Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201700027 Correspondence 2018-01-05IMP DONOHUE & STEARNS, PI.0 January 4, 2oi8 Chair Wardell Albemarle County Architectural Review Board 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Cc: Heather McMahon; Bill Fritz Re: Crown Castle — Relocated Telecommunications Facility Keswick Site Chair Wardell: In anticipation of the upcoming Architectural Review Board meeting on January 81h, I wanted to write and provide the following additional materials for the Board's consideration: NEPA/SHPO The most salient points from that report are below: a. The subject site is not located within an identified wilderness area. b. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation confirmed that (1) there are no designated wildlife preserves in the vicinity of the proposed facility; (2) there are no natural heritage resources within two miles of the project area; and (3) the proposed activity will not affect any state listed plants or insects. c. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted a time of year restriction for tree clearing to avoid any impact to the Northern Long-eared Bat and confirmed no effect on critical habitat or Bald Eagles. Crown will coordinate tree clearing accordingly. d. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources confirmed that there are no historic properties listed on or eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Properties in the area of potential effect. e. All identified and federally -recognized tribes with a geographical interest in the area were consulted and confirmed thatthere were no religious sites potentially affected. f. The facility is not proposed to be located with a too -year or Soo -year floodplain. g. There are no wetlands on or within 300 feet of the subject site. 2. Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) Application for Conversion or Diversion of Open Space and Justification This application describes the current status of the existing facility, the VOF's requirement that it be removed and thejustification for why it should be allowed to remain in place. 3. Carrier Support Letters Attached hereto are lettersfrom U.S. Cellular, Shentel, AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless that underscore the importance of the existing site and the need for a replacement that will mirrorthe current coverage should the existing site be removed. 117 Oronoco Street Alexandria, Virginia 223140703.549.1123 R www.DonohueStearns.com Page 12 4. Emergency Response Personnel Support The Fluvanna County Sheriff's Office also submitted a letter of support to the VOF in support of allowing the existing site to remain in place. The letter describes law enforcement's reliance on sufficient wireless coverage to adequately and efficiently respond to the needs of its citizens. Wireless devices (1) allow citizens to contact emergency personnel and (2) connect individual emergency response team members. I am available to answer any questions regarding these materials. We appreciate the Board's time and consideration of this proposal. Sincerely, Ed Donohue Attachments: i. NEPA/ SHPO Summary 2. Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) Application for Conversion or Diversion of Open Space 3. Carrier Support Letters— U.S. Cellular, Shentel, AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless 4. Letter in support from Fluvanna County Sheriffs Office 117 Oronoco Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 0 703.549.1123 • www.DonchueStearns.com GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC. W -,L, r� ■e---rr r i r� GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS A PraelicingASYT Member Firni October 17, 2017 Crown Castle International, CCTMO LLC 2000 Corporate Drive Canonsburg, PA 15317 Attn: Ms. Margaret Leister Re: National Environmental Policy Act Evaluation Keswick — Virginia Oil Cell Site (BU #816361B) Black Cat Rd. Keswick, VA 22947 Dear Ms. Leister: In accordance with our agreement, Geo-Technology Associates, Inc. (GTA) has performed an evaluation of the above referenced Crown Castle International CCTMO LLC (Crown Castle) site, a Delaware limited liability company, with regard to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These NEPA guidelines are specified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sections 1.1301 through 1.1319. The results of the NEPA Evaluation are contained herein. The NEPA Evaluation consisted of a site visit; review of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) website; a review of the electronic National Atlas of the United States® (NAUS); written requests to the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR); a review of United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) IPaC