Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLOD199100022 Action Letter 2017-07-12COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 November 21, 1991 Collin Ross WINA Radio P. O. Box 498 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Property of Charlottesville Broadcasting Corporation; Radio Tower Replacement - Tax map 44, Parcel 34A Dear Mr. Ross: The purpose'of this letter is two -fold: to provide a written record of my determination for approval, and to respond to questions and concerns of the neighbors of this property. Your concurrence with the facts of this case as represented in this letter will be obtained prior to my signature, and prior to distribution to interested parties. You contacted this office with an inquiry about County requirements for the proposed tower replacements in early August, 1991. You contacted Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive by telephone, and were referred to me. Due to the age and resulting structural defects of the towers, your tower/antenna consultants indicated.that replacement rather than continued repair was the most practical solution to prevent an "exigent circumstance." You provided information requested by me, and informed me by phone message of a start date of October 24th. The facts of the case include the following: • This property is owned by Charlottesville Broadcasting Corporation, and consists of 20.88 acres. It is zoned Rural Areas. • The property is used for WINA A.M. radio station. • The structures in question are four (4) tubular towers of 245 feet height. They are painted red and white, and are lighted on the top. Adjacent to each tower is one small "doghouse" structure. November 21, 1991 Collin Ross, WINA Towers Page 2 e The structures were erected and the use began prior to the first zoning ordinance in Albemarle County in 1969. You proposal was to replace each tower with a new structure of equivalent size, in close proximity to the old tower. Due to reasons of foundational/structural stability., and practicality, the new towers would be affixed to new bases. Each base, and therefore each new tower, would be no further than five (5) feet from the old tower. This proposal did not constitute a change in or expansion of use based on the following: 1. No additional structures; 2. No increase in structure height or major dimensions; 3. No substantial change in location, including no reduction of setback beyond the minimum required; 4. No increase in power output, frequency, or the like; 5. No new or changed purposes of the property. The basis for my determination of compliance and approval for construction is as follows: These towers are non -conforming or "grandfathered" from the current Zoning Ordinance. For establishment of a new such use, a special permit is currently required. A non -conforming use is protected under State Code, and local ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance permits a non- conforming use, other than signage and some other exceptions, to continue unless abandoned for a period of two (2) or more years. The relevant Zoning Ordinance Section 6.0, allows for such use to be continued unless abandoned. Section 6.6.1 permits restoration or replacement of non -conforming structures/uses, under certain conditions. It is my opinion, based on the analysis of your tower consultants, that these conditions are met. (This is a somewhat atypical application of this ordinance. It most often arises with residential structures, in which case, the Albemarle County Building official provides similar analysis. November 21, 1991 Collin Ross, WINA Tower Page 3 The approval I have granted is consistent with the administrative practice of similar applications. This approval is limited to the work currently occurring, and as outlined in this letter. Any new structures, including buildings or towers, will require additional review. This may include approval by the Board of Supervisors of a special permit. I have discussed several of the homeowner's questions and requests with you. You have indicated a desire to "be a good neighbor" and consider items which exceed my authority to require. You have further indicated a willingness to participate in further discussions with residents, particularly with respect to individual problems, such as interference_ Out of consideration for its negative impact on the neighbors, you have chosen not to change the lighting to a strobe light. A strobe would have exempted the towers from the color requirements, which involves much long term maintenance. In addition, you have chosen to replace the "doghouses," which were in a poor condition, with new wooden buildings which will be stained. In terms of concerns over potential harmful effects of a.m. transmission, you have noted that research has yielded conflicting results. You note the fencing placement was required by the FCC to obviate such effects. With respect to the building closest to the road, and not proposed for replacement, you are considering several voluntary improvements. These may include repainting to a natural color, providing a pitched roof, and/or evergreen landscaping. This building has been mentioned by some to constitute more visual impact than the towers. You have stated that there should be no additional interference as a result of these structural replacements. The current situation, operating one tower with increased power under a variance, is temporary until the tower bases and the guy wire stakes are hard. You have mentioned requirements by the FCC to control/limit interference, as well as possible traps to accomplish same. It is my opinion that the appropriate course is to have those who are experiencing increased or unreasonable interference contact you. I have no authority in this issue, and may further delay communication for a resolution. This letter has outlined my approval in terms of the case's facts, the "conditions" of approval, and the zoning authority for such. In addition, I have noted areas of neighborhood concern, with your considerations for resolution. r November 21, 1991 Collin Ross, WINA Tower Page 4 I have finally explained the current temporary situation of operation, until tests are approved by the FCC. In the future, I suggest that earlier contact, on both of our parts, with the neighborhood would avoid concern and confusion. Sincerely, &�� Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp cc: Bob Brandenburger Richard Lee Charlotte Humphries Reading files by TM/P