HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000020 Staff Report 2012-12-21o� arm
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2010 -20 Century Link- Verizon
Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Margaret Maliszewski
Wireless Tier III PWSF
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
December 21, 2010
TBD 2011
Owners: Central Telephone Co of VA
Applicant: Central Telephone Co of VA
Acreage: 1.366
Rezone from: Not applicable
(Lease Area: 800 square feet)
Special Use Permit for: 23.2.2 [15] Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
service facilities in the CO Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C
By -right use: CO, Commercial Office; and EC,
Location: South side of Rio Road East [State Route
Entrance Corridor Zoning; Property also has a number
631], approximately 1/8 mile east of the intersection with
of existing Special Use Permits for the location of
Route 29 North, and adjacent to the Fashion Square
additional personal wireless facilities.
Mall.
Magisterial District: Rio
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA - X RA -
Proposal: Special Use Permit amendment to
replace three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes
Comp. Plan Designation: Office Service uses in
and six (6) existing Alltel antennas with new
Urban Area 2
antennas and dishes at various heights on an
existing 250 foot tower.
Character of Property: Multiple buildings for personal
Use of Surrounding Properties: Multi- family
wireless facilities and a Century Link switching station
Residential, Church, Commercial, Offices and a
and office. There is also a parking area for the
Shopping Mall.
compound.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1.
1. The proposal is not consistent with the County's
The existing monopole currently represents an
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy
opportunity site
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Staff Recommends denial of the proposed co- location and replacement of Microwave Dishes at various heights.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Gerald Gatobu; Margaret Maliszewski
December 21St 2010
TBD, 2011
SP 2010 -20: Century Link- Verizon Wireless Tier III
Central Telephone Co of VA
Central Telephone Co of VA
Special Use Permit amendment to replace three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes and six (6)
existing Alltel antennas with nine (9) new antennas and three (3) new dishes at various heights
on an existing 250 foot tower.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Office Service uses in Urban Area 2.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed site is located on the south side of Rio Road East [State Route 631 ], approximately
1/8 mile east of the intersection with Route 29 North, and near Fashion Square Mall.
[Attachment B]. The proposed facility is within a fenced area at the rear of the property, lying
between the brick building housing the Century Link telephone company's switching station and
offices and the parking lot of the Fashion Square Mall.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP 2008 -12 Verizon Wireless: Approval granted for collocation with flash mounted
antennas [Attachment E] - Conditions proposed to be amended.
SP 2002 -040 Alltel: Approval granted with conditions for a request to replace a
microwave dish on the existing monopole
SP 1998 -021 CFW Wireless: Approval granted with conditions for request for co-
location on the existing monopole.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed facility requires approval of a Tier III special use permit because the applicant is
replacing three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes and six (6) existing Alltel antennas with nine
(9) new antennas, and three (3) new microwave dishes at various heights on an existing 250 foot
tower. The applicant will be replacing and increasing the mounting height of the lowest
existing microwave dish from a height of 46' to 75' above ground level, replacing and lowering
of the microwave dish that is currently mounted at 98' to 96' above ground level, and replacing
and increasing the mounting height of the microwave dish that currently stands at 100' above
ground level to 101' above ground level. The applicant will be also be replacing six (6) existing
Alltel antennas with nine (9) new antennas using existing mounting brackets that will allow the
mounting of up to twelve (12) antennas within a sectored array.
N
Currently attached to the tower are five array antennas, some flush mounted antennas, a
lightening rod, a beacon, a mount, and microwave dishes [Attachment A]. The applicant's
proposal requires an amendment to the conditions of the previously approved special use permit
[SP2008 -12 (Attachment E)].
The Board of Supervisors will need to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed
personal wireless facility. If the Board of Supervisors chooses to approve the personal wireless
facility, it will need to act on SP 2008 -12 amended conditions and approve requested ordinance
modifications.
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?
The tower currently exists and is not a substantial detriment to adjacent property. It is Staff's
opinion that the addition of antennas using the existing mounting brackets at 182 feet above
ground level will not cause a negative visual impact. No increased impact to adjacent property
is expected. The applicant will be replacing and increasing the mounting height of the lowest
microwave dish from 46' to 75' above ground level, and decreasing the size of the lowest
microwave dish from an 8 inch diameter microwave dish to a 6 inch diameter microwave dish
(Attachment A). Staff's opinion is that increasing the height of the lowest dish by 29 feet
above the its current location on the tower will make the dish significantly more visible. This
will impact adjacent properties and the entrance corridor (State Route 631 and State Route
29).
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The addition of antennas and the replacing of microwave dishes will not impact the character
of the district. The tower exists and antenna and microwave dishes are attached.
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
Commercial Office chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 23). This request is consistent
with both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Significant adverse visual impacts on adjacent properties in the district are anticipated with
the replacing and increasing of the mounting height of the lowest microwave dish from 46' to
75' above ground level. This facility will not be in harmony with the uses permitted by right
in the district; however, the tower equipment will provide much needed personal wireless
communication services to the uses permitted by right in the district.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance?
The purpose of Section 5.1.40 is to implement the personal wireless service facilities policy.
This proposal does not conform to the County's Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy.
On page 21 of the policy it states that "Co- location which results in adverse visual impact is
not consistent with the goals of Albemarle County. From a visibility perspective, co- location
should be discouraged." Also, pages 48 and 50 of the Policy state that antenna arrays do not
comply with design guidelines, are highly visible, and therefore discouraged. Flush mounted
antennas are recommended. Staff's opinion is that although the existing tower is already a
negative visual impact, replacing and increasing the height of some of the microwave dishes
will result in additional adverse visual impact.
Section 5.1.12(a) of the Zoning Ordinance addresses the installation of public utility structures
such as towers and antennas by stating, in part, that those items shall not endanger the health
and safety of workers and/or residents, and will not impair or prove detrimental to
neighboring properties. In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply
with all of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines that are intended to
protect the public health and safety from high levels of radio frequency emissions and
electromagnetic fields that are associated with wireless broadcasting and telecommunications
facilities.
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. In this case, the proposed facility will give Verizon the
ability to offer another choice of personal wireless service communication by providing a full
range of voice and data services in addition to the required E911 call services. This can be
seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on a regional level.
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 31.24 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, 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 31.2.4 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.
M
The proposed antennas and microwave dishes will be installed on a tower site that already exists.
The tower has existing attached array antennae, microwave dishes, and ground equipment.
Verizon's equipment shelter meets the required setbacks in addition to all other area and bulk
regulations and minimum yard requirements. All 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 existing monopole contains equipment owned by other companies that provide personal
wireless services, ranging from whip and panel antennas to large microwave dishes. The
proposed antennas and microwave dishes do not require the installation of guy wires. The facility
has one outdoor light fixture with a motion sensor attached to the proposed shelter and is used by
technical operations staff during times when night -time maintenance of the site is necessary.
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.
Since this request proposes an array of antennas that will not be flush - mounted on an existing
monopole, a modification of this provision is required. The proposal consists of a full sectored
array containing six (6) panel antennas with capability of expanding up to 12 total antennas
[Attachment A]. The applicant is requesting approval of a modification /amendment to allow
array antenna. In the conditions of the previous special use permit (SP2008 -12) it stated that only
flush mounted antenna shall be permitted [Attachment E]. Staff recommends denial of the
requested modification of this section because condition #3(d) of SP 2008 -12 specifically states
that if any of the existing arrays are replaced at any time they shall be flush mounted as provided
in condition 3e. Condition #3(e) of SP2008 -12 states that in no case shall an antenna project
more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure.
5
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.
The applicant is requesting a waiver /modification of this requirement in accordance with Section
5.1 (a) because this proposal is for the co- location of antennas and the replacement of microwave
dishes on an existing tower. No onsite trees are impacted. Staff recommends approval of this
modification because no onsite trees are impacted with this application.
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.
The applicant is requesting a waiver /modification of this requirement in accordance with Section
5.1 (a) because this proposal is for the co- location of antennas and the replacement of microwave
dishes on an existing tower. No onsite trees are impacted. Staff recommends approval of this
modification because no onsite trees are impacted with this application.
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 antennae and microwave dishes on this location become discontinued at anytime
in the future, Verizon and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90
days.
Co
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 1 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.
If the proposed antennae addition and replacement of microwave dishes is approved and
installed, Verizon Wireless has stated that they will make sure that the required annual report
accurately accounts for all equipment supporting the proposed facility at this site.
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.
No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1.
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.
A chain link fence to enclose a proposed shelter, and landscaping to screen the shelter from Rio
Road were approved with SP2008 -12. The existing fence and landscaping is not detrimental to
the public health, safety or general welfare or the character of the area.
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.
This proposed co- location and replacement of microwave dishes does not necessitate any
increase in height of the existing monopole. The tower exists and is not located on lands subject
to a conservation or open space easement, and is not adjacent to a conservation or open space
easement.
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 located within Urban Neighborhood Two in the Open
Space Plan [Attachment G], and does not adversely impact aesthetic or historic resources.