database, tribal consultation using the FCC Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) and a review of the Native American Consultation Database (NACD); a review by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) and potential impacts to historic properties in the site vicinity; a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map; and a review of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) website. A copy of the completed Crown Castle NEPA Checklist is included in this report as Table 1. Crown Castle is proposing to construct a 159-foot tall monopole tower at an unspecified address on the western side of Black Cat Road, Keswick, VA 22947. The proposed Crown Castle 43760 Trade Cenler Place, Suite 110, Sterling, Virginia 20166 Phone: (703) 478-0055 Far: (703) 478-0137 ♦ Abingdon, MD 4 Laurel, MD i Frederick, MD i Waldorf, MD Sterling, VA i Somerset, NJ ♦ New Castle, DE f Georgetown, DE ♦ York, PA t Quakertown, PA ♦ Charlotte, NC Visit us on the web at witm.mruglaxom Crown Castle International Re: NEPA Evaluation — Keswick — Virginia Oil Cell Site October 17, 2017 Pa-ge 2 site will be located on a larger parcel owned by Virginia Oil Company Incorporated and identified by Tax Parcel 494-39. The site will be located at North 37' 59' 45.79" and West 78' 20' 20.70". GTA understands that Crown Castle proposes to lease a 100-foot x 100-foot area to construct a telecommunications compound containing a monopole tower and associated equipment. In addition, GTA understands that Crown Castle will establish a 20-foot wide access and utility easement extending generally northwest to the proposed lease area from Black Cat Road. While the project was initiated in April, 2017, in July 2017, the eastern portion of the proposed access road was relocated south of an existing gravel drive. This required additional archeological assessment. A Site Location Map and a Site Exhibit are included in Appendix A. The following table summarizes the results of this NEPA Evaluation. Section Question Response Basis 47 CFR Will the facility be located in an officially No 47 CFR 1.13061 1.1307(a)(1) designated wilderness area? 47 CFR Will the facility be located in an officially No VDCR 2 1.1307(a)(2) designated wildlife preserve? 47 CFR Will the facility affect listed threatened or No VDCR, USFWS3 1.1307(a)(3) endangered species or designated critical habitats? 47 CFR Will the facility affect a district, site, building, 1.1307(a)(4) structure, or object that is listed or eligible for No VDHR4 listing in the National Register of Historic Places? 47 CFR Will the facility affect an Indian religious site? No TCNS, NACDS 1.1307(a)(5) 47 CFR Will the facility be located in a floodplain? No 47 CFR 1.13066 1.1307(a)(6) 47 CFR Will the facility significantly alter surface features No 47 CFR 1.13067 1.1307(a)(7) (wetland fill, deforestation, or water diversion)? 47 CFR Will the facility be equipped with high intensity No High intensity white 1,1307(a)(8) white lights located in a residential neighborhood? lights not proposed 47 CFR Will the facility generate excessive radio frequency Not As directed by Crown 1.1307(b) radiation? addressed Castle International$ NOTES: 1 According to the wilderness data obtained from the NPS website http:Ilwildemess.nps.gov/maplocator.cfm and the National Wilderness Preservation Society (NWPS) website www.wildemess.net/nwps, the subject site is not included within an identified wilderness area. GTA's search indicated that the proposed Crown Castle telecommunications facility is not located within Crown Castle International Re: NEPA Evaluation — Keswick — Virginia Oil Cell Site October 17, 2017 Page 3 a wilderness area. A map of the wilderness areas in the vicinity of the subject site, based on the NWPS website, is included in Appendix B. 2 On June 7, 2017, GTA submitted a written request to the VDCR to inquire if the proposed facility is located within an officially designated wildlife preserve. In a letter dated July 6, 2017, the VDCR indicated that "There are no State Natural Area Preserves under DCR's jurisdiction in the project vicinity." A copy of the VDCR letter is included in Appendix C. On June 7, 2017, GTA submitted a written request to the VDCR to determine if the proposed development would impact state listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat in the project area. In a letter dated July 6, 2017, VDCR indicated that no natural heritage resources are located within two miles of the project area and the proposed activity will not affect any documented state listed plants or insects. GTA had a phone conversation with the VDCR on July 20, 2017 informing them regarding relocation of the access road. VDCR confirmed that their original