HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199900009 Plan - Approved 1999-05-13 y."`N -1 OF Al.44,
4 2r '...tr•
i.
U 141 Of
�VI*1'7.il'il...)
RG11`1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road, Room 223
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Building Code Information FAX(804)9724126 Zoning Information
(804)296-5832 TTD(804)972-4012 (804)296-5875
May 13, 1999
Dick Shearer
1150 Shenandoah Village Drive
Waynesboro, VA 22980
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-99-09—Tax Map 057, Parcel 41 L
Dear Mr. Shearer:
This letter is to inform you that the Board of Zoning Appeals heard your variance application, VA-99-09,
on May 11, 1999. The Board ruled (5:0)to approve the request with the following conditions to minimize
the visual effects and to insure that the tower stays within a treed area:
1) 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,
including the driveway;
2) The cutting of trees within 75 feet of the 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 plan as necessary for the establishment of the tower;
3) Removal of tree limbs of the remaining trees shown on the plan is prohibited unless recommended
by an arborist for the health of the tree or required by a public utility.
This variance approval grants relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow
a variance of 65 feet to allow a telecommunications facility to be 10 feet from the right-of-way of Route
250. The facility will consist of a 90-foot wooden pole, two 7-foot antennas, one equipment cabinet and
the appurtenant electrical and telephone items necessary for operations.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jan Sprinkle
Chief of Zoning Administration
AGM/st
Cc: Planning Department
Robert L. Cross (Va9906app.doc)
STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle
PUBLIC HEARING: May 11, 1999
STAFF REPORT VA-99-09
OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert L. Cross, owner/ CFW Wireless, applicant
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05700-00-00-041L0
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor
SIZE: 400 square feet of leased area within a 6-acre parcel
LOCATION: On Wild Turkey Lane which is on the south side of Rt. 250,
approximately one mile west of its intersection with Rt. 240
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from
Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 75-foot front yard for all
structures in the RA district. A variance of 65 feet is requested to allow a
telecommunications facility 10 feet from the right-of-way of Rt. 250. The facility will
consist of a 90-foot wooden pole, two 7-foot antennas, one equipment cabinet and the
appurtenant electrical and telephone items necessary for operations.
RELEVANT HISTORY: None
STAFF INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS OF PROPERTY: This
case and VA 99-10 are not our usual variance requests. These cases involve the
rapidly growing, perceived need for telecommunication towers. During the review of
the special use permits for these two towers (and one to be heard next month),
Planning staff has found that although the requests have responded to and met the
recommendations of the Planning staff, Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors, they conflict with our setback regulations. Since this has just come to light,
the variance is by far the quickest route to allowing the applicants to move forward while
County staff tries to examine and rewrite our regulations to fit the newly formulated, but
yet-unadopted policy. Staffs intention is to add language to the ordinance exempting
towers from all required yards and to allow the Planning Commission or Board of
Supervisors to precisely locate towers where they have the least visual impact on our
community. This will maintain control of the use and location of the towers while
allowing our citizens to have full coverage along our rural highways for their cellular
phones and personal communications systems. The policy involves use of more,
shorter poles that must be located closer to the roads that they serve and the use of
treed areas to screen the towers and mitigate the visual impact on our citizens and
visitors. Please see Attachment A regarding the County's policy on towers.
The Planning Commission has already heard the SP requests on both of these towers
and recommended approval. They will not act on the waiver request that would allow
the towers to be closer to the right-of-way than the height of the tower until such time as
the BZA acts on these variance requests. Should the variances be denied there would
Staff Report: VA 99-09 Page 2 May 11, 1999
be no action by the PC needed on these sites since the towers will have to be proposed
in different locations.
GENERAL CRITERIA COMMENTS: Under State Code section 15.2-2309, the Board
of Zoning Appeals may authorize a variance from the terms of the ordinance when it is
not contrary to the public interest, if owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of
the provision will result in unnecessary hardship. In authorizing a variance, the Board
may consider the "exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or
condition of such piece of property, or the use or development of property immediately
adjacent thereto." In both of these cases, the properties were selected partly due to their
topographic features which are excellent for siting a tower and their location adjacent to
roads that currently have problems with mobile telephone coverage. The specific sites
on the parcels were selected because they meet the "to-be-adopted" county policy
regarding minimization of visual impact to the adjacent properties and to the residents
and tourists traveling our roadways. The "other extraordinary situation" is that the only
area with trees that meets the County's policy is within the front setback. To require the
setback to be maintained would cause the towers to be located in open areas where
they would not meet the policy and therefore, these parcels would probably not be
granted the special use permits necessary to have the use available. Therefore, the
strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the use of the
property. Granting the variance would alleviate that hardship and meet the county's
goal of providing mobile phone service.
At this point, the hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning
district and the same vicinity—only three properties in the entire county are involved
now. Staff hopes to formulate a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to
the ordinance before more such applications come along. In the meantime, staff
opinion is that granting the variances will be in harmony with the intended spirit and
purpose of the ordinance and certainly with the stated telecommunications policy.
For this request—VA 99-09—the most striking topographic feature of the parcel is the
height above the roadway. This site is close to the highest point along Rt. 250 for
several miles in either direction. The site for the tower is approximately 20 to 25 feet
above the roadbed of Rt. 250. With the existing vegetation and trees all along the right-
of-way, the tower will not be noticed by any of the residents in the immediate area (other
than the cottage on the same property) during seasons of foliage and possibly not in
any season. In the opposite direction across the Mechums River, the closest point of
Rt. 682 is approximately 2000 feet away, so IF there is any visibility from residences in
that area, the distance will make the tower difficult to pick out from the surrounding
vegetation.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows:
1:1DEPT\Building&ZoninglReports\VA99-09.doc
Staff Report: VA 99-09 Page 3 May 11, 1999
Hardship
The applicant comments that the variance is necessary because:
• Strict application of this ordinance would force CFW Wireless to move the proposed
site outside the available tree cover thereby increasing the view of the wooden pole,
and,
• The Planning Commission recommended the location of the site within the treed
area.
Staff finds that the topographic necessity of the siting of a tower; the location of the
roads that need to be served; and finally, the County policy of shorter wooden poles
close to the roads, unreasonably restricts the use of this property. If the setback
regulation is strictly applied, the special use permit will not be granted.
1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
• Due to the height of the pole, such hardship is not shared by other properties in the
same zoning district and vicinity.
Staff finds that this application is unique to the three known cases mentioned in this
report due to the county's new policy on telecommunication facilities. There are no
other current situations where the PC's and BOS'policy dictate use of a site that is
within a required setback.
2. The applicant has 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:
• The authorization of this variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property because of the existing trees that the site would be located in. Moving the
site to adhere to the ordinance would cause a substantial detriment to the adjacent
property because of the exposed nature of the site.
!:IDEPT Building&ZoninglReporfslVA99-09.doc
Staff Report: VA 99-09 Page 4 May 11, 1999
Staff agrees that the addition of the wooden pole style tower and its appurtenances will
not change the character of the district. By keeping it in the treed area, the visual effect
will be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
3. 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 all three criteria have been met, staff
recommends approval. If the Board agrees, staff recommends the following conditions
to minimize the visual effects and to insure that the tower stays within a treed area:
1. 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, including the driveway;
2. The cutting of trees within 75 feet of the 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 plan as necessary for the establishment
of the tower;
3. Removal of tree limbs of the remaining trees shown on the plan is prohibited unless
recommended by an arborist for the health of the tree or required by a public utility.
1:IDEP71Building&ZoninglReports\VA99-09.doc