7
However, as stated above, the proposed array antenna does not conform to the County's Personal
Wireless Service Facilities Policy in terms of visibility. Replacing and increasing the mounting
height of the lowest existing microwave dish from a height of 46' to 75' above ground level will
result in additional adverse visual impacts [Attachment A].
Architectural Review Board staff has offered the following comment related to the increase in
the mounting height of the lowest existing microwave dish from a height of 46' to 75' above
ground level:
"The applicant points out that the replacement dish will be smaller than the existing dish, which
will contribute to a decrease in the bulky appearance. The applicant also suggests that it will be
less noticeable because it will be mounted closer to the other antennas. However, the lower
height of the existing dish allows the dish to sometimes be lost in the trees when viewed from the
road. The increase in height to 75' will reduce, if not eliminate, this factor, thus making the dish
more visible. Nevertheless, the facility is already an eyesore. Though an increase in the height of
the dish will increase the negative visual impact, it will be a minimal increase.
It is Staff's opinion that the increased mounting height of the lowest microwave dish from 46' to
75' would result in some adverse visual impact.
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 facility will utilize and existing structure for its antenna mount.
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 proposed antennas and microwave dishes will be painted to match the color of the existing
tower, which has a galvanized steel finish. The equipment shelter is screed from adjacent
properties and roadways by existing and proposed vegetation.
Section 5.1.40(e,)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The proposed personal wireless service facility utilizes a full- sectored array of antennas and is
replacing microwave dishes at various heights. This request requires amendments to the existing
special use permit SP 2008 -12 as indicated below.
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. It is staff's opinion that this proposal is not consistent with the
County's Personal Wireless Service Facilities policy. The denial of this proposal would not
unreasonably discriminate among providers of equivalent services, or prohibit the provision of
personal wireless services, as the applicant could conform with the previous special use permit
condition, as well as the Policy by proposing flush mounted antennas.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends denial of the proposed co- location and
replacement of Microwave Dishes at various heights based on the analysis provided herein.
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this personal wireless facility, it will need to
amend previously approved special use permit conditions. Special use permit conditions to be
amended and applicable ordinance modifications are outlined below:
Zoning Ordinance Modifications
1. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3) Flush mounting requirement
2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
Special Use Permit [SP2008 -121 Condition Modification
1. Deletion of provision [3] that only flush mounted antennas be permitted [see below].
2. Deletion of part of provision [4(b)] [see below].
3. Deletion of part of provision [4(c)] [see below].
4. Deletion of part of provision [4(d)] [see below].
5. Deletion of part of provision [8] [see below].
6. Deletion of provision [10] [see below].
X
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The existing monopole currently represents an opportunity site.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposal does not comply with the County's Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Policy.
2. Increasing the mounting height of the lowest microwave dish from 46' to 75' above
ground level will result in adverse visual impacts.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is
required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the basis for denial and all items that
will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement.
Conditions of approval:
1. The tower shall not be increased in height;
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for
personal wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Onini dire .t;ona o whip antennas shall not exeeed twenty (70 feet height-Eff
seven (7) inehes in diameter-, and shall faeeler- that matehes the -tow
b. Dir-eetional or- panel antemas shall not exeeed seven (7) feet in height or- two (2)
feet ; width, and shall be of a ..eler- that tehes the tower-,t-
c. ; no new apAennas shall p-rojeet.
existing in no ease shall an antenna pr-oj m-e-r-pe ahln twelve (12) i4qA:hR14 fVA4� tLR R:Vitiag
antennas in
d. Existing affays of dir-eetional and panel antennas that are fnetffiled with bi:aekets
that separate them by more than (1 2) ; ehes f ,,m the st,-,,..tufe ,ti.
Provided, however- that if any of these affa-ys are r-eplaeed a any time, they shall
be t4ush moumed as p-rovided in eondition 3e. This eendition shall per-tain to
the maintenanee and/er- f-eplaeefnent of a single panel antenna that malfiimnetien
is in oa of repair-.
4. Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one
time, and only as follows.
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be
replaced by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height
that is not more than 95.5 feet;
10
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the
same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does not
exceed the diameter of the dish being removed, and the color of the replacement
dish matches the tower. and the ,r pAing 'eight does not exeeed that of the dish
being r-eplaeed;
c. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a
different type of dish if the mounting height is not more than 1 foot above that
of the dish being removed. The lowest microwave dish located at a height of
46 feet above ground level can be replaced and mounted at not more than
twenty nine (29) feet above its current location on the tower. no less th
twenty (20 feet below that of the dish being r° °a The diameter of the
replacement dish does not exceed that of the dish being removed, and the color of
the replacement dish matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type
of dish if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy
the height requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning
Administrator. This approval shall only be granted after the submission of a
microwave path survey indicating that the proposed replacement dish will be
mounted at the lowest possible height that allows the system to function. In such
a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the reason(s) why the proposed height is
the lowest possible height. bu4 in no ease shall the replacement be' igher than the
dish it is °
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the
face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall the
distance between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater than
eighteen (18) inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall
provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to
be removed and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating
the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the Department of
Building Code and Zoning Services.
5. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator once (1) per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall
identify each user of the tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications
service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance; and
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of
the date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee
that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter
of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
11
All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site construction plans, entitled "Collocate Monopole Tower ", with an issued
elevation view drawing submittal date of 10/15/2010 " ",
with „ final zoning a,.,,wing submittal date of 3/10/2008;
9. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the antenna and
microwave dishes is completed and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i)
certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the antenna and microwave
dishes, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above mean sea level,
using the benchmarks or reference datum identified
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. VicinitMp
C. Applicant Justification Letter
D. Photos of Existing acility
E. SP 2008 -12 Conditions
F. SP 2002 -40 Conditions
G. Open Space Plan
H. SP 2008 -12 minutes
12
i
Z m
o r'
m
o D
0
m
Z
G
r
0
O
Z
D
O
m
Z7
D
D
D
a
m m
m x
z
ml
0
mX
Z
ml
D
A m
m m
� x
O �
m
X
Z
O Z
m O
r
Z
rm 0) �� Q
<DOm�
m,*-0Z
vv < (n 0
mi
olvm
ID V)
m m
OX
O -
Z In
O z
oz
(O- O
Fn N
8o
o -
mf
A
O (7 v
E; ;u I
ot�
Co
m O
v v
mio
s
v 0°
Km
ox
zv
o0
I
N
1 �
O
f
A
I
I
mI ;=^
A X
Dl��m
z'm =m
0AA
N
A J = O
U z
O
FF I m
DI
r
;U; ;2, Q
KOMI g
Oy
2
ml
A�K:;m
zw ;i N
N OmZ
U� <uo
r
°�.m0
r X z A
N o
Z Z ZZZ
° C, D
0
m O
x /
A;�^m
N O rn =i
D�xZ
O < W O
r
o.gym c)
X z A
O
O �rn
z - Zz
� OD
O 0
m0l
X
p
A g M—C
AD�<In
m 0m�
z
pzm�G)
o w = D
rrZ
^� O S
m 10
I
c pDT
I, > x
Z�,m I F,
c =jcoM
A ^�_
CX
cODz�— Z,oZ �....
(z/) Jim
X
N r(N7Z
DD DO
NOI+ZI 1 -Nj
mm:
(Z /I W �pti
Z
N -rm- m NJrm- m
Ax Ax
OC pz�
Z
Nv��
ZC)DDO
m
(zim?c)
(n-2— oz r ZOO
o mzo
O �DN
5-Z
mm
Mmzo?
mr,z JO -m--Z)
M ?< ➢ 0
rxZcWn
O 'n
Z
N
rnZ°
� L< z
� x D
0�
� x m I � V1 D I
ocn>
K.,�
O
O Z
OG) W
0IAD
Z ti�
0Z)
z-
Z�
Z N Z Z N
vo
CD
r
°o
�o
�o
v0 v v
mo mo
CDo
X Q
(r
n
X
x
D
X X
��
OZ�N
OG)
OV1(>
Z�
0(n
zZ
O�VlO Oy(D110
Oz p 4z No
r l -0—
r�Ix
r' _..