response dated July 6, 2017 remains valid since the access road has not moved significantly. On October 11, 2017, GTA conducted an online review for the proposed project using U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) information database, resulting in an Online Project Review Certification Letter from the USFWS. The review determined implementation of time -of -year restriction for tree clearing during April 15- September 15 to avoid any adverse effect on the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Following the submittal to USFWS on October 11, 2017, GTA received an email response stating that the certification letter is their official response. The self -certification letter indicates that the USFWS concurs with the `no effect' determinations for the critical habitat, and `no Eagle Act permit required' determination for Bald Eagles. Consistent with recent inquiries, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) website indicates that it declines to review and comment on proposed cell tower projects due to "staffing limitations." A copy ofthe VDCR letter, USFWS consultation, and above referenced VDGIF website information is included in Appendix C. 4 On May 8, 2017, GTA provided the VDHR, which is the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), with a Section 106 Submission Packet report, submitted electronically through the FCC website. The report summarized the project site's potential impact to historic resources and concluded that there are no historic sites listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP within the project's APE. Following the relocation of access road on July 6, 2017, GTA submitted revised reports to the SHPO on September 5, 2017. In an email dated October 5, 2017, VDHR concurred that there are no historic properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP within the project's visual and direct effects APE. A copy of the Section 106 Submission Packet and VDHR concurrence correspondence are included in Appendix D. On April 10, 2017, GTA registered the proposed tower site through the FCC TCNS website. The FCC assigned the proposed tower site the Notification ID # 155197. On April 14, 2017, GTA obtained through TCNS a document entitled, "Notice of Organization(s) Which Were Sent Proposed Tower Construction Notification Information," which identified federally -recognized tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) that have a geographical interest in the project area. GTA contacted the identified tribes and/or NHO's and they did not identify religious sites that will be affected by the proposed undertaking. GTA contacted the identified tribes via phone on July 20, 2017 and informed them of the access road relocation. All identified tribes confirmed that they do not need to review the project again and their original response remains valid for the access road relocation. Copies of the tribal Crown Castle International Re: NEPA Evaluation — Keswick — Virginia Oil Cell Site October 17, 2017 PaEe 4 correspondence are included in Appendix E. The following table summarizes the results of the tribal coordination. Indian tribes or NHOs Follow-up Date Concurrence Date Delaware Nation 6/2/2017 via mail 7/12/2017 via email Tuscarora Nation N/A 30-Day response agreement expired on 5/10/2017 Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians 6/2/2017 via email 10/16/2017 via email Cherokee Nation 6/2/2017 via mail 7/14/2017 via email Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 6/2/2017 via mail 6/28/2017 via email Shawnee Tribe 6/2/2017 via mail 7/7/2017 via email Catawba Indian Nation 6/2/2017 via mail 6/28/2017 via email A review of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map # 51003CO475D for Albemarle County, Virginia, effective date February 4, 2005 on the FEMA website (http://hazards.fcma.gov), indicated that the proposed Crown Castle telecommunications facility is not located within a 100- or 500-year floodplain area. The proposed project site is located in Zone X which includes areas outside the 0.2 percent annual chance of flood. A copy of the FEMA map for the proposed telecommunications facility location is included in Appendix F. 7 Based on a review of wetland data obtained from the USFW S NWI website www.fws. ov/wetlands on October 10, 2017, there are no wetlands on or within 300 feet of the subject site. Therefore, the proposed facility appears unlikely to directly affect the jurisdictional wetlands. In addition, GTA did not identify potential concerns associated with significant water diversion or deforestation. A WetlandsMMap for the site vicinity obtained from the NWI website is included in Appendix F. 8 It is GTA's understanding that Crown Castle International assesses