Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000020 Plan - Approved 2000-08-08 ,ofAG � g�, 8 =law 6.4F7 rRGINv COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road,Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 FAX(804) 972-4126 TELEPHONE(804)296-5832 TTD(804) 972-4012 August 8, 2000 CORRECTED COPY M.E. Gibson Tremblay & Smith, L.L.P. P. O. Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action -Variance Application, VA-2000-020 Tax Map 73, Parcel 31 D Dear Mr. Gibson: This letter is to inform you that your variance application, VA-2000-020, was heard by the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals on July 18, 2000. The Board ruled (4:1) to approve your request subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is for the facility described in this file only. Any modification will require new variance review. 2. A tree conservation plan identifying all trees that have a diameter of six (6) inches or greater (measured at six (6) inches above ground)within 25 feet of the proposed tower site shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application for the tower. The plan should note any trees to be removed to make space for the tower and its appurtenances drime+rrey.. No trees may be removed for driveway purposes. The existing driveway shall be used to serve this tower. 3. The cutting of trees within 75 feet of both the existing and the new tower shall be limited to dead trees and trees of less than six (6) inches in diameter measured at six (6) inches above ground, except those trees identified on the plans as necessary for the establishment of the towers; 4. Removal of the remaining trees or their limbs shown on either plan is prohibited unless recommended by an arborist for the health of the tree or required by a public utility. This approval allows relief from Section 10.4. of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow reduction of the front yard setback from 75 to 15 feet to allow construction of a new 90-foot monopole tower. This approval was granted with the deletion of the generator pad setback and the inclusion of the tower setback at 15 feet. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sin erely, 4A1‘<14-1-4— Jan Sprinkle Chief of Zoning Administration Cc:: VA-2000-20 David C. Weber Va2000-020 approval.doc STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: July 18, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-00-20 OWNER/APPLICANT: David C. Weber, owner; 360° Communications Company of Charlottesville, d/b/a ALLTEL Communications, Inc., applicant TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07300-00-00-031D0 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 30' x 40' lease area within a 10.31 acre parcel LOCATION: East side of Rt. 708, approximately 0.5 miles north of its intersection with RT. 637 TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a front setback of 75 feet on a thoroughfare state road. A variance of 64 feet is requested to allow a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a tower, an equipment cabinet and a generator pad. The generator pad is proposed to be 11 feet from the property line adjoining Rt. 708 while the ninety-foot wooden pole tower and equipment cabinet will be farther back but within the 30' x 40' lease area. [In addition to the underlying zoning district setbacks, Section 4.10.3.1 requires that a tower be setback a distance equal to its height. Although the Board of Zoning appeals can reduce the minimum primary structure setbacks required under Section 10.4, the additional setback required based on the height of the tower under Section 4.10.3.1 • must be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission. Should the PC fail to approve that reduction, the applicant could then choose to request a variance from that section. It will be reviewed as part of the special permit application. This is not before the BZA presently.] RELEVANT HISTORY: SP-99-11 and VA-99-10 were approved last year to permit one existing monopole tower on this parcel. There is a pending special use permit to allow another tower on the property if this variance is approved. (SP-00-31.) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This parcel meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. There is nothing about the size or shape or topography of this parcel to qualify it for a variance. There is no hardship as defined by the State Code. An unnecessary hardship only exists when the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or cause a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant. This Variance Report, VA 00-20 2 July 18, 2000 parcel has two dwellings and one communications tower facility on it and it receives use value taxation for its eight acres of agricultural use. Siting a tower eighteen feet and a generator pad only eleven feet from Rt. 708 will be a convenience for the applicant. The Board of Supervisors has recognized that siting towers is very difficult under current regulations. At their direction and with assistance from consultants, staff has worked to draft the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. The Planning Commission has considered this draft at work sessions, has conducted a public hearing on the policy and has offered recommendations. A revised document incorporating those recommendations will be presented for approval to the Planning Commission on July 18, 2000. Once the Commission has completed its review of the policy, they will pass it on to the Board of Supervisors. The public hearing for adoption has not been scheduled at this time, but is imminent. If the manual is adopted as it is currently written, this type of tower would be a Tier II tower (out of three tiers) and would require Planning Commission approval, but not a special permit from the Board of Supervisors. The proposed policy enables the Planning Commission to establish setbacks to locate wireless communication facilities. This type of request would not require any action of the Board of Zoning Appeals. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary: • The placement of the tower is carefully selected so the tower can provide adequate coverage while still concealed among the trees. Movement of the facility would either create a situation of inadequate coverage or would make the tower more visible. The proposed site allows for adequate coverage and little visibility while remaining faithful to the objectives of the setback ordinance. As stated, staff acknowledges that siting towers in Albemarle County under our current ordinance is difficult. However, staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. Reasonable use already exists on the property. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • The hardship is created as the result of balancing adequate telecommunications coverage and low visibility. Such considerations are not applicable to most other 1:IDEPTIBuilding&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-20.doc Variance Report, VA 00-2C 3 July 18, 2000 uses, but are unique to telecommunications facilities. The proposed facility satisfies both conditions while preventing undue crowding and minimizing safety concerns. Staff agrees that tower siting has its own unique hardships, however, the hardship is one of the use—telecommunications towers—not of the parcel. There is no hardship related to the land that could be unique. This parcel has plenty of area available without a variance. All rural area properties must abide by the setbacks of section 10.4. 2. The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • In fact, authorization of the variance is the best way to prevent detriment in that regard. Without authorization of the variance, the facility would have to be located in an area where it would be more visible, and therefore have a more substantial impact on its surroundings. As it is proposed, the facility has little impact because of its minimal visibility among the trees. Staff finds that locating another tower on this particular parcel in the area noted will not change the character of the district if the surrounding trees are protected. The variance may make it easier for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to permit a tower in an area that will insure the least possible visibility. 3. Therefore, the applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since only one of the three criteria has been met, staff recommends denial. However, should the Board find cause to approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This variance is for the facility described in this file only. Any modification will require new variance review. 2. A tree conservation plan identifying all trees that have a diameter of six (6) inches or greater (measured at six (6) inches above ground) within 75 feet of the proposed tower site shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application for the tower. The plan should note any trees to be removed to make space for the tower and its appurtenances. No trees may be removed for driveway purposes. The existing driveway shall be used to serve this tower. 3. The cutting of trees within 75 feet of both the existing and the new tower shall be limited to dead trees and trees of less than six (6) inches in diameter measured at six (6) inches above ground, except those trees identified on the plans as necessary for the establishment of the towers; 4. Removal of tree limbs of the remaining trees shown on either plan is prohibited unless recommended by an arborist for the health of the tree or required by a public utility. I:IDEPT\Building&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA2000-20.doc