OZ
z O
r i ���' Z
-- D-1ImZ
�r
D1i, x
co
v zo v v0 v
D z z
m
O to
zu<
l ,Ivm A
Ipz
DO
z m °<
II
m 0
O O
,IAZ
OImm rn m A
z r rr
Ir�N
D WO
^I
p�
�i=�0
II z z
(010
0) I Z
O Z
m
X
D n
X X
Lifm*1I I IDf
co Z J CO
IO I m
A
I
I I
O =A
I
u
T7
N zol 00m
0 0 r
Iwo m 0 V)
°'
FFi m
m
-orn
µ.I
cmnpON
m
. I v 0o D
D �
O
D I
A�mZ
m C X p
0
D N (7 rn rn Z
I
rI
t7�
rl
A ^S ^m
A��zm
pl C) m
A
O m 0
CF_m(n
C) M
NDiX�
ND`z
rl D
�c
U2 -i - 6P
-IZ �A
Z
x� Z
m
XZA
�<WO
o
mXZA
, A
I A
<
fN*IZ'TmJ
vyN V1
y O
O
(nm -z��>
o m
z Z z
0-M
z z z
mm (n
ol�
0 0
on oz
O O
-0 1 =mm1z
-1=
I
0
m D
x
m D
x
I
n O � Z
Z co = O
�oom�
Z 0) A f
z m
nDln
IN z C
r
Nm�
z
DDO
W N A
9 Di
A
m co 0
� N Z
C o
C)
z m
z m
_F
z =v
c =�
A m
m D
C) F
mN<
D m
�A+�I D D
D z Z
m
r
GI
r m
x
2 (!i
K
Z°
0
0
,ox 1!n
CD X
AO n,
m °z
0 c
< c
v Z
m I
c OZ°'
c�z�X
N vm
I
c WD �X
A j�;m
C N ?�
A;vm^ cram°
Z CoZ(A Z iOZ Vl
Izn ��m
Dr OCZ
��r-I
__�.
L/)
N��AX, Ln
r,
o
ee
O �DN
�o
Z DD D�
oZw
Z � Z ZO
Z 0, D -U � -> <- �1
V,rZO- r�0-
�r y
U1�•mZ
5--1
��.m
m mZ N
In
D—r o
V1r1_
OvZ �
m of
p._.m '12 pvm I Z
rn
mXZ
a
O mZ0
, xz �
m mM0
m
mz�O VO
w�
m,o m 0 0 O
K ANN
OZ�N
OG)
OV1(>
Z�
0(n
zZ
O�VlO Oy(D110
Oz p 4z No
OZ
z O
W
O
0C)
�o
v zo v v0 v
_UOOO
0 0
m 0
O O
O O
0
D O Orn 0
< mm
M X M
X
m 0
X
m
X
D n
X X
u
?
rDDAAmr-i
o m z m m O o=
�0> rk
O D r
DC7Z
O p 0
A�mZ
m C X p
D- D UI A C O-
O���
r m r
3DCm
< Z
mA
O m 0
CF_m(n
�c
U2 -i - 6P
-IZ �A
-A
mO�Z
ON OZz <
mfN*,Zm
fN*IZ'TmJ
vyN V1
(nm -z��>
mvz(oi1
mor
mm (n
-0 1 =mm1z
-1=
�ZrO+lmo
�z0
-< p
D D
I
Ammm
om jXMT
_{0(A
2=04
=DA
=
me Cm
Eo X o, n M O
0 0 m c
>< m
m MM m
A
zinc- 00(�i,
O Ar0
r
T.
Om
mZ
r�
ym A
m R Z
A IOMA OM
mom A A c m m
A Z m m
A Z C)
A-
OODSOp
r
rn
o z
mo-
n0ml
C)A o
Uf me
On
O
�O
A
Z D Z
o
m
ID/, 0
A
ON r O
m
0
D
o
Z
Z C7
O
A
p
0
1
m m
Ln
O Z
O
m
Z
R1
r
Z
O
M
Ln
f /)
N�
42
X00
r,
o
ee
=
m
=
n
n
N�o O
o
a
5�00�
D
Ro
w�
m,o m 0 0 O
y
OIQ
Z
_UOOO
< mm
�/A
Z
Z C7
O
A
p
0
1
m m
Ln
O Z
O
m
Z
R1
r
Z
O
M
Ln
f /)
N�
42
r,
y
=
"".
=
n
n
A
a
D
Ro
w�
C) m
OIQ
Z
Z C7
O
A
p
0
1
m m
Ln
O Z
O
m
Z
R1
r
Z
O
M
Ln
f /)
Y
n
n
Vol,
/A O J
ca
rQ IV
� ro YN
i
J
IV O
O
cn
D�
w
r �
i
O�
y
N + -
} ❑I I I I❑�❑ ❑I I I 1
W 6 C)
Oy
a R.
i
^
J ti
tPs
Vol,
/A O J
ca
rQ IV
� ro YN
i
J
IV O
O
cn
D�
w
r �
i
O�
y
N + -
} ❑I I I I❑�❑ ❑I I I 1
W 6 C)
Oy
a R.
VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY
RIO ROAD (CENTURYLINK SWITCH PROPERTY)
Proiect Description:
Cellco Partnership, trading as Verizon Wireless, respectfully requests approval of a special
use permit amendment to allow the modification of a Tier III Personal Wireless Service
Facility (PWSF) on an approximately 1.366 -acre parcel of land owned by Central Telephone
Company of Virginia d /b /a/ CenturyLink ( "CenturyLink "), which is located at 1530 Rio
Road East (State Route 631) in the Rio Magisterial District and identified as Tax Map 61 /
Parcel 129C ( "the Property "). The Verizon PWSF site is located within a fenced area at the
rear of the Property, lying between the brick building housing the CenturyLink telephone
company's switching station and offices and the parking lot of the Fashion Square Mall.
The existing monopole tower has a top height of 250 feet above ground level (AGL). Verizon
Wireless currently owns and maintains three (3) microwave dishes (mounted at heights of 46
feet, 98 feet and 100 feet), and a sectored array containing six (6) antennas mounted at a
height of 182 feet on the tower. All of this equipment was acquired from Alltel when the two
companies merged. In addition to the dishes and antennas, Verizon Wireless will also install
a previously approved prefabricated equipment shelter measuring 12' x 30' x 10.92' (W x L
x H) to house ground equipment consisting of transmitters, radios and a diesel powered
emergency back -up generator.
Verizon Wireless is proposing the removal of all three of the existing Alltel microwave
dishes and replacement with three (3) new dishes at heights of 75 feet, 96 feet and 101 feet.
Verizon Wireless' proposal also includes a request to replace the six existing Alltel antennas
at the l 82 -foot level with new antennas and permission to use existing mounting brackets for
an allowance of up to 12 antennas within the sectored array.
Objectives:
Verizon Wireless currently offers service locally through Alltel's 850 MHz cellular network,
and also carries FCC licenses for two other frequency blocks (PCS and LTE) that will be
integrated with this existing system to offer a wider range of services and increased network
reliability.
Character of the Area:
The Property is zoned Commercial Office (CO) and shares its boundaries with abutting
commercially zoned parcels used as a church and the Fashion Square Mall shopping center.
Other properties near this site are characterized by a mixture of retail uses, restaurants,
offices and high density residential developments. The terrain to the north and south of the
Property tends to decrease in elevation, while the land that fronts on Rio Road is fairly level.
The replacement and relocation of the proposed microwave dishes will only add
approximately 1 foot of additional height for the highest mounted dish on the monopole.
Additionally, the new panel antennas proposed for installation are smaller than the
metawaves that are currently attached, and will use the existing pipe- mounts that are in place
on the tower. Therefore, Verizon Wireless' proposed microwave and antenna modifications
will not significantly increase any of the impacts of this existing PWSF on the character of
the area.
Attachment C
Verizon Wireless PWSF Page 1 Rio Road (CenturyLink Tower)
Co- locations
This proposal is consistent with the County's Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy
(hereafter "Policy ") which recommends that PWSFs "should be located in opportunity sites."
Opportunity sites are "areas within properties where placement of PWSFs is encouraged by
Albemarle County." These opportunity sites include existing structures that provide sites for
PWSFs that can be installed with limited adverse impacts. The Policy states unequivocally
that "personal wireless service facilities should utilize existing structures where possible."
The Alltel antenna array on this tower contains three mounting brackets with open pipe
mounts that are readily available for co- location of the newly proposed panel antennas that
will be smaller in profile than the three large metawave antennas existing in this array. The
antennas proposed by Verizon Wireless will be of the same scale as the existing antennas
located on the monopole and will not result in any significant change in the visual character
of the monopole. The proposed antenna modifications will meet the County's Policy goals
regarding co- locations and utilization of opportunity sites, without increasing the total
number of arrays that will be attached to the monopole.
Another point of consideration is the Federal Telecommunications Act, which requires that
state and local zoning authorities not unreasonably discriminate against providers of
functionally equivalent services. (See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(I)). Verizon Wireless'
proposed PWSF provides service functionally equivalent to that provided by other carriers
with antennas located on the existing monopole. The proposed modifications will support
technological upgrades that are more widely accepted as maintenance activity that is standard
as the wireless telecommunications industry evolves. It is important that the County permit
reasonable opportunities for the co- location and modification of PWSFs as companies will
continue to merge and integrate networks and /or offer a wider range of services based on
frequencies that are often divergent, but can increase the levels quality and coverage once
integrated.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance:
The County's specific design criteria for Tier III Facilities, set forth in Section 5.1.40(e), are
addressed as follows:
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.
♦ Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1 -5): The microwave dishes and antennas proposed for these
PWSF modifications will be attached on existing brackets and pipe- mounts that can
be viewed as a pants of the monopole. The attached tower elevations, antenna and
equipment specifications are being provided to dernonstrate the existing and proposed
locations of the dishes and antenna attachments for this PWSF. Aside from the
previously approved shelter installation, no additional site work is being proposed
with this project.
