HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199700030 Action Letter
..,
'''/1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
November 21, 1997
Mark Keller
301 East High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-97-30 U S Cellular
Tax Map 58, Parcel 37G
Dear Mr. Keller:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on November S, 1997, adopted the
attached resolution denying the above-noted request to construct a cellular telecommunications
tower.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
(). &0<
v. Wayne ilimberg .'
Director of Planning & mmu' y Development
VWC/jcf
ATTACHMENT
cc: Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, United States Cellular Corporation ("U.S. Cellular") is licensed
by the Federal Communications Commission to provide cellular telephone service in
Albemarle County and is an established provider of such service in the County; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Cellular filed an application for a special use permit (liSP
97 -30") which would authorize it to erect a wireless telecommunications facility in
Albemarle County on that property identified as Tax Map 58, Parcel 37G, which is located
on the south side of Route 738 approximately 1.1 miles west of Route 250 (the"property");
and
WHEREAS, the property is a two-acre parcel zoned Light Industrial ("U"); the
LI zoning district regulations authorize telecommunications towers by special use permit;
and
WHEREAS, if approved, the special use permit would authorize U.S. Cellular
to erect and maintain a 140 foot self-supporting lattice tower (the "tower") and related
facilities to provide improved cellular telephone service in the Ivy area of Albemarle County,
parts of which do not have coverage or have a weak signal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on SP 97-30 on July 22,1997, whereafter it made a recommendation on SP 97-30
to the Board;
WHEREAS, the Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on SP 97-30
on September 17, 1997, at which time oral and written evidence was presented, both in
support of and in opposition to SP 97-30; and
WHEREAS, having considered the written and oral evidence presented at
the September 17, 1997 public hearing and other evidence which is part of the written
record for SP 97-30, the Board has determined that it is unable to make all of the findings
which must be made pursuant to section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to
approve SP 97-30, and that this decision complies with the applicable requirements of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, based upon the written record, hereby denies U.S. Cellular's
application for SP 97-30 for the reasons set forth below:
1. The erection of a 140-foot tall tower on the property will change the
character of the district, which is primarily rural agricultural and residential.
The proposed tower would be 40 feet in height and be of a lattice type
construction. (Record, 55) It would be located approximately 18 feet from the closest
property line and, without a waiver granted pursuant to section 4.3.10.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance, would not comply with the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
(Record, 2) This is the only location on the property acceptable to the property owner; a
greater setback would require U.S. Cellular to find another site. (Record, 18)
U.S. Cellular described the district as primarily agricultural, with commercial
uses as well. (Record, 29) Other members of the public described the district as
agricultural and residential. (Record, 34, 45) Although the property is within an industrial
park, the comprehensive plan identifies the entire Ivy area as Rural. (Record, 3) The
industrial park itself does not negatively impact the character of the district except for a
slight incre~se in truck traffic. (Record, 34) The industrial park was developed on the
condition that the industrial buildings would be hidden from view by placing them at the rear
of the property and by preserving a wooded buffer area, and on the condition that no
building would be visible above the tree line and not visible from adjacent property.
(Record, 34) The nearest rural property is 300 feet from the site of the proposed tower.
(Record,S) Approximately 29 residences are within 2,000 feet (0.4 miles) of the proposed
tower. (Record, 1)
No similar sized towers exist in the district. (Record, 6) Although the tower
site is well-screened (Record, 55), the proposed tower itself would extend approximately
60 to 80 feet above the tree line. (Record, 3) Thus, it would be visible and dominate the
, skyline of many residences and properties in the district. (Record, 34, 36, 45) The
proposed tower also would be in the direct line of sight on the drive west from Ivy on
Morgantown Road. (Record, 36) The proposed tower would also be visible from the
nearby Mount Calvary Baptist Church, long recognized as a historic site. (Record, 13, 30)
The proposed tower would be a new stand-alone facility in the district and
would result in a change in the appearance of the district because no towers currently exist
in this district. (Record, 3, 6) The industrial silhouette of the proposed tower would change
the residential and agricultural character of the Ivy district. (Record, 35, 36)
2. The proposed tower will not be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance because it does not facilitate the creation of an
attractive and harmonious community, as provided in section 1.4.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The proposed tower would be a new stand-alone facility in the district and
would result in a change in the appearance of the district because no towers currently exist
in this district. (Record, 3, 6) The industrial silhouette of the proposed tower would change
the residential and agricultural character of the Ivy district. (Record, 35, 36) Although the
proposed tower is related to a public service -- wireless telecommunications service -- the
Board concludes that in this case the factors articulated in section 1.4.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance (attractive and harmonious community) outweigh those set forth in sections
1.4.4 and 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance (public services).
