Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300048 Minutes Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-01-09May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 41) County Code § 17-207(B)(3)(b) requires that the Board set a new deadline to install permanent opinion is that extending the deadline to Augaust 14, 2014 is reasonable. Staff does not recommend any other conditions. The Water Protection Ordinance requires yearly renewal fees of $100 per disturbed acre. No changes to funding or staff resources are anticipated as a result of this request. Staff recommends approval of the request for an extension under County Code § 17-207(B)(3) for WPO 2011-00068 New Ragged Mountain Dam and WPO 2012-00066 Ragged Mountain Dam Borrow Area with the following condition: 1. Permanent vegetation on all denuded areas shall be installed by Aug 14, 2014. _____ Ms. Palmer moved to approve the request for an extension under County Code § 17-207(B)(3) for WPO 2011-00068 New Ragged Mountain Dam and WPO 2012-00066 Ragged Mountain Dam Borrow Area subject to the recommended condition. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel. NAYS: None. (The condition of approval is set out below:) 1. Permanent vegetation on all denuded areas shall be installed by Aug 14, 2014. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. Appeal: SDP-2013-00048. Durkin Property AT&T Tier II Wireless Facility. The executive summary stats that a T (County Code §§ 18- standards applicable to Tier II facilities, County Code § 18- provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from County Code § 18-32 is not required for a Tier II facility, County Code § 18-5.1.40(b)(5) provides that a requirements of section [18-]32 and the applicant shall submit all schematics, plans, calculations, drawings and other information required by the site plan agent to determine whether the facility complies with section [18--5.1.40(d) authorizes the County Code § 18-5.1.40 are satisfied. The applicant proposes to construct a 131.5 foot tall Tier II facility on the parcel located at 4798 Stony Point Road, which is also identified as Tax Map and Parcel Number 03400-00-00-07000 (the acres in size, and is partially wooded with an existing dwelling on it. The Parcel fronts on Route 20 (Stony Point Road), is within the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district and the Entrance Corridor (EC) overlay district. The Parcel also abuts the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District on two sides, but it is not within the district (See Attachment B for a map of the district). Some of the abutting parcels are relatively small, ranging from 0.79 acres to 5 acres, and are used for residential purposes. Other parcels in the area, some abutting the Durkin Parcel, are fairly large and unwooded, and some have dwellings and some are vacant (See Attachment I for aerial photograph of the surrounding area). staff) disapproved the application because the proposed facility failed to satisfy County Code §§ 18-5.1.40(d)(2) (facility not screened and sited to minimize its visibility) and 18- 5.1.40(b)(5) (failure to provide all information required by County Code § 18-32; specifically, an erosion and sediment control plan required by County Code § 18-32.7.4.1(a)). The applicant timely appealed the decision. Screening and siting to minimize visibility (County Code § 18-5.1.40(d)(2)) Balloon tests were conducted on September 25, 2013 and February 20, 2014 (See Attachment C for balloon test photographs). A balloon test consists of raising one or more balloons from the site to a height equal to the proposed facility (County Code § 18-5.1.40(a)(6)(c)). During the balloon tests for this proposed Tier II facility, staff traveled Stony Point Road (Route 20), Gilbert Station Road (State Route 640) and Turkey Sag Road (State Route 640), and visited abutting and surrounding parcels to observe the visibility of the balloons. The applicant also submitted photo simulations of the proposed Tier II facility (See Attachment D for photo simulations). The owners of several abutting parcels submitted letters detailing the visual impacts to their properties that would be caused by the proposed facility (Attachment F). comments from abutting landowners (Attachment F): May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 42) During the balloon tests, the balloon was highly visible from the residence on an abutting parcel (TMP 03400-00-070C0). The facility was highly sky lit, meaning that the sky served as its he facility must The proposed location for the tower is northeast of the reference tree and the trees in front of or behind the tower when viewed from the residence on TMP 03400-00-070C0 and from the Piedmont Manor house and grounds on TMP 03500-00-00-02100 are significantly shorter than skylighting. (Attachment A, pages 1 and 2) The owner of TMP 03400-00- impacts my view shed tremendously as the area is not nearly wooded enough to cover the width Piedmont Manor Land Trust, the owner of not only the parcel on which the Piedmont Manor house (a contributing structure to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District) is located, but reference tree and deliberately positioned so trees lying between the tower and the majority of the adjacent properties with a view of the representative no trees shown on this diagram actually lie west of the tower and provide no screening whatsoever Land Trust (Sipe), February 28, 2014) The owner of TMP 03400-00-00- ct one of the areas that give Albemarle County the prestige and beauty and that is talked about by many as they pass through the county, from those getting their first impression, to the people traveling the corridor on a daily The proposed location for the tower is located to one side of the Durkin Parcel and relatively close to the property line, which