HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201100029 Legacy Document 2012-03-23t 4f,f
� •fV
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201100029 Verizon Wireless, Keswick - Tier III
Staff: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
PWSF
Planning Commission Public Hearing: February 28, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD
Owners: Crown Communications Inc — C/O Austin Cornelisse
Applicant: Stephen Waller — Verizon Wireless
Acreage: 78 acres +/-
Rezone from: Not applicable
Lease Area: 450 SF existing, 391 SF proposed (total of 891 SF)
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use Permit,
which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA
Zoning District.
TMP: 09400- 00- 00 -041A1
By -right use: RA (Rural Area) — agricultural, forestal, an
Location: 4464 Richmond Rd. Keswick VA
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit /acre in
development lots.
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Conditions: Yes, there are conditions of approval for
SP200400039
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA - RA - X
Proposal: The proposal consists of collocation of three new
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas 2 — preserve and
antennas and relocation of three antennas in an existing array
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,
on an existing tower, as well as the location of associated
historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in
ground equipment. No height increase is proposed.
development lots).
Character of Property: A large property that is primarily open
Use of Surrounding Properties: With the exception of the
pasture, with a homesite, and an existing tower. The tower site is
adjacent parcel identified as Tax Map 94 Parcel 39, which
located in a field that is bordered by two narrowly wooded tree lines on
has a split zoning of Rural Areas and C -1, Commercial, all
both the northern and southern sides. It is accessed by an existing
of the properties surrounding this site are zoned Rural
gravel road. The facility is an existing 149' tall personal wireless service
Areas.
facility /tower and associated ground equipment.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. No height increase of the existing 149' tower is proposed and
Alternative mounting style which increases the
1. antenna standoff distance to 24" rather than the
no additional array is needed to provide the additional service,
permitted 12".
rather only collocation on the existing tower at the 90'
elevation.
2. The proposal is on an existing facility and will not increase or
cause any new impacts to adjacent properties.
3. The Design Planner has reviewed the proposal and has
recommended approval. Given the size of the existing tower
and the distance from Route 64 an Entrance Corridor, the
proposed 24" standoff distance is not expected to create
additional negative visual impact to the entrance corridor.
4. According to the applicant, the only viable alternative to the
24" standoff distance is to allow a full- sectored array similar to
those that were approved for three of the carriers located
higher on the tower. It is staff's opinion that the alternative
option would increase visibility far more than the current
proposal.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included are modification for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)i and (c)(3)ii. Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff
recommends approval of SP201100029 and all modification requests, with conditions.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
February 28, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100029: Verizon Wireless, Keswick - Tier III PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Crown Communications Inc — C/O Austin Cornelisse
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal for the collocation of three new antennas and the relocation of three existing
antennas in an existing array on an existing tower at the 90' elevation, as well as the location of
associated ground equipment within the existing enclosed compound. To accomplish the
proposed collocation an alternative mounting style, dual antenna mounts, are employed which
differs from the approved flush mounts. The alternative mounting arrangement causes the
maximum standoff distance to be 18 — 24" from the tower requiring a modification to 5.1.40(c)3i
and (c)3ii. The elevation of the existing tower is 149' and no height increase is proposed. The
property is described as Tax Map Parcel 09400- 00- 00 -041A1 and is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and is zoned RA -Rural Area and is located in the Entrance Corridor.
The conditions of SP200400039 limit the number, size and location of the antennas to those that
were shown on the original construction drawings. As stated above, this proposal adds 3 new
antennas on an existing array and relocates 3 existing antennas on the existing array.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Areas 2 — preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit /acre
in development lots).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The property is a large 78 acre +/- parcel of land which is primarily open pasture, with a
homesite, and the existing tower site. The tower site is located in a field that is bordered by two
narrowly wooded tree lines on both the northern and southern sides. The tower itself is much
taller than those trees and can be seen from I -64. The site is accessed by an existing gravel road
that meanders through the homeowner's property. The facility is an existing 149' tall personal
wireless service facility /tower and associated ground equipment that is located within a
compound surrounded by a 6 -foot tall chain link fence. With the exception of the adjacent parcel
identified as Tax Map 94 Parcel 39, which has a split zoning of Rural Areas and C -1,
Commercial, all of the properties surrounding this site are zoned Rural Areas.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP1997 -017 CFW Wireless (Boyd Tavern) — The Board of Supervisors granted approval of the
special use permit to allow construction of the existing 149 foot tall tower that is subject to this
request (August 20, 1997).