♦ Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The structure proposed to support Verizon Wireless' antenna
co- location is an existing monopole. In addition to equipment that Verizon Wireless
owns at this site, CenturyLink and five other companies that provide personal
Attachment C
Verizon Wireless PWSF Page 2 Rio Road (CenturyLink Tower)
wireless services, ranging from whip and panel antennas to a small grid
communications dish.
Verizon Wireless has already secured a building permit for a proposed shelter at this
site, which will also require the planting of extensive landscaping to bring the site up
to the Architectural Review Board's design guideline standards for Entrance
Corridors
♦ Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): The existing Verizon Wireless antenna configuration
consists of a full sectored array containing six (6) antennas (3 panel antennas and 3
metawave antennas). Verizon Wireless is requesting permission to replace the
existing antennas with capability of expanding to a maximum of 12 total antennas (4
per sector) using the existing mounting brackets and pipe- mounts. The Amphenol
Antel antennas are identified as model number LPA- 70080 -8CF with measurements
of 94.6" x 5.5" x 13.2" (LxWxD); BXA- 70080 -8CF with measures 94.6" x 8.0" x
5.9 "; BXA- I 85085/12CF with measurements of 72.4" x 6.1" x 4.1" (LxWxD); and,
giving each antenna a surface area that is less than the by -right area of 1 152 square
inches. The antennas will be installed using the existing three - sectored mounting
brackets installed at the 182 -foot level on the monopole.
Two of the three microwave dishes that will be replaced are 6 feet in diameter while
the third has a diameter of 8 feet. As for the replacement dishes, two of them will also
be 6 feet while the last new dish will only be 4 feet in diameter.
♦ Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4 and 5): The proposed replacement and relocation of antennas
and dishes on the facility will require the removal of any trees.
♦ Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): Should use of the antennas being sited at this location
become discontinued at anytime in the future, Verizon Wireless and /or its assignee(s)
will completely remove the facility within 90 days.
♦ Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): After the proposed PWSF has been installed, Verizon
Wireless will cooperate fully with CenturyLink in order to ensure that the required
annual report accurately accounts for all equipment supporting the proposed PWSF at
this site.
♦ Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): Verizon Wireless is proposing the installation equipment
installation without the creation of any 2:1 or greater slopes.
♦ Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): The proposed modifications to Verizon Wireless' facility
will not require any additional fencing aside from what is existing and /or has been
previously approved.
♦ Section 5.1.40(d)(2): Although two of the replacement microwave dishes are being
proposed mounting higher than the existing dishes, Verizon Wireless' modifications
will not necessitate any increase in the overall height of the tower. Furthermore, the
replacement panel antennas are proposed on an existing set of mounting brackets.
These minor changes are not much different frorn the existing attachments, in terms
of visual impacts.
Attachment C
Verizon Wireless PWSF. Page 3 Rio Road (CenturyLink Tower)
♦ Section 5.1.40(d)(3): This site is located within one of the County's designated
development areas and no open space resources have been identified as being
potentially be impacted by this proposal.
♦ Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The proposed facility will utilize an existing structure and
existing pipe mounts for the modification of an existing PWSF installation.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): The proposed antennas will be painted to match the color of
the existing tower and mounts, which all have a galvanized steel finish. The
proposed microwave dishes will be colored the same as the existing dishes that are
attached to the tower.
• The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit
(Section 32.2.4):
The Verizon Wireless PWSFproposed for modification with this application will utilize
an existing full- sectored mounts housing array of antennas functionally equivalent to
other existing arrays on the monopole used by other carriers. This request requires
amendment of the existing special use permit, SP 2008 -012, to delete condition 3(d)
which effectively restricts modifications of antenna co- locations using sector mounts
on this tower to flush- mounted antennas. Additionally, Verizon Wireless is requesting
an amendment of the conditions that allow the existing microwave dishes to only be
replaced at heights that are below the current mounting heights.
Conclusion:
Verizon Wireless is confident that the proposed modifications to this Personal Wireless
Service Facility meet the criteria for approval of a special use permit and does not conflict
with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. This special use permit is being
requested to allow changes to an array of antennas that will not negatively impact to the
surrounding area. The proposed changes will be consistent with existing facilities at this site.
The approval of this PWSF application will facilitate necessary improvements for integrating
Verizon Wireless' (acquired through the Alltel merger) existing cellular services with other
licensed services in the Charlottesville market. Ultimately, this network integration will
provide a greater quality of personal wireless services to Albemarle County residents in the
development area near the intersection of Route 29 North and Rio Road.
Sincerely,
Ste en Waller, AICP
Site Development Consultant
Verizon Wireless, Charlottesville Market
Attachment C
Verizon Wireless PWSF Page 4 Rio Road (CenturyLink Tower)
AP
N
r
O
d �
n °-
�" d
N
O
t
44
OA
a1.
K A
J m ii•``
'?ad
1
��
F�,,
. ti
„�: ,. y
+��.
t
�4,` !�
f
��
,..
.l `
i� ���`
H ��
'� jj((
•r. � .RP�
� '•� r � a
:� �
' ,,'•/
t ��. � -•�.•'I
r � ,;' �,.
�� '. � I
'�' _ � �..� _ iii
F �'v`- •�
� 'b
w
��
f�s�
�
;,�, fie,
,l��•
}
.4
...� + r
"i
�[�'�R
•.�• '�",•� �A
js�
''rte-, � '•� •
��L '+`,, •
�
�� �a�.
�
�`: a.. •S
• � jyt�•Y�/ 1 �
�
�� �
,�ti
�, ., P � ; ,
'`� 'y.i
r
.: r,4 '
+��.
t
�4,` !�
f
��
,..
.l `
i� ���`
H ��
'� jj((
•r. � .RP�
� '•� r � a
:� �
' ,,'•/
t ��. � -•�.•'I
r � ,;' �,.
�� '. � I
'�' _ � �..� _ iii
or-
As s= L
its".
��slu'��l's►v-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 9724012
July 25, 2008
Stephen Waller AICP
536 Pantops Center PMB #320
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SP2008 -00012 Embarq (Verizon Wireless) - Tier III PWSF
Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C
Dear Mr. Waller
On July 2,2008, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action on SP #2008 -
00012to allow Co- location of a personal wireless service facility on an existing tower on Tax
Map 61, Parcel 129C in the Rio District. This special use permit was approved based on
the following conditions:
The tower shall not be increased in height;
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for
personal wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Omni - directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or
seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
-- -- Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
C. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project
from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and
in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the
existing structure. The replacement of omni - directional, whip, directional or panel
antennas in existing antenna arrays shall be subject to this condition; and
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets
that separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may remain.
Provided, however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall
be flush- mounted as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall not pertain to
the maintenance and /or replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions
or is in need of repair.
4. Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one
time, and only as follows:
Attachment E
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be
replaced by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height
that is not more than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by
the same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does
not exceed the diameter of the dish being removed, the color of the replacement
dish matches the tower, and the mounting height does not exceed that of the
dish being replaced;
C. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a
different type of dish if the mounting height is no less than twenty (20) feet below
that of the dish being removed, the diameter of the replacement dish does not
exceed that of the dish being removed, and the color of the replacement dish
matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type
of dish if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy
the height requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning
Administrator. This approval shall only be granted after the submission of a
microwave path survey indicating that the proposed replacement dish will be
mounted at the lowest possible height that allows the system to function. In such
a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the reason(s) why the proposed height
is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the replacement be higher than
the dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the
face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall
the distance between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater
than eighteen (18) inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall
provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish
to be removed and its replacement dish, and additional information
demonstrating the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
5. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator once (1) per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall
identify each user of the tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications
service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance;
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of
the date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee
that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter
of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
8. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site construction plans, entitled "Rio Road, Embarq Property ", with a final zoning
drawing submittal date of 3/1012008;
9. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the antenna is
completed and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a
registered surveyor stating the height of the antenna, measured both in feet above
Attachment E
ground level and in elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or reference
datum identified; and
10. The applicant shall provide landscaping along Rio Road East generally as shown on the
Landscape Plan by J. Thomas Dalton sealed 5- 21 -08, with a final landscaping plan to be
administratively approved by staff.
Please be advised that although the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action
on the project noted above, no uses on the property as approved above may lawfully
begin until all applicable approvals have been received and conditions have been met.
This includes:
• compliance with conditions of the SPECIAL USE PERMIT; and
• approval of a ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE.
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not
commenced within twenty -four (24) months from the date of Board approval, it shall be deemed
abandoned and the permit terminated. The term "commenced" means "construction of any
structure necessary to the use of the permit."