increases the visual impacts on abutting parcels. The proposed location fails to provide adequate opportunities for screening the tower and its related facilities. (Attachment A, page 2) The representative for the Piedmont Manor Land Trust stated that the at a point on the Durkin property that Piedmont Manor Land Trust (Sipe), February 28, 2014). visibility were suggested by staff, provided by staff included increasing the distance and buffering of trees between the tower and neighboring parcels, and reduce the height or bulk of the tower. (Attachment A, pages 1 and 2) The owner of TMP 03400-00-070B0 stated that the proposed tower would be less visible from his parcel if it was 50 to 100 feet further back in the woods on the Durkin Parcel. (Attachment F, Communication Summary, page 1 (Critzer)). This sentiment was repeated by the representative ent F, Piedmont Manor Land Trust (Sipe), January 22, 2014). requirements of County Code § 18-5.1.40(d)(2). Providing all information required by County Code § 18-32 (County Code § 18-5.1.40(b)(5)) The proposal contains over 10,000 square feet of proposed land disturbance and requires an erosion and sediment control plan to be submitted and approved. County Code § 18-5.1.40(b)(5) requires that the applicant submit all plans required by the agent to determine whether the facility complies with County Code § 18-32. The applicant has not submitted an erosion and sediment control plan as required to determine whether the proposed facility complies with the applicable requirements of Chapter 17 of the County Code, as required by County Code § 18-32.7.4.1(a). Staff recommends that the Board affirm the disapproval of SDP 2013-00048. If the Board reaches such consensus, staff recommends that the Board provide direction to staff on the basis for its consideration and action. _____ Ms. Dittmar said that she had two calls from constituents wanting to know if this was in the and asked Mr. Foley if staff could be sure to add it. Mr. Chris Perez, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that they would be considering an appeal for SDP 2013-00048, a Tier II treetop tower on the Durkin property. He said that this tower was May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 43) reference tree and the applicant has followed through with that. Mr. Perez said that the agent and the designee disapproved the application on May 27, 2014, and the applicant had since appealed the decision. He stated that the denial was based on two factors in the ordinance, Section 5.1.40.D2 facility not screening and siting to minimize visibility; and 5.1.40.B5 failure to provide all information required by the County code; Section 32 specify an ENS plan. Mr. Perez stated that staff was up against a 90-day review process on this, as dictated by Section 5.1.40.H1, and they must make a finding within 90 days of application. He said that they got their third review done at approximately 89 days, and requested to the applicant that he extend the 90-day review process so he could continue to go over the issues with regard to visibility, but the applicant was not at liberty to extend the period. Mr. Perez said that staff went ahead with final action and disapproved the proposal, and staff believes that the visibility could be mitigated for the proposal if the applicant were amenable to that but through the reviews that happened, no efforts Mr. Perez reported that the Durkin property is Tax Map Parcel 34-70, zoned Rural Areas, and is 29 acres. He said that it is located on Route 29, Stony Point Road, which is an entrance corridor overlay district, and the project was reviewed by the ARB, which did find approval as the visibility on Route 20 was deemed Southwest Mountains Historic District, and while this property is not specifically in that district, it is in the avoidance area. He stated that the surrounding areas of this property are some small lots 0.79 acres to 5.0 acres mostly residential, and the other surrounding areas are larger, unwooded properties. Mr. Davis property. Mr. Perez stated that the proposed tower is 131.5 feet tall, 10 feet above the reference tree, which is within 25 feet of the tower, and presented a site plan. He presented slides and noted the location from where he took the pictures, on the Jones property, and said there were two balloon tests that happened on the property one in the fall when there were no leaves, and one in the summer when there were leaves. Mr. Perez stated that the Jones property is approximately 1,600 feet away from the tower, and pointed out where the picture was taken from her property as well as where the tower is located. He said that the first balloon test was held on September 25, 2013, with the second taking place on February 20, 2014, and from the Jones property the balloon was highly visible and extremely skylit. considered, which staff did. He stated that Ms. Jean Jones contacted staff on numerous occasions, and she is opposed to the project for visibility issues, with regard to enjoyment of her property as well as property values. Mr. Perez said that staff requested photo simulations from the applicant from this viewpoint because of the extreme visibility, and he presented to the Board what was provided. He presented views from other properties, including Tax Map 35-21, owned by the Piedmont Manor Land Trust, and said that during the first balloon test staff was not invited to that property but during the second balloon test, when all the neighbors were notified by the applicant, staff was invited to that property and was able to take photos. He presented photos taken during that visit, noting the r. Perez reported that the Piedmont Manor Land Trust had hired Mr. Sipe as their legal counsel, and he is present at the meeting, with his correspondence in the staff report. He said that he and Margaret