the NEPA criterion regarding excessive radio frequency; therefore, this issue was not addressed by GTA. Crown Castle International Re: NEPA Evaluation — Keswick — Virginia Oil Cell Site October 17, 2017 Paae 5 We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Should you have any questions regarding this information, or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC. 6, - .. . , -, , k Kirti Rajpurohit NEPA Specialist Andrew S. Hendricks, P.G., L.R.S. Vice President GTA: 31170731 KR/ASH Table 1: Crown Castle NEPA Checklist Appendices: Appendix A: Site Location Map / Site Exhibit Appendix B: Wilderness Areas Map Appendix C: VDCR, VDGIF and USFWS Correspondence Appendix D: VDHR Correspondence Appendix E: TCNS/Tribal Correspondence Appendix F: FF,MA Map, Wetlands Map and Soil Report L:IDocslReport12017131170731_Virginia OilWEPA APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION OR DIVERSION OF OPEN SPACE APPLICANT VOF will direct its communication regarding this application to the person, address, phone and email listed here. Applicant Name Michael Winget-Hernandez Applicant's Title and/or Attorney Business Name Mailing Address 5570 Richmond Rd., Suite 201 City Troy Slate VA Zip 22974 Home Phone Number Office (434) 589.2958 (with area code) Mobile 1 (434) 249-8251 Email michael@winget•hernandez.com REV 8.10,2015 SECONDARY CONTACT (OPTIONAL) VOF will send copies of all important communications regarding this application to the person listed here. Secondary Paul E. Peckens, Program Mgr. — Strategic Reloc. Contact Name _ Contact's Title andlnr Crown Castle Business Name Mailing Address 9011 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 280 City Richmond State VA Zip 23236 ' Home Phone Number Office (804) 523.8309 (with area code) Mobile (804) 833.4016 Emall Paul.Peckens@crowncastle.com TAR PARCEL NUMBERS FOR OPEN SPACE PARCELS INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSION i DIVERSION Tax Map 9 or PIN Tax record acreage Landowner Name Notes (If explanation Is needed) 09400-00-00-041AO 79.149 ac. Karen S. Johnson, Trustee Currently under open space easement. 09400-00-00.04000 12.61 ac. Karen S, Johnson, Trustee Proposed additional open space, Confinuo list on an addllranal shoat of paper Ii necessary, SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CONVERSION I DIVERSION OF OPEN SPACE Use this area to summarize the project that necessitates the Applicant seeks to convey to VOF 12.61 acres of adjacent open land In exchange for the conversion or conversion conversion /diversion of open diversion of a 0.0573921 ac, 12500 sq. fL) tract of land within the original 79.149 ac, easement for use as a space land- What is the nature of telecommunications tower with supporting Infrastructure. A telecom tower and dependencies currently the project (e.g. utility, safety or exist on the conversionldlverslon site which are a vital element of the current emergency services transportation), who is involved in communications network In a part of Albemarle County. The conversion/diversion contemplated by this carrying out the project, and what changes will take place upon the application Is only necessary because the terms of the open -space easement to which the site Is currently open space property? What subject require the removal of the existing tower "by 2018." In anticipation of the destruction of this existing alternatives were considered that telecom site, an alternative site on an adjacent tract has boon preparing to receive a new tower, but the would avoid impacts to open danger inherent In the disruption of emergency communications, the economic waste entailed, and the space land? Inevitability of a similar, more conspicuous tower within feet of the existing one, obviating the objectives of This is a summary. Please use Its removal, bring this application squarely within VOF guidelines. Furthermore, the location of the open only the space provided here. space land offered in mitigation will, if accepted, reduce the prospect of further adjacent development. AUTHORIZATION Read all of the following cansfully before signing. Applicant is a local or state government entity, or other public agency? ❑ YES (no fees apply) & NO (fees do apply, see below) Due with this application is a $5,000 Oat fee to cover VOF review. Additional fees may apply, with staff hours billed at hourly rates for each hour after the initial 30 hours. Please note that reviews of this type can take much more than 30 hours of VOF staff time. Payment of fees does not guarantee approval of a conversion 1 diversion request by VOF Staff or the VOF Board of Trustees. Please make checks payable to "Virginia Outdoors Foundation" and mail with this signed application to: VOF Finance Office, 900 South Main