_I
If you have questions or comments regarding the above -noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact Sherri Proctor at 296 -5832.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Current Development
Current Development Division
Cc: Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless /C /o LeClairRyan
123 East Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Central Telephone Co Of Va
P O Box 6788
Charlottesville Va 22906
Attachment E
COUNTY OF ALBFMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
November 19, 2002
M. E. Gibson, Jr
Tremblay & Smith, LLP
P O Box 1585
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP- 2002 -040 Central Telephone Company of Virginia — Alltel
Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on November 13, 2002, unanimously
approved the above -noted request. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The tower shall not be increased in height;
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for personal
wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Omni- directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7)
inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in
width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
C. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project from the
structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure. The
replacement of omni - directional, whip, directional or panel antennas in existing antenna
arrays shall be subject to this condition,
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets that
separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may remain. Provided,
however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall be flush- mounted
as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall not pertain to the maintenance and /or
replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions or is in need of repair.
4. Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one time, and
only as follows.
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be replaced
by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height that is not more
than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the same
type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed the
diameter of the dish being removed, the color of the replacement dish matches the tower,
w
and the mounting height does not exceed that of the dish being replaced;
C. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a different
type of dish if the mounting height is no less than twenty (20) feet below that of the dish
.�
being removed, the diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed that of the dish
being removed, and the color of the replacement dish matches the tower,
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type of dish
if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy the height
requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning Administrator. This
approval shall only be granted after the submission of a microwave path survey indicating
that the proposed replacement dish will be mounted at the lowest possible height that
allows the system to function. In such a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the
reason(s) why the proposed height is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the
replacement be higher than the dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the face of the
pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall the distance
between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater than eighteen (18)
inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall provide
engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to be removed
and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating the mounting distance
between the pole and the dish to the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
5. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once (1) per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that each user is a
personal wireless communications service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance; and
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning
Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be
removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a
bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an
amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety
guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be
commenced within twenty -four (24) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section,
the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure
necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance.
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the
Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further
information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296 -5832.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above -noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
C'
V. Wayne CAfmberg //
Director of Planning & Com unity Dev opment
VWC /jcf
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Tex Weaver
Steve Allshouse
Matt Grimes, VDOT
Attachment F
`
T.
Growth Alva ()I)Cll �piwc \1111)
ji
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
currently they have wider sidewalks but none of them are considered in their amenity area. The 2.5
percent amenity area is just the dedicated squares the Board saw on the plan.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks Mr. Stoner and staff will be able to sort this out. He just needs some
clarity about what can be accepted as amenity areas and what is not an amenity area.
Ms. Thomas said the Board also wants clarity of the descriptions of those amenities. Mr. Stoner
said they did that in their Code of Development. They don't have a plan yet, so he cannot say how many
linear feet are involved.
Mr. Rooker said to him there's a difference between providing a ten -foot sidewalk and providing a
six -foot sidewalk and wanting amenity credit for the extra foot. A ten -foot sidewalk would provide room for
outdoor dining, etc. that would actually be an amenity whereas some reduced square footage might not.
Mr. Stoner said with respect to the proffers one of the problems was that they did not get the final staff
report until a week before this public hearing. If there are issues in the proffers that need to be addressed,
they need the staff report sooner.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is working in a new process to provide the staff report to the applicant so
they can decide whether they want to respond to anything in that report or if it is fine and let it go at that
point. Ms. Echols said the petition would not be advertised until it got to the point where the applicant said
they were not giving any additional changes.
Mr. Boyd asked for a motion to defer
At 5:20 p.m., Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board defer ZMA- 2006 -008, Berkmar Business Park,
indefinitely. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: SP- 2008 -012, Embarq- Verizon Wireless -Tier III PWSF.
Proposal: Collocation of a personal wireless service facility on an existing tower.
Zoning Category /General Usage: CO, Commercial Office; Industrial
Section: 23.2.2(15) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless service
facilities in the CO Zoning District.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use: Office Service uses in Urban Area 2.
Location: South side of Rio Road East (State Route 631), approximately 1/8 mile east of the
intersection with Route 29 North, and near Fashion Square Mall.
Tax Map /Parcel: Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C.
Magisterial District: Rio.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 16 and June 23,
2008.)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a request for a
special use permit for a Tier III wireless facility on Sprint property on Rio Road near Fashion Square Mall.
He said the existing tower has antenna arrays and some microwave antennas. He showed a photograph
of the existing site and tower which included a simulation of the addition of an antenna array at the 240 -
foot level. He said the antennas that were there have been removed, but not the armatures. A Tier III
permit is required because there are more than three existing antennas on the site. He said some ground
equipment would also be installed.
Mr. Fritz said staff reviewed this application to determine whether or not it was consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff found that it generally met many of the criteria of Section 31 -241 which is the
criteria that all special use permits are reviewed against. However, staff also reviews these types of
requests against the criteria for wireless facilities contained in Section 5. This particular facility is a
collocation and it is an opportunity site. It is staff's opinion that it results in additional adverse visual
impacts and is not consistent with the goals of Albemarle County and the Wireless Policy which says,
"Collocation which results in adverse visual impact is not consistent with the goals of Albemarle County.
From a visibility perspective, collocation should be discouraged."
Mr. Fritz said staff found that the site has negative visual impacts; it is their opinion that the
additional antenna array would be an additional negative impact. He said it's the array that's causing the
staff the biggest concern, the fact that it is not flush- mounted. It is staff's opinion that flush- mounted
would have less of an adverse visual impact so it would be able to recommend approval of the permit.
Mr. Fritz said in general, the finding of the Planning Commission was that the additional adverse
visual impacts were not that substantial. A number of conditions were proposed by staff, and the applicant
and staff worked together. Since this is an amendment of a prior special use permit, they recommend
deletion of some existing conditions and addition of some new conditions. In recommending approval of
the permit, the Planning Commission added conditions that staff had not included. Condition No. 10
would require some landscaping and Condition No. 11 would limit the offset of the antenna from the tower
to no greater than the offset of the existing array that was up at the top of the facility; they were
recommended by the Architectural Review Board. With that the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:2,
recommended approval of the special use permit. He offered to answer questions.
Attachment H
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Boyd said if there were no questions for Mr. Fritz, he would ask the applicant to speak.
Mr. Maynard Sipe said he is the attorney representing Verizon Wireless. He works at the firm of
LeClair Ryan in their Charlottesville office. With him today are Mr. Matt Winstead, Mr. Nate Holland and
Mr. Steven Waller who are the consultants working on this project. Basically the proposal is to collocate
on an existing tower in an effort to make the best possible use of an opportunity site under the County
policy and to deliver the best possible wireless service to that immediate area. He showed a slide on the
screen of the area in and around Route 29 and Rio Road. He said the policy itself favors use of
opportunity sites. It contains language that disfavors full arrays under circumstances where they have a
visual impact that's significant; however, they believe the policy does not bar the use of full arrays. The
ordinance has provisions for a special permit so the Board can evaluate sites having unique
circumstances and this is a unique site where they believe it is appropriate to make a request for a full
array.
Mr. Sipe said the technical reason for the full array is that this is an area where there is a high
demand, and that demand calls for a full array. The array would provide the ability to have multiple
antennas facing in each direction defined as sectors being served. By having multiple antennas, Verizon
can get a better quality reception for the handheld unit and the in -home unit and maintain calls longer and
less likely to be lost due to interference and conditions. That is important when providing quality for
broadband service, which is part of the services that Verizon anticipates providing for both residential and
business use.
Mr. Sipe said there are visual considerations; probably no one views the existing tower as
favorable. He thinks it is important to focus on the existing tower that has its own visual impacts and then
judge the Verizon application by the incremental additional amount of impact being added. Under the
Telecommunications Act it is important for the Board to focus on that. They think the additional impact is
not significant. That is borne out by staff's findings that they meet the criteria for a special use permit.
Staff has acknowledged that it's not detrimental to the adjacent properties and it's not negatively or
adversely impacting the character of the area.
Mr. Sipe referred to a graphic of the tower and a schematic that shows the existing arrays. He
said there are five existing arrays similar to the one they are proposing. As to visual impacts, they
provided a series of photos to the Planning Commission along with a letter; these were also furnished to
the Board. He pointed out the existing mounting bracket that Verizon will be removing.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is some reason why that mounting bracket has not been removed. Mr.
Fritz said there was no requirement on the existing special use permit to do that.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board should request that of the owner of the tower.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would not come down under Mr. Sipe's rendering. Mr. Sipe said it is part of
their proposal and they will take on the burden of arranging for it to be removed as Verizon installs its own
array.
Mr. Rooker said regardless of that application, he thinks the Board should require that things that
are on towers, especially visible towers like this, be taken down when they're no longer used.
Ms. Thomas concurred noting that the County requires that the tower come down when it's no
longer used. She guesses the County does not require that the brackets come down when an array is no
longer being used.
Mr. Slutzky said if it can't be required, the Board should ask the party responsible for it to take it
down and remind them that if they choose not to do that it will be reported to the County when they next
come asking for permission to put a different one up. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the County used to do
that.
Mr. Rooker said that obviously Mr. Sipe is not responsible for the existence of the current state of
the tower. Mr. Sipe said he thinks this old tower predated the policy. He thinks the conditions being
imposing by the County now on new towers probably address this issue. He thinks the way to get at it in
this particular circumstance is by letting Verizon remove it as they install their new array.