Malizewsky of the ARB staff had driven around the property to see areas where they could see the, but because of the mountain backdrop, the visibility was minimized. Mr. Perez presented a view from a property 3,000 feet away, and while the isibility so to go 3,000 feet back Ms. Mallek asked if there were also photo simulations from that view, because a large brown tower would look different than a small pink balloon. e the view was so minimized by the mountain and the trees. He presented additional balloon test photos from other properties including the Critzer property, s with the height of the tower but did have concerns about the ground equipment. He said that staff discussed this with the applicant, given that the pine trees are not all on the Critzer property and could be removed at any time, which would mean increased visibility of that equipment. Mr. Perez said that staff had suggested putting in a six-foot tall wooden fence for screening purposes, as other towers have done, but no efforts were made to provide that screening prior to reaching the 90-day window. He said that the proposal includes a 12-foot wide gravel access road and a 25-foot wide access easement, which contains over 10,000 square feet of proposed land disturbance, and because it is over that limit, an erosion and sediment control plan is required. does one exist for the property. extension in order to allow more time to get everything done. Mr. Perez responded that the applicant said took action before the shot clock expired. May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 44) Ms. Mallek asked if there was any response from the applicant as to why they refused to provide the E&S report. Mr. Perez said that the applicant said they wanted to wait until they knew the County would approve the location of the tower, and then submit the E&S plan. Mr. Perez confirmed that was the case. Ms. Dittmar noted that the ARB had gone ahead and approved it. Mr. Perez explained that the views from the Entrance Corridor, Route 20, were fairly quick when driving down Route 20, and one of the things that the ARB considers is how long the visibility is so there may be a little blip before you hit a tree line. He also stated that Route 20 is a scenic byway, but because the tower is far more than 200 feet away from the road, it would be a Tier III tower, which would have to go through the special use permit process. application. Mr. Davis said that the application would be denied, and the applicant could make a resubmittal with a different location on the property or appeal it to the courts. Ms. Dittmar said they could remedy what the problems were. Ms. Mallek and that was their choice. Mr. Davis said that was correct, and if the Board approves the appeal, the recommended scenario would be to approve it contingent upon them submitting an approved E&S plan before disturbing submitted. Ms. Dittmar stated that this would buy time to take care of the second objection from staff, but Mr. Perez said that there was nothing to address with what is in the proposal in front of them. Mr. Davis said that the criteria considered is whether or not the facility has been sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets the visibility and that there could be other locations on the site that might meet that standard if they chose to do so Ms. Dittmar asked staff if they felt there might be another site on this parcel. Mr. Perez said that had been presented. He said that they could lower the height of this tower, move it to the left where it is closer to a tree where the visibility is less, add buffer by moving it back a little bit but at this point what he has in front of him is what he has reviewed. Ms. Dittmar asked if people could withdraw their appeals, and asked if it kept them in the process if they wanted to remedy this, because it sounds as if everyone was running out of time. Mr. Davis said that the applicant could request a deferral and work with staff in the meantime to see if there was a solution but withdrawing their appeal would leave them in a state of denial. He also confirmed that the applicant woul -year holdback after the denial because this is a ministerial application. Mr. Preston Lloyd addressed the Board, stating that he represents Williams Mullen law firm and was before them on behalf of AT&T. Mr. Lloyd said that the essence of the appeal is to answer one single question what is the appropriate standard for minimizing visibility. He said that they got to a point in the application process where staff and the applicant disagreed on how that was being applied, and at that point they felt the Board needed to weigh in on this. Mr. Lloyd stated that they feel there before they move forward. He said that the next step involves a lot of engineering the E&S report and typically that would be submitted after some indication from staff that the general tower location is acceptable. Mr. Lloyd said that this would provide AT&T with the confidence needed to move forward s then needs to submit an E&S report and upon its approval, this would be an approvable site. Mr. Lloyd said that this was the process that AT&T was looking for. Mr. Lloyd reported on the process that AT&T goes through when finding a new site, stating that there are a lot of reasons they may need a new facility the two major ones being there is infill needed where there is a lack of coverage, especially in rural areas, and the other is a capacity issue whereby too many people are trying to ping onto the same towers. He said that AT&T hires an outside consultant a site acquisition specialist and then provide them with a search ring in which they must site a new facility. Mr. Lloyd stated that the specialist then goes out and searches that ring to try to find properties within that May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 45) sends a