Street, Blacksburg, VA 24060 The review process is explained stop b� in a procedure day+► lent ar ttached � this application for easy reference. -- %�— — I hereby authorize Vlrginla Outdoors FouAciatlon tq.tiegin review of the Information or activities I have described herein, Applicant Signature y Date <� / -' 2-v! This form is provided as a tillable PDF. Plna a use a comp u et type -print this form if possible. Attachments may be appended if addillonal space is needed or to include information such as maps. VOr is a public Nzs nlormadan provided to VOF will became a matter of public record and subject to the Freedom of Information Act %I-I-,r}III .i..A.,v REV 8.10 2015 COVER PAGE FOR VOF STEWARDSHIP FEE PROCESSING APPLICANT The applicant may be a property owner, the owner's representative or the organization that Intends to undertake the activity. VOF will direct its communication to the person, address, phone and email listed here If multiple contact persons are essential, attach a page with namesllnfo, Applicant Name j Michael Winget-Hernandoz Applicant's Title and/or [ Attorney Business Name I Mailing Address 15570 Richmond Rd., Suite 201 City I Troy Stale I VA j� Zip 1 22974 Home Phone Number Office (434) 589.2958 (with area code) Mobile (434) 249-8261 Email mlchael@ wingef-hernandez.com PROPERTY INFORMATION Describe where the property Is located and Its size. Property Address 4460 Richmond Road for road, if no address) Locality Albemarle/Keswick Acreage in the 179.149 ac. (county/City) VOF easement PROPERTY OWNER(Sli - - • List all owners and part-owners. Include any parties who have an Interest in the eased property (e,g. registered agent or trustee, bankallenders, Ilan holders, and/or neighbors whose land is under the same dead of open -space easement, If applicable). • Include line or descriptor of owner as pertains to their ownership (e,g. trustee, LLC member, Han holder, managing partner, spouse) • A current means of contact phone and/or small, Is required, Name Karen S. Johnson Tills Trustee Phone and/or Email Name Branch Banking & Trust Co, Title Lion Holder Phone and/or Email (800) 213-4314 Name Title Phone and/or Email Name Tills Phone and/or Email Name Title Phone andlor Email Name Title Phone and/or Email Continue list on an additional sheet of p> jpnt ifur-cossary Read all of the following carefully before signing. A fee is due with this application to cover VOF review. See the instruction block on page one of each application form for the particular dollar amount and explanation of the cost recovery fee, Please make checks payable to 'Virginia Outdoors Foundation' and mail with this signed application to: VOF Finance Office 900 South Main Street Blacksburg, VA 24060 Applications will be reviewed promptly upon receipt, To avoid delays in processing, complete and sign this cover page AND an application form, one or more of the fors numbered 1-6 as listed at the bottom of this page and available online at: wwvw vrr ini out oorSloundaIl n orr I hereby authorize Virginia Outdoors Fount on to begin review of the Information or activities I Have desc ed herein. I certify that this document and a c manta we prepared under my direction or sups lion. a infarrrr on submitted Is, to the best of my knowte a and b ef, true, curate, and complete, 9P-rtgNAL AUTHOR12ATION mplste this section 9 nl if I N T • This section Is !gt required for For 3 (AccossfUlllity Easement) or Form 5 (Present Condition Report). Certification of authorization to allow applicant to act on landowner's behalf: I, Karen S. Johnson, Trustee hereby certify that 1 have (LANDOWNER NAME) authorized Mlchael Winget-Hernandoz, P.C. to act on my behalf (APPLICANT NAME) and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this cover page and any attached application for(s), As landowner. I acknowledge that I am ultimately responsible for adherence to any and all special conditions attached to approvals that are granted. Landowner Data ' 7 Signelur6 •`4}JC 7 1 1 3'- J Applicant Date Signature This section is opllonar Sign here only if applicant is not rho landowner VOF OFFICE USE ONLY DATE RECEIVED For 1 ❑ 13uundary Line Adjustment VOF Control 2 ❑ Commercial Ecosystem Service Project Access/ Number(s) 3 (] Utility Easement 4 ❑ Easement Amendment 5 6 ❑ ❑ Present Condition Report for Property Sale Oil and Gas Drilling Plan Review Comments 7 ❑ 1704 Conversion/Diversion This form is provided as a fellable POF, Please use a Cempiller to Iypa-print this form if possible. Attachments may be appended If additional space Is needed or to Include information such as maps. VOF Is a public organization Informallon provided to VOF wilt become a matter of public record and subject to the Freedom of Information Act, Application for Conversion or Diversion