Mr. Sipe said they do not think it has a significant adverse visual impact, and there are many
factors that mitigate the impact (listed in the letter sent to the Planning Commission), including: it's in the
midst of a commercial area; all of the adjacent or abutting properties are commercial properties; and, it
has the existing mounts and arrays. He referred to a photo view from the mall parking lot behind the tower
next to a multi - family residential area. The views from the residential area are very limited - almost
negligible. He said Verizon has agreed to do a landscape plan that will provide screening of some existing
ground facilities that are not a part of the Verizon proposal. They will also add some trees along the
corridor to bring the site up to the standards for entrance corridor sites. Those trees would provide some
additional screening of the existing tower from Rio Road.
Mr. Rooker asked the height of the proposed shrubs. Mr. Sipe said they are to the standard
asked for with the entrance corridor. These trees will obscure much of the tower because of the angle of
visibility from Rio Road. They will provide some visual screening of the base of the tower. They are
intended as an additional amenity for the site as a whole. He said most of the equipment is behind the
brick building; the equipment in the rear is not that visible from the road. There is a utility yard that serves
Attachment H
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
the building and Verizon is going to provide the shrubbery to screen that better. It is an added amenity
they agreed to provide as part of this special use permit.
Mr. Sipe said there is also an issue of fairness. Verizon is seeking approval for an array like those
the County previously approved on this site. They would like to provide the same quality of service that
other carriers are able to provide to this area. In conclusion, he stated that collocations are an efficient
way to provide quality wireless service to the urban area. They are a way to minimize potential impacts
from having multiple new towers or other sites located in these areas. He then offered to answer
questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is significance to the proposed height of this array. She asked if it
needs to be at the very top to get the coverage Verizon needs. Mr. Sipe said the height provides the
ability to cover as much area as possible from this location. The coverage would be approximately the
same as a flush- mount, but capacity is important and height also helps capacity because it provides a
clearer line of sight to a larger area so gets better reception from a handheld unit. Verizon is trying to
maximize the quality of service it can provide from this particular site.
Mr. Boyd said if there were no further questions for the applicant, he would open the public
hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Slutzky said he really likes the County's cell tower ordinance; he is proud the County has gone
to the trouble to provide for less obnoxious sighting experiences. In the rural area the Board absolutely
has to rigidly adhere to that. In the growth area, he thinks it's an important social benefit to have access to
good coverage, but there is a trade -off with the aesthetic impact these things can have. In the growth
area he would not embrace putting up a new tower that wasn't shrouded with trees and was not compliant
with the ordinance. He said taking an existing tower that's ugly and making it a little uglier, but improving
the aesthetics at the base, and giving improved coverage favors approval. Mr. Slutzky then moved to
approve this request.
Mr. Rooker requested that there be some discussion before a motion is made
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Fritz to clarify Condition No. 11. He said that what was shown on the screen
is different from the language in the Planning Commission's recommendation letter. Mr. Fritz said it is
slightly different; it should be as written in the Planning Commission's action letter which is: "No antennas
shall project from the monopole to a distance that is greater than that of the narrowest of the five existing
full sector panel antenna arrays on the pole, the existing mounting bracket to be removed as shown on
Attachment A." He said that last sentence was omitted from the text seen on the screen.
Mr. Davis said the conditions as set out in the Planning Commission's action letter are the
recommended conditions. Mr. Fritz said that is correct.
Mr. Sipe said the conditions commit Verizon to development in accordance with the plan and
removal of the bracket is noted on the plan, but the Planning Commission wanted to add that simply to be
extra clear that Verizon will remove it. He said Verizon is fine with that.
Mr. Rooker said the County's ordinance is considered a model by people around the country who
have looked at cell tower ordinances. Several newspapers out of this area editorialized that their area
should adopt a cell tower ordinance comparable to Albemarle's. The whole ordinance is based on
reducing the visibility of towers and antenna while still allowing reasonable coverage for the community.
The Board has adhered to that since the ordinance was adopted. He thinks everyone will agree this
existing tower is a visual blight. It is a non - conforming tower magnified. There is no other tower in the
area that is as nonconforming as this tower. The question is whether the Board will allow additional items
to be placed on this tower that themselves are non - conforming. Not only is this tower non - conforming but
the use of array antennas is non - conforming.
Mr. Rooker said the County does not allow array antennas on monopoles that are hidden in trees,
so why would it allow an additional non - conforming antenna at 240 feet, which is about 24 stories high, at
the corner of two entrance corridors. He said there are many opportunity sites in the urban area for cell
towers. If the Board allows an array antenna on this tower as opposed to one flush- mounted it would, in
his view, be setting a precedent.
Mr. Rooker said this is a "slippery slope." He said Mr. Sipe had exemplified that when he said the
County had set a precedent so Verizon should be able to do this also. He talked about the need for this
unique array at 240 feet, but there is no distinction between the rural areas and the urban areas in the
tower policy. It's based on visibility. What will happen with the next request to put an array on a tower in
the rural area? If the Board starts allowing these things as a matter of course on non - conforming towers,
it will have a bunch of exceptions, but no longer have a policy. He thinks this is wrong and the Board
should not approve it. He concluded by saying that an array antenna at 240 feet is not contemplated by
the policy so shouldn't be approved.
Ms. Thomas said the last time Verizon came before the Board it was for a fourth tower on a site
on Afton Mountain - she felt that she shouldn't vote against it because she had voted for the others in that
location. She said she has consistently voted against ugly additions to ugly poles, so she will be totally
consistent in voting against this request. When cell towers were first introduced to the County, all the
applicants said they could offer better service if they were allowed to be bigger and taller. She said this
community decided it preferred smaller and less visually obtrusive. The County went all the way to the
Attachment H
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Federal Court of Appeals in order to uphold its view that visual intrusiveness was something that could be
considered. For the urban areas, the Board was told it should be talking about panels and not towers.
Panels can be attached to buildings, or existing structures of all sorts. They don't need tall towers or huge
arrays in order to offer service. Of course, they can offer cheaper, better, quicker service if they have a
huge array high up in the sky.
Ms. Thomas said that a long time ago the Board decided that was not the right direction for this
community. She said this is an old tower and all have agreed it is ugly. She thinks adding that array at the
very top of this tower is a significant visual addition to a significantly visual intrusive pole. The last point
she will make is that each time the Board approves something that it doesn't like and allows it to go on a
tower because the tower is already there, it makes it much harder for that tower to ever come down - the
tower does not come down until the last user is no longer using it. The more users attached to it the
longer its life is going to be.
Mr. Dorrier said he will support Mr. Slutzky on this. He pointed out that it's in a commercial
district. It is true that ugly things are not wanted in the commercial district as well as the rural district, but
sometimes you have to compromise. Hopefully, people do not notice it as much because it's commercial.
He said the 11 conditions are a sign that the applicant realizes he needs to compromise on the issue, and
these conditions help his application. The Planning Commission recommended approval 4:2 so they
agreed it should be a use permitted in the County. He thinks that sometimes the Board has to
compromise and this is one of those times.
Ms. Mallek said she has always objected to towers being in the midst of neighborhoods. She was
struck by something in the applicant's letters about landowners in the commercial areas being unwilling to
lease their land in urban areas because they review it as restricting their future development. That is
exactly what the residential neighbors said - it's going to affect my resale value, I don't want to have it
nearby. She knows none of that's really appropriate to this decision. She guesses that she would rather
have collocation than another big pole. Now that the big poles are no longer available, it removes that
concern.
Mr. Rooker said there is a distinction. This pole is at the corner of two entrance corridors. The
County spends a huge amount of money trying to protect the aesthetics of entrance corridors. If there's
any place where you don't allow this kind of thing it's at the corner of two entrance corridors.
Mr. Slutzky said he almost agrees with what the other Board members said, but he has struggled
with the request because he does not want it there. If the Board says "no ", the pole is still there, and it is
still ugly. Is the marginal additional aesthetic affront to that choice location sufficient justification to turn it
down? He thinks it is a nominal additional aesthetic affront and he is glad they will be putting screening at
the ground level. Because of that he is willing to support it. He would not, in any way, be supportive of a
new structure like this anywhere in the County.
Mr. Rooker said there is a distinction between the structure and the antenna array. The County
does not allow, as a matter of policy, antenna that are not flush- mounted, on any tower.
Mr. Slutzky asked why that is the policy.
Mr. Rooker said it is because of visibility. They could have proposed flush- mounted; staff
recommended denial because the request violates the visibility requirements of the County's ordinance.
The primary reason is that they're proposing the kind of antenna array the County does not approve. Why
the Board would approve it at 240 feet when it would not approve it at 60 feet is beyond him. He said their
application could have been for all flush- mounted antennas. He said every applicant, for any height, has
the same argument as that given by Verizon. He does not want the Board to confuse the existence of the
tower with the use of this kind of antenna array. The argument that they're going to be able to provide
better coverage with this kind of antenna array is an argument that's available to anybody anywhere with
any kind of tower. He does not know how to distinguish between allowing that kind of antenna array, not
the tower which is already there, at 240 feet at the intersection of two entrance corridors — it should not be
allowed when you're not going to allow it out in the woods.
