HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201700027 Correspondence 2018-06-05
117 Oronoco Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 • 703.549.1123 • www.DonohueStearns.com
June 5, 2018
Claudette Borgersen
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Cc: Members of the Board of Supervisors
Re: SP 2017-27/Keswick/Tier III PSWF – Visibility Map
Supervisor Randolph and Members of the Board:
At the February 20, 2018 Planning Commission hearing, planning and zoning staff presented a
visibility map (Exhibit A) that was prepared by County GIS staff. The map had not been discussed with
the Applicant, Crown Castle (“Crown”), prior to its introduction into the record . Crown had no time to
verify the map’s validity, question the parameters used in creating it or refute its findings. Subsequent to
the Planning Commission hearing, staff provided Crown with (1) a revised visibility map (Exhibit B) for
the proposed structure and (2) a visibility map depicting the area of visual impact of the existing structure
on the Johnson parcel (Exhibit D). The Applicant has carefully examined these maps and now respectfully
requests that Board consider the following.
I. Methodology Utilized to Prepare Visibility Maps
The Applicant has requested information on the methodology used to prepare the map shown
to the Planning Commission and, to date, has received no response. Crown submitted propagation maps
and photosims with the special use permit application. At the Planning Commission hearing, Crown’s RF
engineer and A&E were available to testify about the manner in which these exhibits were prepared and
the exact data that they reflected. Staff has not afforded the Applicant the same co urtesy. All that we
have been told is that they were prepared by GIS staff. The Applicant asks that the Board consider the
following outstanding questions:
1. What time of year do the maps assume? Are the trees with or without leaves?
2. From what vantage points is the proposed facility visible? Can a person sitting in their living room
see it through the window? From the front yard? What height is assumed for the perspective?
These questions should be answered if the visibility maps are going to be considered by the Board
in their review of the proposed facility.
II. Why are the Original and Revised Heat Maps Different?
As noted above, after the 2/20/18 Planning Commission hearing and its recommendation to
deny, staff provided Crown with a revised heat map that is significantly more favorable to the Applicant.
What adjustments in the parameters were made to affect these changes? There are areas (like the
P a g e | 2
117 Oronoco Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 • 703.549.1123 • www.DonohueStearns.com
property directly to the south of the VA Oil parcel) that were red that show no red in the revised map.
What changed? And why wasn’t this shown to the Planning Commission? Details regarding the revised
map’s preparation and exactly what it demonstrates are vague at best.
III. Discrepancies between Visibility Maps and Photosimulations
As part of its SUP Application, Crown submitted photosims from a myriad of perspectives that
illustrated the visual impact of the proposed facility. Exhibits D, E, and F compare the visibility map1 with
the Applicant’s photosims.
Exhibit E’s photosim shows the view from I-64 West approximately 1270’ northeast of the site.
The location is indicated on the visibility map to the left. While the visibility map predicts that the tower
can be seen, the actual photo demonstrates that it is not visible at all.
Exhibit F’s photosim shows the view from I-64 West approximately 775’ northwest of the site.
The location is indicated on the visibility map to the left. While the visibility map indicates that the tower
can be seen, the actual photosim demonstrates that it is only minimally visible, just above the trees.
Exhibit G’s photosim shows the view from Richmond Road approximately 2300’ southwest of the
site. The location is indicated on the visibility map to the left. The visibility map indicates that the tower
can be seen and the actual photosim demonstrates that it is vi sible.
All three of the locations in Exhibits E, F and G are shown on the visibility map in red suggesting
that the tower is visible. When considered with the photosims, it becomes clear that red on the visibility
map can indicate visibility where, in fa ct, the tower is completely not visible, minimally visible or highly
visible. No varying shades of red have been utilized to reflect the different degrees of impact here.
Moreover, the map indicates visibility where there is none at all.
Exhibit H shows the visibility map for the existing tower on the Johnson parcel. This map contains
no red on the VA Oil parcel directly to the east suggesting that it cannot be seen from that location. The
photograph on the right shows the view from the VA Oil property looking west. The tower is clearly
visible.
Exhibits E through H demonstrate that the visibility maps are misleading and inaccurate. They do not
reflect the varying degrees of visibility. They indicate visibility where there is none and no visibility where
there is.
IV. Buffer Distance and Areas Affected
Planning and zoning staff also used a visibility map in the review of SP 2017 -00026 – Milestone
Communications at Western Albemarle High School. This application is for a 145’-tall monopole. Exhibit
I shows the visibility map for that site. A 1/3-mile buffer was used. The visibility map to the right is the
map generated for Crown’s application – a 1-mile buffer is used. Why the disparate treatment of
applications? A larger buffer obviously increases the amount of red shown and therefore, the negative
effect of the map.
1 For the purposes of this letter, the term “visibility map” will refer to the revised map (Exhibit B) for the VA Oil
property. All other visibility maps will be distinguished.
P a g e | 3
117 Oronoco Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 • 703.549.1123 • www.DonohueStearns.com
Exhibit J shows the area of potential impact for the proposed facility if a 1-mile buffer is used and
if a 1/3-mile buffer is used. The smaller blue circle indicates the reduced area if the Keswick application
was considered in accordance with the same parameters as West Albemarle High School. The 1/3 buffer
reduces the overall area of potential visual impact from 3.14 square miles to .35 square miles. This is a
significant reduction in two ways.
First, this reduction eliminates a significant amount of the red areas of the map. Second, and
perhaps, most notably, it reduces the area of potential visibility to two parcels – the VA Oil parcel and the
Johnson parcel. As VA oil is the landlo rd of the first impacted parcel and has authorized the subject
application, visibility is clearly not an issue there. Karen Johnson is the owner of the second parcel and
has had the existing tower on her property since 1998 and is seeking to keep it in pla ce – she obviously
does not object to the view.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission based its recommendation of denial, at least in part, on a prejudicial,
inaccurate and misleading visibility map. No explanation of methodology or parameters used in its
creation was provided nor was its author available for cross examination at the public hearing. Since the
Planning Commission hearing, a corrected map has been provided to the Applicant that still offers no
information as to how it was created and contains obvious errors. Finally, the visibility maps submitted
by DPZ staff for the subject application differ significantly from those used for other applicants/
applications. Based on the above, Crown must object to the consideration of these maps as they are
patently prejudicial and unreliable.
We appreciate your consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Edward L. Donohue
Enclosures