SP2004 -039 Johnson (Alltel) — The Board of Supervisors granted approval of the co- location of
2
one (1) new array consisting of three (3) new antennas at approximately 90 feet in height on an
existing 149 foot tall lattice tower with additional supporting ground equipment (October 6,
2004). Total arrays permitted on this tower five (5); 4 previously approved and 1 additional.
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit amendment is requested to SP200400039 because the conditions of
approval limit the antennas location, number and size on the tower to those that were shown on
the original construction drawing. Subsequently any modifications to the tower are subject to
Board approval. Thus the facility qualifies for a Tier III review at this time.
The Planning Commission will need to make recommendations on the appropriateness of the
proposal.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff's opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
properties. The facility is existing and no height increase is proposed, and no additional arrays
are proposed.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The collocation of three new antennas and relocation of three existing antennas in an existing
array on an existing tower at the 90' elevation, as well as the location of associated ground
equipment within the existing enclosed compound will not impact the character of the district.
The tower exists and no height increases are proposed. The color of the proposed antennas
will match that of the existing structure. Also, no significant adverse impacts to the Entrance
Corridor (EC) overlay district are anticipated given the size of the tower and the distance from
the EC, the additional 12" is not expected to be noticed from the EC and is not expected to
create additional negative visual impact. It is staff's opinion that the character of the zoning
district will not change with this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the "purpose and intent" that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
RA - Rural Area chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent
with both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA) Rural Area or C -1
Commercial district are anticipated. This proposal will not restrict any nearby by -right uses
within the Rural Areas District.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposal is for a collocation of antennas and
associated ground equipment on an existing tower. No height increase is proposed and no
additional arrays are proposed. Thus no change to the public health, safety and general welfare
is expected with the approval of the proposal.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e)
are addressed as follows.
Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of
a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, and it shall
be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the
following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and
subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
2 The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use
permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The
County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and
5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1 -5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations
in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility meets the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached site drawings, antennae and
equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service
facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of
the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
(i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only
during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located
within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county's landscape
planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the
existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose
width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be
installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of
the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed changes to the existing tower do not require the installation of guy wires, the
associated ground equipment will be located within the existing compound which is surrounded
by a 6 -foot tall chain link fence surrounded by existing evergreen trees which contribute to the
2
screening of the site. All other requirements of this subsection have been met.
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 number of arrays proposed exceeds the three that are permitted by the ordinance; however,
the previous Special Use Permit (SP2004 -39) allowed for five arrays and placed conditions on
them requiring an amendment to the SP if a proposal to relocate any of the antennas on the
structure, increase the number or size of antennas, or increase the distance from the structure.
Thus this application requires a modification of 5.1.40(c)3i to address the proposed addition of
three new antennas and relocation of three existing antennas in an existing array on the existing
tower at the 90' elevation.
To accomplish the proposed collocation an alternative mounting style, dual antenna mounts, are
employed which differs from the approved flush mounts. The alternative mounting arrangement
causes the maximum standoff distance to be 24" from the tower. Thus this application requires a
modification of the Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii of the ordinance.
The intent of 5.1.40(c) is to insure minimal visibility of antennas on a structure and a
modification of this provision is generally discouraged. However, for this particular request, the
antennas are proposed on an existing steel tower with five existing arrays, three of which have
antennas that currently exceed the 12 inch standoff distance. The proposed mounting would
allow new service to be provided on an existing (modified) array, thereby eliminating the need to
add a new array to the tower. The modification is needed to allow this dual mounting of
antennas on the existing array. The applicant has indicated that, in this case, the only other
mounting option for the new antennas would be to install a full- sectored array similar to those
that were approved for three of the carriers located higher on the tower. It is staff's opinion that
the full- sector option would increase visibility more than the current proposal.
Given the existing visual impact of the tower, the resulting additional impact of the 24 inch
standoff distance for the proposed antennas on the existing array is not seen as significant. The
Design Planner has indicated that the proposal will not create additional negative impacts to the
Entrance Corridor. The proposal supports the use of an existing structure to provide for service
needs, and staff can recommend approval of the modification for this particular proposal.
The existing and proposed changes to the tower meet all other relevant design and size criteria of
this subsection.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of 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
5
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.
As a condition of approval the plans shall be revised to provide a conservation plan for the site.