Mr. Slutzky said he makes the distinction. He would not approve this tower out in the woods
because that experience would be significantly different to him. Having an array on a pole out in the
woods versus this location is the difference between its current condition and the new condition which
would result from the Board's approval; to him that difference is nominal.
Ms. Thomas said there is a very tall tower at the corner near where the Meadow Creek Parkway
will come in at Melbourne Road near Charlottesville High School. It is pretty obtrusive yet not nearly as
obtrusive as this one. It's painted red and white, which she presumes is for FAA reasons. She believes
every applicant has asked to have an array, and the Board has said no, it has to be flush- mounted. She
said the flush- mounted stick out a little at the top, but it is not nearly as visually obtrusive as this big set of
arrays. She said the Board has held firm and applicants have made do with the flush- mounted.
Ms. Thomas said the other thing she would like the Board to remember when considering this sort
of thing is that panels can be attached to all sorts of structures, including water towers, and nobody thinks
of them as a tower. There are panels, not well placed, on top of the Monticello Hotel, for example. There
are panels in all sorts of places, and the urban area is exactly the right place to put panels. They do not
give as much coverage because they are not as high up in the air, but a lot of cell phone coverage can be
obtained from panels that are not high up in the air. That is why the telephone pole type of poles in the
Attachment H
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
rural area work. She does not think the Board has to think it is this proposal or an ugly tower somewhere
else in the neighborhood - because it is this or an array of panels in various locations.
Mr. Slutzky said for him it's this pole with this array on the top or not, and he does not see a huge
difference in this case because the existing structure is so ugly. He said that is the only reason he is
willing to support it.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board could require that it be a flush- mounted array. Otherwise she
cannot vote for it.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks all the Board can do is vote on what's before it now, and the Planning
Commission recommended denial. Mr. Davis said this is a special use permit request so the Board has
the discretion to put conditions on it. If the Board is inclined to support that concept, he thinks staff would
need to work with the applicant to get appropriate drawings and conditions in place to do that. He does
not know if the applicant would be interested with proceeding with the plan if it was flush- mounted, but that
would be their option.
Mr. Tucker said that on page 10 of the Staff Report, Item 3c shows that condition, but it has been
marked through on flush- mounted.
Mr. Rooker said that condition was actually in existence before, so there was already a restriction
that prohibited anything but additional antenna that were flush- mounted. Today, the Board would be
removing that restriction.
Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant would like to address that point. Mr. Sipe said he would like to
address it because he failed to mention a couple of points that are important. Because of the wording of
the existing condition, they believe they can get the flush- mounted antenna by -right with a building permit.
They were going through the special use permit process with the extra expense and effort because they
believed the array was essential to providing capacity for the area. He said Verizon has done the flush -
mounts in another location — they got a building permit to do them on a site off of Barracks Road slightly
west of the last apartment complex on the north side of the road. In that case the objective was purely to
provide coverage to that area, and it will not have the demand to necessitate an array.
Mr. Sipe said Verizon uses panels on existing structures to the extent it can — it is mounting
panels on the Hilton Hotel which is one of the few tall buildings that can be utilized in that corridor. When
they researched the area, they found few buildings of sufficient height to allow placement of those panels.
Verizon is also placing a panel on the retirement home that's a multi -story building in Crozet. Verizon
adheres to the policy in everything it does. The policy does not prohibit arrays on this site, although it talks
about their visual impact. They only bring these types of applications to the Board where they have
already carefully considered the visual impact. They think this request is warranted by the technical need,
the necessity for the service, and the impact is mitigated or minimal. They don't think they need a special
use permit to do the flush -mount antennas because they're already provided for in the conditions. He
requested support for the Verizon request as requested.
Mr. Rooker asked if there had been a second to Mr. Slutzky's earlier motion.
Mr. Dorrier offered a second.
Mr. Boyd asked that Mr. Slutzky repeat the motion.
Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board approve SP- 2008 - 00012, Embarq - Verizon Wireless Tier Three
PWSF, with the 11 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion having been
seconded by Mr. Dorrier, roll was called, and the motion died by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Fritz said he believes that even putting a flush -mount antenna on this tower requires a special
use permit because it is still a Tier III type facility. There are already three antennae on that particular
tower.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Fritz is correct in that they need a special use permit to do the flush- mounted
tower. If the Board were inclined to support a flush- mounted tower, before adjourning today there is an
opportunity for the Board to reconsider its denial and approve a flush- mounted tower. He noted that after
today, it would require that a new application be filed and the applicant would have to go back through the
Planning Commission process before coming back to this Board.
Mr. Boyd suggested the Board take up other matters and come back to this discussion.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not listed on the Agenda from Board members.
Mr. Dorrier suggested discussion of the bridge over the Rivanna, and Mr. Boyd declined.
Ms. Mallek noted that there are bake sales for the bridge over the Rivanna.
Attachment H
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Slutzky said in his conversations with VDOT, he was asked how they know it is not just one
member of the Board of Supervisors who is pushing so hard to get a bridge over the Rivanna to complete
the parallel road. How does it know the entire Board is in agreement? He asked if it would be worth
having each Board member acknowledge whether he thinks it would be a good priority for VDOT to be
supportive in any way to get that completed parallel road network, in particular the bridge.
Ms. Mallek said she is annoyed to hear that because since 2002 during development of the
UNJAM Plan all the way through to CHART, it was number one on the priority list.
Mr. Slutzky said the question was asked of him. VDOT hears from him all the time.
Mr. Rooker said it is in the long -range transportation plan.
Mr. Slutzky said he pointed out that at the MPO meeting. He said Mr. Rooker had specifically
asked to have it added as a priority, and it was discussed at the MPO level. He asked if the Board
members would confirm yet again their enthusiasm for the project.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think that is needed
Ms. Mallek said to do it anyway because obviously they cannot read.
Mr. Rooker said it is a project that is in the long -range plan, and he supports the long -range plan
and that project.
Ms. Mallek noted that she has supported it since CHART.
Ms. Thomas said she certainly supports it.
Ms. Mallek said it is absolutely core to the Route 29 function.
Agenda Item No. 19. Back to SP- 2008 -012, Embarq - Verizon Wireless -Tier III PWSF.
Mr. Sipe said there may be a disagreement of their interpretation of the language of the condition,
but they will certainly accept the recommendation for approval of the special use permit with flush- mounts
that would alleviate any question about that interpretation. He said if they are restricted to flush- mounts,
according to their engineer they will have to build multiple sites to cover the same area.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that those sites would be new sites so they would comply with the
County's policy.
Mr. Slutzky asked what the Board would do to accommodate that request since it has already
voted. Mr. Davis said there should be a motion to reconsider the previous action on this application, vote
on that motion, and then offer a new motion.
Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board reconsider the Board's previous action on this application. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Fritz determined that if the Board members looked at the staff's report, and
Condition No. 3(c) and Condition No. 3(d) as previously approved were added back, and then Condition
No. 11 eliminated, the Board would have the proper conditions in front of it for their application for a flush -
mounted antenna.
Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board approve SP- 2008 -012, Embarq - Verizon Wireless -Tier III
PWSF, as amended. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas said she is still going to vote against it because she is being consistent in her policy
of not adding anything to existing towers that are not wanted because it extends their life.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The tower shall not be increased in height;
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for
personal wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
Attachment,"
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
a. Omni - directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or
seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
C. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project
from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and
in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the
existing structure. The replacement of omni - directional, whip, directional or panel
antennas in existing antenna arrays shall be subject to this condition; and
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets
that separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may remain.
Provided, however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall
be flush- mounted as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall not pertain to
the maintenance and /or replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions
or is in need of repair;
Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one
time, and only as follows:
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be
replaced by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height
that is not more than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by
the same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does
not exceed the diameter of the dish being removed, the color of the replacement
dish matches the tower, and the mounting height does not exceed that of the dish
being replaced;
C. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a
different type of dish if the mounting height is no less than twenty (20) feet below
that of the dish being removed, the diameter of the replacement dish does not
exceed that of the dish being removed, and the color of the replacement dish
matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type
of dish if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy
the height requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning
Administrator. This approval shall only be granted after the submission of a
microwave path survey indicating that the proposed replacement dish will be
mounted at the lowest possible height that allows the system to function. In such
a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the reason(s) why the proposed height
is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the replacement be higher than
the dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the
face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall
the distance between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater
than eighteen (18) inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall
provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to
be removed and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating
the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the Department of
Building Code and Zoning Services;
5. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator once (1) per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall
identify each user of the tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications
service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance;
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. If
the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that
the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of
credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
8. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site construction plans, entitled "Rio Road, Embarq Property ", with a final zoning
drawing submittal date of 3/10/2008;
9. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the antenna is completed
and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a registered surveyor
stating the height of the antenna, measured both in feet above ground level and in
elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or reference datum identified; and
Attachment H
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
10. The applicant shall provide landscaping along Rio Road East generally as shown on the
Landscape Plan by J. Thomas Dalton sealed 5- 21 -08, with a final landscaping plan to be
administratively approved by staff.
