HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201400017 Staff Report 2015-01-27 *we Nor
1IRG
VI
X
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201400017 Ntelos"CV108" (Piney Staff: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Mountain) Tier III PWSF (White Hall Magisterial District)
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing:
January 27, 2015 TBD
Owners: Crown Communications Inc and Phillip Haney Applicant: Jessica Wilmer, NTELOS
Acreage: 62 acres Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 21 Parcel 10A1 and Tax Map 21 Parcel 10 By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Location: 5214 Dickerson Road
Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers/Conditions: Yes, there are conditions
of approval for SP2002-81
Requested#of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA -X
Proposal: Request to replace six (6) existing panel Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
antennas on a single array on an existing 150 foot self- Area 1.
support tower that was previously approved by a special
use permit in 1997 (SP9700022), and amended in 2003
(SP200200081). Two special exceptions are required to
permit the size of the antennas and the mounting distance
of the antennas from the tower.
Character of Property: This property is zoned Rural Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The tower single family and vacant residential land.
is an existing previously approved facility located atop
7e,
Piney Mountain. The site is located in a heavily wooded
area that provides screening of the ground equipment.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1. Alternative mounting style which
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the increases the antenna standoff distance
modification will not increase or cause any new by 6 inches.
negative impacts to adjacent properties or
important resources. 2. Increased antenna size to facilitate 4G
service.
2. The proposal will not increase the negative visual
impact of the existing tower.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included are special exceptions for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)ii. Based on findings presented in
the staff report, staff recommends approval of SP201400017 and all special exception requests, with
conditions.
1
Now
STAFF CONTACT: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 27, 2015
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201400017— NTELOS "CV108" (Piney Mountain) Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 02100-00-00-010A1
LOCATION: 5249 Piney Mountain Road
PROPOSED: Request to replace six(6) existing panel antennas on a single array on an existing
150 foot self-support tower that was previously approved by a special use permit in 1997
(SP9700022), and amended in 2003 (SP200200081). Two special exceptions are required to
permit the size of the antennas and the mounting distance of the antennas from the tower.
PETITION: Section 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities (reference Section 5.1.40)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 1 -preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/
acre in development lots)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is zoned Rural Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The tower is an
existing previously approved facility located atop Piney Mountain. The site is located in a heavily
wooded area that provides screening of the ground equipment. No changes to the ground
equipment are proposed. -
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP9700022—On August 20, 1997 the Board of Supervisors granted approval of the Special
Use Permit to allow the construction of the existing 150 foot tall self supported tower along with
three (3) antenna arrays (non flush mounted).
SDP199700115-A site plan waiver was approved.
SP200200081 —On May 7, 2003 the Board of Supervisors granted approval of the Amendment
to the Special Use Permit to allow the co-location of a single array of nine (9) additional
antennas at approximately 93 feet on the existing 150-foot tall tower. Additional ground
equipment was also permitted. The amendment also limited the maximum number of arrays to
four (4).
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
Request to replace six (6) existing previously approved panel antennas on a single array at
approximately 146 foot on an existing 150 foot self-support tower with six (6) tri-band antennas.
The existing antennas were designed for 3G service and the replacement tri-band antennas will
provide 4G service. Three of the six proposed antennas will exceed the 1,152 square inch
requirement, measuring approximately 1,385.83 square inches. Also, in order to mount these
antennas the minimum distance from the face of the mount to the face of the antenna will be
increased approximately 6 inches. The existing array was approved as a non-flush mounted
array and currently has a mounting distance of 6 feet from the tower. In order to upgrade the
antennas the applicant requests a special exception to increase the distance of the antenna
from the tower to 6 foot 6 inches.
The antenna replacement proposal "substantially changes the physical dimensions of the
existing personal wireless service facility"as that phrase is uses in subsection 5.1.40(f) 2, 4, and
6 because the requirements of 5.1.40(c) 31 are not being met with this proposal. The applicant
requests two special exceptions: 1) to allow the size of the antennas to be greater than 1,152
square inches and 2) allow the minimum distance from the face of the mount to the face of the
antenna to exceeds the maximum 12" distance from the facility.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.4 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
No Substantial detriment. The proposed special use will not be a substantial
detriment to adiacent lots?
The equipment upgrades will not substantially change the visual impact of the existing tower,
nor will the upgrades be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties. The facility is
existing and no height increase is proposed, and no additional arrays or antennas are
proposed. Additional ground equipment is required with the upgrade and shall be stored in an
existing chain linked fence area in an existing shelter. The small change in antenna size and
mounting distance from the tower will not be discernible from adjacent properties or the
immediate surrounding area.