signal to the provider in terms of what they want in terms of the facilities that can be approved from a zoning perspective. Mr. Lloyd said that originally, when the technology was new, it was the Wild West without a lot of guidance available from the County so every single facility had to be brought before the Board and considered on its merits every time. Mr. Lloyd said that it was a very cumbersome e from the carrier as to what would be approved because the decision would change every single time based on the variables associated with each individual site. He stated that over time, Congress got involved due to NIMBY reasons, but they felt it was a necessary technology and decided that the best way for the siting to be regulated was local governments. Mr. Lloyd said that local governments were given the power to figure out where the towers would go, but there was a limit to that power, which was that prevent them from coming or create regulations that deny certain areas service. He stated that this set the boundaries for the counties and what they would do in trying to develop the zoning policy that was then given to the wireless providers to determine where to put facilities in the community. Mr. Lloyd said that in December 2000, Albemarle adopted a personal wireless facilities policy that said this is the guideline from a policy perspective for the carriers, and that had one specific policy recommendation for the rural areas and that was for treetop towers, those just visible above the trees. Lloyd said that the treetop tower concept is that it would be shielded by the trees for 90% of the tower, but sinking the money into the construction. He stated that the County adopted the Zoning Ordinance to essentially codify that policy; they took the policy recommendations and they made them law, creating a three-tiered process with existing facilities as Tier I; new facilities that meet design criteria provided by the County as Tier II; and facilities built into an avoidance area as Tier III. Mr. Lloyd said that there is great advantage to both the County and the providers in having a clear articulation of the policy; it has to be em viewpoints, and what may be skylit from one perspective may be back dropped from another perspective ticular site. Mr. Lloyd said that the zoning ordinance states very clearly that the site must provide adequate opportunities for screening and shall be sited to minimize visibility. He said that there is a misunderstanding, which is why he is before them to its coverage objective. Mr. Lloyd stated that the question is how you design a facility to be built and wireless policy shows two photographs of a treetop tower, and states that this is the type of facility supported by the County which looks very similar to pictures they saw today. Mr. Lloyd said that this is what carriers are being told the County will approve, and yet they have a staff recommendation that says the AT&T facility is too visible. He presented examples of sites that have been approved over the past comparison is that the adjacent neighbor has said that the trees will not totally cover the width and height of the tower t there are other sites around the County as well, and he presented pictures from Walton Middle School, which was mentioned that there is a big difference when there are leaves on the trees, and presented a photo of a site that was taken in wintertime and stated that many of the pictures from staff for the AT&T site where Ms. Mallek said that the thickness of the trees on the AT&T site was radically different from the site that he was showing. and an excerpt from the policy res less visible and less were supposed to use when siting facilities in the County, and noting that they were much less screened than the AT&T facility before them. Mr. Lloyd said that they are just looking from guidance from the Ms. Dittmar asked where the closest towers were to this facility. Mr. Lloyd presented a signal propagation map, which showed two other facilities located to the north and south of this proposed want to move the facility back from Route 20, as proposed by staff, was that it created gaps in two specific locations, and also because they felt confused by the visibility standard. Ms. Jean Jones addressed the Board, stating that she was the owner of the property that is affected dramatically by this proposed tower installation. She presented a picture of her property taken earlier that day, showing a swing in her front yard and a picture of her sitting in the swing with the proposed cell tower in the view. Ms. Jones said that she is not opposed to progress and technology, and May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 46) was on her cell phone all the time. She stated that she bought this piece of property to retreat from the assault of social media, the scenic views, the rolling meadows, the farm across the street, and the beautiful mountains. Ms. Jones said that the installation of this cell tower in this location is an assault on her quality of life, and she has heard four Supervisors mention that their job is to protect that. She stated ted that this needs to be to the County when she bought her house, which was assessed for just under $1 million, but the bank assessed it at $300,000 in one of the most beautiful corridors of Albemarle and if they lowered her taxes, they would have to do today. Ms. Dittmar asked Ms. Jones if she had good cell service. Ms. Jones said that it was not as good as what she got in the City, but it was fair and she was able to talk on her cell phone when she was in her farmhouse and on her property. Ms. Nicole Lewis addressed the Board, stating that she lives at 4894 Stony Point Road, a few doors down from Ms. Jones, and the impact on her farm is significant but not as much as on Ms. Jones which is the most beautiful corridor how