3. The proposed tower will not be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance because it is not consistent with section 1.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which states in part that "development is not to be' encouraged
in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and
forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural,
scenic and historical resources." The comprehensive plan identifies the entire Ivy area
as Rural. (Record, 3) The proposed tower would not conserve scenic and historic
resources because it would, among other things, obstruct the mountain views of many Ivy
properties (Record, 45) and would be visible from the nearby Mount Calvary Baptist
Church, long recognized as a historic site. (Record, 13, 30)
4. The Board finds that there is an existing reasonable use of the
property on which the tower is located, which is developed with industrial Uses.
. (Record, 55)
5. The Board has considered the applicable provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, and finds that the denial of SP 97-30 is in
compliance with the requirements of the Act, based upon the following findings:
a. The Zoning Ordinance does not unreasonably discriminate against
wireless telecommunications providers of functio~ally equivalent services. The final
report of the wireless telecommunications task forcE3: concluded that cellular service and
, personal communications service ("PCS") are functionally equivalent. The Zoning
Ordinance does not discriminate between the two wireless telecommunications services.
See, for example, section 27.2.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, which authorizes, among
other uses in the Light Industry (1L1") zoning district, "unmanned telephone exchange
centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and
appurtenances." This language, which appears in the regulations for other zoning districts
also, has been construed to include the facilities for both cellular service and PCS.
b. The Zoning Ordinance does not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance establishes a ban or policy that has the
effect of prohibiting wireless' telecommunications service in Albemarle County.
Applications for special use permits are decided on a case-by-case basis, and in reviewing
such applications, the Board considers the factors relevant to the approval of a special use
permit provided in section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since 1990, the Board has
acted on 15 applications for special use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities,
and has approved 11 of them. There was no evidence presented that denial of SP 97-30
would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal telecommunications services.
Finally, a written statement from a member of the public with experience in the field of
telecommunications identified three alternative sights on existing Virginia Power or
American Electric Power transmission towers and the level of service that would be
provided from two of the three sites would be at least as adequate as the proposed tower.
(Record, 44) The statement explained that any remaining service holes could be filled in
with an antenna array on 360's Camp Holiday Trails monopole. (Record, 44)
c. The Board acted on U.S. Cellular's application for SP 97-30 within a
reasonable period of time. The application for SP 97-30 was submitted on May 19, 1997.
The Planning Commission conducted its public hearing and made its recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors on July 22, 1997, well within the ninety day period provided by
section 31.2.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board's decision on SP 97-30 is well within
twelve month period to act on the application, as provided in section 15.1-491 (g) of the
Code of Virginia.
d. The Board does not base its decision to deny SP 97-30 on health or
environmental effects. U. S. Cellular did not present evidence that the wireless
telecommunications facility would satisfy FCC standards. However, the staff report states:
"In order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and
safety." (Record, 4) Although one speaker expressed concern about possible harmful
effects of wireless telecommunications facilities on infants and the proximity of a day-care
facility to the proposed tower site (Record, 35), the Board does not base its decision on this
expression of concern.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision is based on the written
record of the proceedings of U.S. Cellular's applicatiQn for SP 97-30 and related waiver
request, which record is identified as the "Record of the Proceedings of the Application of
U.S. Cellular Corporation for a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications
Facility" which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by
vote of six to zero on November 5, 1997.
upervisors