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said he had one thing to mention. The Board needs to adopt a resolution setting the FY
2009 Compensation and Benefits for the County Executive. The resolution was sent to the Board
members, and it has been discussed and approved in prior discussions.
Mr. Rooker moved approval of the following Resolution to Set FY'09 Compensation and Benefits
for the County Executive. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION TO SET FY 09
COMPENSATION & BENEFITS FOR
THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle operates under the County Executive Form of
Government; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors determines the compensation and benefits to be
paid to the County Executive for the performance of his duties and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby finds that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, shall receive the following
compensation and benefits for FY 09, beginning July 1, 2008:
1) Annual salary of $177,721.
2) Annual vehicle allowance of $9,650.
3) Deferred Compensation paid by the County in the amount of $23,500.
4) Benefits provided to all County employees in the Personnel Policy & Procedures
Manual.
5) VERIPIus benefits to consist of the VERIP benefits provided to County employees
under the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual with the following additions and
modifications:
a) VERIPIus benefits shall extend for a period of 10 years from the date of
retirement regardless of age;
b) VERIPIus benefits shall be equal to the base VERIP benefits plus on the
following vesting dates the Virginia Retirement System (hereinafter
"VRS ") component of the benefits shall increase to the designated
percentages of the base VERIP benefits:
June 30, 2008 123%
June 30, 2009 136%
June 30, 2010 150%
The vesting percentage shall be set at the designated percentage as of
June 30,h prior to the date of retirement if retirement occurs before the
next vesting date. Attachment A provides an example of the possible
VRS component of the VERIPIus benefits.
C) The retirement requirement for VERIPIus will be met if retirement is
approved under any of the retirement plans of the VRS, including any
disability retirement provision.
d) VERIPIus benefits shall accrue to the benefit of a designated survivor, as
designated for purposes of VRS, if death should occur prior to receiving
ten years of VERIPIus benefits.
Attachment H
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly Benefit
As of:
Vesting
VERIP
+ Additional
_ to be Paid for 10
Ratio
Benefit
Benefit for
years for VERIPIus
VERIPIus
June 30, 2008
123%
$2,71 B
+ $626
= $3,344
June 30, 2009
136%
$2,864
+ $1,030
= $3,894
June 30, 2010
150%
$2,987
+ $1,494
= $4,481
Attachment H
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Slutzky said in his conversations with VDOT, he was asked how they know it is not just one
member of the Board of Supervisors who is pushing so hard to get a bridge over the Rivanna to complete
the parallel road. How does it know the entire Board is in agreement? He asked if it would be worth
having each Board member acknowledge whether he thinks it would be a good priority for VDOT to be
supportive in any way to get that completed parallel road network, in particular the bridge.
Ms. Mallek said she is annoyed to hear that because since 2002 during development of the
UNJAM Plan all the way through to CHART, it was number one on the priority list.
Mr. Slutzky said the question was asked of him. VDOT hears from him all the time.
Mr. Rooker said it is in the long -range transportation plan.
Mr. Slutzky said he pointed out that at the MPO meeting. He said Mr. Rooker had specifically
asked to have it added as a priority, and it was discussed at the MPO level. He asked if the Board
members would confirm yet again their enthusiasm for the project.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think that is needed
Ms. Mallek said to do it anyway because obviously they cannot read.
Mr. Rooker said it is a project that is in the long -range plan, and he supports the long -range plan
and that project.
Ms. Mallek noted that she has supported it since CHART.
Ms. Thomas said she certainly supports it.
Ms. Mallek said it is absolutely core to the Route 29 function.
OAgenda Item No. 19. Back to SP- 2008 -012, Embarq - Verizon Wireless -Tier III PWSF(
Mr. Sipe said there may be a disagreement of their interpretation of the language of the condition,
but they will certainly accept the recommendation for approval of the special use permit with flush- mounts
that would alleviate any question about that interpretation. He said if they are restricted to flush- mounts,
according to their engineer they will have to build multiple sites to cover the same area.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that those sites would be new sites so they would comply with the
County's policy.
Mr. Slutzky asked what the Board would do to accommodate that request since it has already
voted. Mr. Davis said there should be a motion to reconsider the previous action on this application, vote
on that motion, and then offer a new motion.
Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board reconsider the Board's previous action on this application. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Fritz determined that if the Board members looked at the staff's report, and
Condition No. 3(c) and Condition No. 3(d) as previously approved were added back, and then Condition
No. 11 eliminated, the Board would have the proper conditions in front of it for their application for a flush -
mounted antenna.
Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board approve SP- 2008 -012, Embarq - Verizon Wireless -Tier III
PWSF, as amended. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas said she is still going to vote against it because she is being consistent in her policy
of not adding anything to existing towers that are not wanted because it extends their life.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The tower shall not be increased in height;
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for
personal wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
Attachment H
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
a. Omni - directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or
seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
C. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project
from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and
in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the
existing structure. The replacement of omni - directional, whip, directional or panel
antennas in existing antenna arrays shall be subject to this condition; and
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets
that separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may remain.
Provided, however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall
be flush- mounted as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall not pertain to
the maintenance and /or replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions
or is in need of repair;
Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one
time, and only as follows:
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be
replaced by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height
that is not more than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by
the same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does
not exceed the diameter of the dish being removed, the color of the replacement
dish matches the tower, and the mounting height does not exceed that of the dish
being replaced;
C. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a
different type of dish if the mounting height is no less than twenty (20) feet below
that of the dish being removed, the diameter of the replacement dish does not
exceed that of the dish being removed, and the color of the replacement dish
matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type
of dish if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy
the height requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning
Administrator. This approval shall only be granted after the submission of a
microwave path survey indicating that the proposed replacement dish will be
mounted at the lowest possible height that allows the system to function. In such
a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the reason(s) why the proposed height
is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the replacement be higher than
the dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the
face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall
the distance between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater
than eighteen (18) inches; and
I. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall
provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to
be removed and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating
the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the Department of
Building Code and Zoning Services;
5. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator once (1) per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall
identify each user of the tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications
service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance;
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. If
the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that
the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of
credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
8. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site construction plans, entitled "Rio Road, Embarq Property", with a final zoning
drawing submittal date of 3/10/2008;
9. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the antenna is completed
and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a registered surveyor
stating the height of the antenna, measured both in feet above ground level and in
elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or reference datum identified; and
Attachment H
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
10. The applicant shall provide landscaping along Rio Road East generally as shown on the
Landscape Plan by J. Thomas Dalton sealed 5- 21 -08, with a final landscaping plan to be
administratively approved by staff.
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said he had one thing to mention. The Board needs to adopt a resolution setting the FY
2009 Compensation and Benefits for the County Executive. The resolution was sent to the Board
members, and it has been discussed and approved in prior discussions.
Mr. Rooker moved approval of the following Resolution to Set FY `09 Compensation and Benefits
for the County Executive. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION TO SET FY 09
COMPENSATION & BENEFITS FOR
THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle operates under the County Executive Form of
Government; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors determines the compensation and benefits to be
paid to the County Executive for the performance of his duties and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby finds that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, shall receive the following
compensation and benefits for FY 09, beginning July 1, 2008:
1) Annual salary of $177,721.
2) Annual vehicle allowance of $9,650.
3) Deferred Compensation paid by the County in the amount of $23,500.
4) Benefits provided to all County employees in the Personnel Policy & Procedures
Manual.
5) VERIPIus benefits to consist of the VERIP benefits provided to County employees
under the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual with the following additions and
modifications:
a) VERIPIus benefits shall extend for a period of 10 years from the date of
retirement regardless of age;
b) VERIPIus benefits shall be equal to the base VERIP benefits plus on the
following vesting dates the Virginia Retirement System (hereinafter
"VRS ") component of the benefits shall increase to the designated
percentages of the base VERIP benefits:
June 30, 2008 123%
June 30, 2009 136%
June 30, 2010 150%
The vesting percentage shall be set at the designated percentage as of
June 301h prior to the date of retirement if retirement occurs before the
next vesting date. Attachment A provides an example of the possible
VRS component of the VERIPIus benefits.
C) The retirement requirement for VERIPIus will be met if retirement is
approved under any of the retirement plans of the VRS, including any
disability retirement provision.
d) VERIPIus benefits shall accrue to the benefit of a designated survivor, as
designated for purposes of VRS, if death should occur prior to receiving
ten years of VERIPIus benefits.
Attachment H
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly Benefit
As of:
Vesting
VERIP
+ Additional
= to be Paid for 10
Ratio
Benefit
Benefit for
years for VERIPIus
VERIPIus
June 30, 2008
123%
$2,718
+ $626
= $3,344
June 30, 2009
136%
$2,864
+ $1,030
= $3,894
June 30, 2010
150%
$2,987
+ $1,494
= $4,481
Attachment H