitigated than was the view at the balloon test. A siting of the pole that provides better
mitigation during the months of the year when the leaves are off the trees would be more
appropriate for the Entrance Corridor, but the summertime view is expected to be sufficiently
minimized.
The monopole at the requested height of ten (10') above the reference tree is not expected to
have a detrimental visual impact on important public views. The monopole will not visually
overwhelm its surroundings, dominate the setting, or create a focal point. The public will not be
visually aware of the proposal.
The county's wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility,
facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact avoidance
areas (including Entrance Corridors and Scenic by -ways and highways). The proposed monopole
will not be visible when traveling along Scottsville Road [State Route 20 entrance corridor]. As
mentioned above, the degree of visibility will not have a significant negative impact on the
entrance corridor. A tree conservation plan and a certified arborist report with measures limiting
the impacts to existing trees will be submitted prior to building permit application/issuance.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall
not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than
seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall
include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre- existing natural
ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not
a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county's open space plan
caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner's denial of a modification to the
board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d) (12).
The proposed monopole will have a height of approximately 502' feet above mean sea level
(AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 492' feet above mean sea level
(AMSL). The proposed monopole will be ten (10') feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty -
five (25) feet. The height approved by the Planning Commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller
than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission
that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed 10 feet
above the tallest tree. Based on the balloon test mentioned above, staff determined that there
would be little or no material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed
height of ten (10) feet above the tallest tree, rather than at a height of seven (7) feet taller
than the tallest tree.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each
metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding
trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall
be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground
equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the
monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color
if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, fagade or fencing that: (i) is a color
that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and
(iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other
parcel or a public or private street.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The proposed
tower and equipment cabinet are to be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown to match existing
surroundings.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 31.6.1):
I
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S. C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any additional information regarding
the availability, or absence of alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be
covered with the proposed antenna mounting at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that
the special use permitting process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of
prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services.
SUMMARY OF STAFF REVIEW:
Factors favorable:
Staff has identified the following favorable factors:
1. The tower will provide much needed personal cell phone service on Scottsville Road.
2. Minimal clearing and tree removal is necessary for the placement of the monopole, antennas,
and equipment.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has identified the following factors as unfavorable to this request:
1. There is minimal natural tree screening on site.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
As previously stated, the location of the ground equipment and lease area for this tower is not
ideal. A location this close to a scenic by -way (Scottsville Road) without significant existing
vegetation for screening, even when a fence and landscaping are proposed, could still be overly
noticeable based on the proximity to the road. The wireless policy is very specific when it comes
to tower sites in avoidance areas. They should be highly mitigated, and if not well mitigated,
should be denied. Staff will monitor and take pictures of this site after construction. The photos
will be used as visual evidence for what needs to be considered when reviewing towers
applications in avoidance areas i.e. a scenic byways. The ground equipment fencing must be
adequately mitigated.
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of this personal
wireless service facility at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree, with
the following conditions:
10
1. The proposed personal wireless service facility must be developed in general accord with
the plan prepared by Clear Signal Towers, LLC with a revised final drawing date of 4-
17 -2011, and a certified engineer's seal and signature dated 4 -17 -2011.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Aerial Map
C. Architectural Review Board Staff Comments
D. Balloon Test Photographs (Taken in March and June)
11
Motion: The Planning Commission's role in this case (SP2011 -8) is to make a recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility
I move to recommend approval of SP 2011 -8 Fairview Catholic Diocese Property
AT &T Tier III PWSF with the condition outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 2011 -8 Fairview Catholic Diocese Property
AT &T Tier III PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
12