this tower might impact them. Ms. Lewis said that the Piedmont Manor property is the most pristine property s Mr. James Critzer addressed the Board, stating that he lives at 4742 Stony Point Road and noting that the proposed tower would be 220 feet from his property line, and the pictures they showed with the isible the minute he turns onto his driveway, and from different parts of his yard he would be able to see all of the structure that supports this the building, the fencing, and other ground equipment. He stated that he uses all of his yard, with playgrounds for the kids and a built-in pool, and they would be able to see the tower from everywhere on his property. Mr. Critzer said that when people beautiful it is there, and it really is beautiful. He stated that it is one of the most beautiful corridors in Albemarle, and when this tower is put there it will change that. Mr. Critzer said that staff has done a good job in approving many towers around the County, approve it and there was a reason. He emphasized that staff has done a very good job in their review Mr. Maynard Sipe addressed the Board, stating that he represents Piedmont Manor Trust, a historic property located directly across the road from the proposed cell tower site. Mr. Sipe said that the trustee and owner of the property, Ms. Ellen Hampton, is at the meeting. He stated that she had contacted him because of her concerns about the visibility of the tower and its negative impact on her properties; she owns Piedmont Manor as well as a small house that directly abuts the site. Mr. Sipe said that she wanted to have someone analyze this who had experience dealing with cell towers, and he has worked on over 30 sites in the County and is well acquainted with the ordinance. He stated that he feels that staff got this one right and did a proper analysis, and the Board should uphold their decision. Mr. Sipe said that the ordinance is well-crafted as a scheme to balance service provision with limitation of visual impacts in the rural areas. He said that this is a Tier II, a treetop facility, but in each case the applicant must meet the specific requirements of the ordinance like setbacks, the width and size of the tower, and the size of antennas; and the second and most important part is to meet the ordinance requirement to minimize visibility from adjacent properties which they did not do in this case. Mr. Sipe recognize that and in doing so, to uphold the decision. He stated that he was present at the balloon test in February, and presented a general location map showing properties in the area surrounding the tower site. Mr. Sipe said that from Piedmont Manor, you can see the balloon directly across the road, and it is visible from almost the entire property. He presented an image from a parcel to the south of the tower, can still see the balloon and would be able to see the tower with the naked eye, which would be skylit. intense because the terrain rises. Mr. Boyd asked if he felt there were other locations on this particular site where the tower could Mr. Sipe said that there absolutely including an application from another carrier that shows a site on the same property, and they had designed and engineered an application to provide coverage to the 20 corridor in the same area and that tower is 105 feet tall, and located in an area t less visible from adjacent properties. He stated that other steps could have been taken, and other choices the applicant had but did not make. May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 47) Mr. Lloyd said that the Verizon proposal that was put in previously was closer to the road, within 200 feet of a scenic byway, making it a Tier III proposal be approved by the Board. He stated that the site has been scoured for alternatives, and it is very difficult for AT&T to get coverage on Route 20 but the challenge is the topography. Mr. Lloyd said that this is the only big stand of trees within the search ring, and this is the ideal site, with topography playing a role. He stated that this is not a perfect site, without a big hill where they can put a facility and have it back if they move further away from the road, the land drops in topography, which would require greater height meaning they would need to go more than 10 feet above the reference tree in order to shoot back down at Route 20, which is not what the policy wants. Mr. Lloyd said that the industry had tried to do the big lattice towers, just a few around the County, but the County said they would allow short towers at just 10 feet above the reference tree which is essentially screening and mitigating visibility. He stated that the ordinance builds in a little bit of a cushion that provides for extenuating circumstances in the event a are asking for a consistent application. Mr. Lloyd said that this is a good site that will provide service, and that this site has been scoured for a number of years, and this is the site that has produced the least visibility and the question is how many times AT&T has to bring an application forward before they finally get one approved. He added that the question is also an economic development issue, which is one the County struggles with. The Chair closed this portion of the meeting for public comments and the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Boyd asked if the visibility determination as to whether something was skylit or not was done by a single planner, or if it was a group effort. Mr. Benish explained that the planner brings it to a staff meeting where they discuss it and try to look at the comparables, but recognize that there are unique circumstances to each site that bear unique consideration, but they do try to remain as consistent as possible. He noted that the applicant did a good job of outlining the issues. Mr. Boyd said that he wanted to ensure that