Character of the district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed
by the proposed special use?
The equipment upgrades will not substantially change the visibility of the existing tower. The
facility is exists and no height increases are proposed. The color of the proposed antennas
will match that of the existing structure. It is staffs opinion that the character of the RA, Rural
Area Zoning District will not be impacted by this proposal.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this chapter.
Staff finds that this request is consistent with the "purpose and intent" set forth in Sections 1.4
of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the Rural Areas chapter of
the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1).
...with the uses permitted by right in the district.
Since this request involves replacement of six (6) antennas on an existing previously
approved tower this proposal will not affect uses permitted by right in the district.
...with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposed replacement of antennas will provide
more reliable access to the wireless communication market, to include Rte 29, nearby
schools and residences. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and
welfare. Otherwise, no change to the public health, safety and general welfare is expected
with approval of the request.
...with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable
The county's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40(e) are
addressed as follows [Ordinance sections are in bold italics]:
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.
"(i) ... each antenna proposed under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application.,which size shall
not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two(1,1E2)square inches;(ii)no antenna shall project from the facility,structure or
building 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 facility,structure or building"
3
Section 5.1.40(e) Tier Ill facilities. Each Tier Ill facility may be established upon approval
of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 33.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a), 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)subsections 5.1.40(c)(2) through (8)
and subsections 5.1.40(d)(2),(3) 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 33.4 special use
permits have been met. The County's specific design criteria for Tier Ill facilities set forth in
Sections 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows:
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable
regulations in this chapter.
The wireless facility is existing and meets the required setbacks. Antennae and equipment
specifications have been provided in Attachment B to demonstrate that personal wireless
service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section
32 of the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as
follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be
permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each
outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii)
any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from
all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added
vegetation approved by the county's landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six
(6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding
rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one(1)
inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility
or the structure; and(vi) within one month after the completion of the installation of the
facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of
all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed changes to the tower do not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be
fitted with any whip antennas. All other requirements of this subsection have been met.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall
not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending
application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not
exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall
project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment,
and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve(12)
inches from the existing structure; and(iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall
be a color that matches the existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of
antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three
arrays.
The number of existing arrays exceeds the three (3) that are permitted by the ordinance;
however, the previous Special Use Permit (SP2002-81) allowed for four(4) vertical arrays of
4
w
Now-
panel antennas and allowed the retention of the existing two (2) dish type antennas which were
already located on the facility. The top three (3) antenna arrays were previously approved in
1997 as non-flush mounted and currently have a mounting distance of 6 foot from the tower. As
part of this application the applicant requests a special exception to Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii of the
ordinance to increase the mounting distances on the uppermost array for the six (6) panel
antennas from the structure by an additional 6 inches for a total mounting distance of 6 foot 6
inches from the tower.
Also, as part of this application the applicant requests a special exception to Section
5.1.40(c)(3)1 of the ordinance to increase the size of three (3) of the six (6) antennas beyond the
maximum size of 1,152 square inches, to 1,385.83 square inches, which is 233.83 square
inches beyond that of the allowable size.
The intent of 5.1.40(c) is to insure minimal visibility of antennas on a structure and a
modification of this provision is generally discouraged. For this request, the antennas are
proposed on an existing steel self supported tower with four existing arrays, three of which have
antennas that currently exceed the 12 inch standoff distance by five foot. The proposed
mounting distance and slightly larger sized antenna would allow upgraded service to be
provided on an existing modified array, thereby eliminating the need to add a new array to the
tower. Given the existing visual impact of the tower, the resulting additional impact of the
additional 6 inch standoff distance and additional 233.83 square inches for the proposed
antennas on the existing array is not seen as significant. The proposal supports the use of an
existing structure to provide for service needs, and staff can recommend approval of the special
exception for this particular proposal.
The proposed changes to the tower meet all other relevant design criteria of this subsection.
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 installation/replacement of the proposed antenna array for this personal wireless service
facility will not require the removal of any trees.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5) The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. 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 except for those trees identified on
the plan to be removed for installation, operation or maintenance of the facility. Dead
and dying trees identified by the arborist's report may be removed if so noted on the tree
conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by the agent
when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submit an amended
plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will not
adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any location off of the parcel. The agent
may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are
achieved.