Verizon must provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to issuance
of a building permit. 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. If no trees are going to be disturbed then a letter or some type of documentation that
is signed by a certified arborist stating that no trees will be harmed shall be required.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5): The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the
arborist's report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is
later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was
approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended
plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
As a condition of approval the plans shall be revised to provide a conservation plan for the site.
Verizon must provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to issuance
of a building permit. 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. If no trees are going to be disturbed then a letter or some type of documentation that
is signed by a certified arborist stating that no trees will be harmed shall be required.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the
agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed
as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a
certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be
to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be
required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or
pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was
not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or
conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and
(vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future,
Verizon Wireless 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
Co
on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
After the proposed PWSF has been installed, Verizon Wireless will submit an annual report
updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(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.
Since this is an existing facility and proposed changes include the addition of antennas on an
existing array and associated changes, no slopes are affected.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be
fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the
facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural
areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the
character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare.
The existing facility contains an existing previously approved fenced compound and is therefore
not to be detrimental to the character of the area, nor 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.
Adequate screening of the facility has been addressed in the previous Special Use Permit for this
use. The existing facility has been in place for years and Staff has found that it contains adequate
screening and meets the requirements of this subsection.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county's
open space plan.
The facility does not adversely impact resources identified in the county's open space plan.
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
7
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 height of the existing steel tower was previously approved by the Planning Commission and
no height increases are proposed. The facility was established prior to the wireless policy and
there are no trees associated with the tower height, nor are there any comparable trees onsite to
fulfill this requirement.
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, fa(ade 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 facility is attached to an existing steel structure/ tower rather than a monopole. Requiring the
existing steel tower to be painted a wood color would not accomplish the intent of this section of
the ordinance. Notably on the plan it is denoted that "Antennas and associated equipment shall
be a color that matches the existing structure."
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 31.6.3).
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S. C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
No height increase of the existing 149' tower is proposed and no additional array is
needed to provide the additional service, rather only collocation on the existing tower at
the 90' elevation.
2. The proposal is on an existing facility and will not increase or cause any new impacts to
adjacent properties.
The Design Planner has reviewed the proposal and has recommended approval. Given the
size of the existing tower and the distance from Route 64 an Entrance Corridor, the
proposed 24" standoff distance is not expected to create additional negative visual impact
to the entrance corridor.
4. According to the applicant, the only viable alternative to the 24" standoff distance is to
allow a full- sectored array similar to those that were approved for three of the carriers
located higher on the tower. It is staff's opinion that the alternative option would increase
visibility far more than the current proposal.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. Alternative mounting style which increases the antenna standoff distance to 24" rather
than the permitted 12 ".
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing
personal wireless service facility, and modifications, based on the analysis provided herein.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
The proposed modifications for additional antennas on the existing tower are part of a larger
project to improve Verizon Wireless' existing network of facilities by adding fourth generation
( "4G ") services to the existing cellular services. Staff is able to support all of the recommended
modifications described in the staff report because the facility is existing. The proposal does not
appear to increase the visibility of the existing tower based on the existing conditions of the site.
Listed below are the recommended modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i - The number of arrays proposed far exceeds the three that are
permitted by the ordinance, however the previous Special Use Permit (SP2004 -39)
modified this condition to allow for five arrays and placed conditions on them requiring
an amendment to the SP if a proposal to relocate any of the antennas on the structure,
increase the number or size of antennas, or increase the distance from the structure. Thus
this application requires an amendment of the SP conditions to address the proposed
addition of three new antennas and relocation of three antennas in an existing array on the
existing tower at the 90' elevation.
2. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii — Maximum standoff distance 12" from tower
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff recommends the
following conditions:
X
Conditions of Approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Keswick
Johnson Property 4460 Richmond Road Keswick, VA Existing Co- location LTE (4G)
Upgrade" prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 2/15/12 (hereafter "Conceptual
Plan "), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be
in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment and fencing
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Drawings
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
10
Motions- Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission's role is to recommend approval or denial of
modifications for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)i and (c)(3)ii of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the modifications
of Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)i and (c)(3)ii:
I move to recommend approval granting the modifications for reasons outlined in
the staff report.
B. Should the Planninc Commission choose to recommend denial of the modifications for
this Tier III personal wireless service facility
I move to recommend denial of the modifications outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for recommendation of denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission's role in this case (SP201100029) 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 201100029 Verizon Wireless, Keswick - Tier
III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201100029 Verizon Wireless, Keswick - Tier III
PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for recommendation of denial)
11