it was a joint decision to determine that this tower was too visible from too many vantage points. Mr. Benish said that the applicant provided a good presentation of the issue, and the intent of the policy and the ordinance is to try to be as prescriptive as possible and going into their Tier II analysis, there is still additional information and guidance that can help in their decision-making, but there are still gray areas and staff felt there were ways to further improve the site. Mr. Boyd sai finding, and suggested that the applicant consider deferral to look at a different location either on that site or in a different location. Ms. Mallek said that there did said. Mr. Davis said that the applicant could choose to defer to try to improve their application, but if the pprove or deny the appeal. Ms. Palmer said that Mr. Critzer had mentioned that the tower was 220 feet from his property line, and to her that seemed really important in deciding where a cell tower should be as it is would be really visible at that distance. Mr. Benish said that it depends on the vegetation, and these towers were never intended to be stealthy circumstances of that site, they have located them as close as that or even closer. Mr. Benish said that distance and depending on the type of coverage, vegetation and angles, they could be acceptable or not acceptable. Ms. Dittmar asked about the comparable towers shown by Mr. Lloyd, and asked if staff agreed that they were comparable. Mr. Benish said that there were two in which the Board weighed varying benefits, including the Scottsville tower, which staff had recommended for denial was to have service in a lacking area. He said that the Walton Middle School site skylighting was from the school, and staff has given deference to allowing schools to be target sites, accepting the fact it may be more visible from those sites. May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 48) Ms. Mallek stated that the photo shown was taken looking almost straight up, and the photo that was part of the Scottsville application showed much more protection than this view. She said that she Mr. Benish said that there are sites that are skylit, and there are certain angles and mountainous areas, so staff tries to look at the preponderance and the amount of the visibility, the distance, etc. and try to be as consistent as possible, but all sites are somewhat unique. Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Perez if either of the reasons for disapproval were more important than the other, or if they were considered to be fairly equal. Mr. Perez said that it was more the visibility, and if the applicant had been willing to come back and do the E&S plan, staff would have just waited until that was done. for the applicant to find another location on this site. Mr. Lloyd said that they would be willing to defer, but if the Board feels the tower is too visible, then it would be helpful if they would say why. He said that they were not quite there yet, and to try again. he asked staff how the decision process was done at their level, and the and unfortunately, Ms. Mallek pointed out that the County went to court for the ability to use aesthetics for the the Board, so the staff to be able to make the proper decision. Ms. Mallek said requirements. and perhaps when they get through the changes to the ordinance, there may be more clarity. that. and that is recognized throughout the policy but there is a requirement under the ordinance to minimize visibility on any particular site, and in this particular instance, they have not met the burden at this point. He said that there is substantial evidence that must be made by the Board. Mr. Boyd said that he was willing to let the applicant work on another site for this facility. Mr. Lloyd said that the Board has signaled that the applicant should go back to the drawing board with staff, and they would follow that instruction. Ms. Mallek said Mr. Davis said that they can work with this particular parcel, and the application has been made for this parcel so they could choose to relocate it on this parcel or decide to improve the existing site to ensure visibility is appropriately minimized. required elements have been submitted and the applicant has complied with the requirements. Mr. Davis said that in this case staff met the clock requirements, and at this point it would be a deferral from the applicant, and staff will work as expeditiously as possible. o a corner again with an 89-day response. Mr. Benish stated that staff would work as expeditiously as possible so that the applicant can get a decision on this, and find out whether this is the best possible site and assess it from there. Mr. Boyd moved for an indefinite deferral until the applicant and staff reach a position as to whether or not the application is approvable. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion. May 14, 2014 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 49) Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion and Possible Action, re: Route 29 Advisory Panel Recommendations. (Removed from agenda by previous vote). _______________ Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were none. _______________ Agenda Item No. 20. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda There were none. _______________ Agenda Item. No. 21. Adjourn. Mr. Davis said that it was his understanding that more than four Board members were going to attend the roundtable for the proffer discussion, and they would not need to adjourn to that if they were only going to observe. Ms. Palmer moved to adjourn the meeting to May 27, 2014 for the public hearing on the Route 29 proposed solutions. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel. NAYS: None. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date: 11/12/2014 Initials: EWJ