As stated above, this is an existing tower where no changes are proposed that will require the
removal of any trees.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): Within thirty(30) days after a facility's use for personal wireless
service purposes is discontinued, the owner of the facility shall notify the zoning
administrator in writing that the facility's use has discontinued. 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 this facility discontinue at anytime in the future, nTelos and/or its assignee(s)will
be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): 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.
This is an existing facility. No steep slopes are affected are affected by this proposal.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8):Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building
shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would
protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian
traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not
be detrimental to the character of the area; and(iii) would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or general welfare.
The existing ground equipment is contained in a fenced area and shelter that will also house the
new ground equipment; therefore, this proposal will not be detrimental to the character of the
area, or to the health, safety or general welfare of the public.
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.
The existing self supported tower has been in place for over 17 years, with the most recent
amendment taking place over 11 years ago. The proposed changes are not expected to
increase the negative visual impact on neighboring properties or surrounding areas.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the
county's open space plan.
6
The existing self supported tower has been in place for over 17 years, with the most recent
amendment taking place over 11 years ago. The proposed changes are not expected to
increase the negative visual impact on any resources in the open space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each 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, façade 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.
This is an existing lattice tower and all proposed equipment will comply with the requirements.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special
use permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 33.4).
Section 704(a) (7) (b) (I) (II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof(I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting structure
all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed
antenna additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting
process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the
provision of personal wireless services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the modification will not increase or cause any
new negative impacts to adjacent properties or important resources.
2. The proposal will not increase the negative visual impact of the existing tower.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
7
NOSIO ‘40104'
• 1. Alternative mounting style which increases the antenna standoff distance by 6 inches.
• 2. Increased antenna size to facilitate 4G service.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance if recommended for denial,
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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2014-00017 nTelos CV108 Piney
Mountain Tier III PWSF with the conditions listed below, and of the requested special
exceptions to Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i) and Section 5.1.40(c)3ii based on the analysis provided
herein.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The development of the site, and any modifications to the uppermost array at elevation
146', shall be in general accord with the plan titled "Piney Mountain CV108" prepared by
Christopher D. Morin, and dated 12/31/14 (hereafter"Conceptual Plan"), as determined
by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with
the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements
within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the
Conceptual Plan:
a. Mounting type and distance
b. Antenna type and size
c. Number of antennae
d. Color
e. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The tower shall not be increased in height.
3. The lowest array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of the tower.
The cables extending from the ground equipment may remain black;
b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7)feet in height and two (2) feet in width;
c. No antenna shall project from the facility, structure or building 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 facility, structure or building.
d. The antennas and dishes attached to this tower may be replaced without amending
this special use permit, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the
replacement equipment are in compliance with these conditions of approval and in
accordance with all applicable regulations set forth in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. The tower shall be limited to a total of four(4) vertical arrays of panel antennas. No
additional relay, satellite or microwave dish antennas shall be permitted on the tower.
5. This special use permit must be amended to allow the three uppermost arrays of panel
antennas to be: (a) relocated on the structure; (b) modified to increase the number of
size of panel antennas; or(c) modified to increase the distance of the panel antennas
from the structure.
8
luso
r
Zoning Ordinance Special Exceptions:
' 1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i) - Modification of requirement to increase the size of three (3) of
the six (6) antennas to 1,385.83 square inches.
2. Section 5.1.40(c)3ii - Modification of requirement to increase the mounting distances of
six (6) panel antennas from the structure by an additional 6 inches for the uppermost
array for a total mounting distance of 6 foot 6 inches from the tower.
Motions (Two Separate):
Motion One for Special Exceptions: The Planning Commission's role is to recommend
approval or denial of the Special Exceptions to Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i and Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii of
the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the Special
Exception to Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i and Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii
I move to recommend granting the Special Exceptions for the reasons outlined in
the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of these Special
Exceptions:
I move to recommend denial of the Special Exceptions outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two for Special Use Permit: The Planning Commission's role in this case
(SP20140017) is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier Ill
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20140017 nTelos CV108 Piney Mountain with
the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier Ill personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 20140017 nTelos CV108 Piney Mountain.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Parcel and Location Maps
B. Concept Plan
C. Photo Simulations
D. SP97-22 CFW Wireless (Piney Mountain) Approval Letter, dated August 11, 1997
E. SP2002-81 Phillip Haney— Crown Tower Piney Mountain Amendment Approval Letter,
dated May 20, 2003.
9