of Open Space Executive Summary Keswick Tower (Crown Castle Site No. 816361) was erected on Limestone Springs Farm (Parcel Number 94-41A) in 1998 pursuant to a 20-year lease between PCS Virginia and Karen Johnson. In 2007, the farm was conveyed into an open -space easement in perpetuity in favor of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. The easement contains a provision, originally proposed by the Johnsons, requiring the tower to be removed in 2018 after the expiration of the original term of the lease. This provision would cause a 0.057 acre tract (a square, 50 feet on each side) to revert to open space within the 79.149 acres of open space in which it lies. This provision is neither a function of the conservation values of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, nor of state law. It was the result of an assessment by the landowners, who, having moved on to the farm in their retirement some years after the tower's construction, that the burdens of the tower's maintenance and continued presence on the farm outweighed its benefits. The original lease has since been extended by successors, including Mrs. Johnson, as Trustee, and Crown Castle, who seek to keep the tower in its current location. Toward this end, the Johnson Trust wishes to compensate the Virginia Outdoors Foundation for the "conversion or diversion" of the 50-foot square by conveying an adjacent 12.48 acre tract of undeveloped land into open -space conservation. During the last twenty years, Keswick Tower has become a foundational node in the cellular voice and data network serving Interstate 64 and the surrounding community, near Exit 129 at Black Cat Road. All five national carriers, as well as state and local police, fire and rescue, and related dispatch services rely on Keswick Tower, not to mention all of the cellular telephone traffic entering and leaving Albemarle County via Interstate 64 and State Highway 250. Removal of the tower will create a void in the network which will trigger the need to erect another tower in the same vicinity, which must provide contiguous coverage, at least the same capacity, and be sited on suitable terrain. One alternative site is currently being pursued by Crown Castle on the tract immediately adjacent to Limestone Springs Farm. The resulting structure would necessarily be similar, very close by, and just as visible if not more obvious than Keswick Tower. This is problematic because since Keswick Tower was built, the standards for telecommunication towers within Albemarle County have been radically altered such that suitable alternatives meeting the radio frequency engineering standards required by the carriers cannot be met without specific variances being granted. In any event, the transition to a new tower will necessarily entail public comment and will likely meet resistance from a community already accustomed, over the last two decades, to Keswick Tower and the service it provides. Consequently, the potential exists for unintended consequences, including disruption in service which will implicate the health and safety of the community. This application proposes to conserve Keswick Tower and its vital network infrastructure which exists today, which are known, understood, and relied upon by the local community. This honors the core conservation value of avoiding waste, since a substitute structure and its requisite ancillary services will need to be built nearly in the same place if it is removed. Finally, this Johnson/Crown Sec. 1704 Winget-Hernandez, P.0 Page 1 of 10 application significantly increases the open space under conservation easement by offering a 12.48 acre adjacent tract (a tract over 200 times the size) in compensation for the 2500 square foot space which contains the existing structure. Additionally, the tract which Mrs. Johnson is offering in mitigation is located in a way which will result, if accepted, in conserving the rural nature of the neighborhood adjacent and immediately east of Limestone Springs Farm, on Black Cat Road, south of Interstate 64. Background Keswick Tower is among the first three telecommunications towers built in the county. Through the years, the wireless network serving eastern Albemarle County has been built around it. It is located on Limestone Springs Farm, Parcel 94-41A at 4460 Richmond Road, in Keswick. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the parcel at the eastern edge of Albemarle County. Figure 1 Limestone Springs Farm is occupied by Karen S. Johnson, the widow of the late Dr. Dennis Lee Johnson, and, in her capacity as trustee, its manager. The farm occupies a 79.15-acre tract which is subject to an open -space easement identified by VOF as #ALB-2399. Figure 2 is a photograph of the farm entrance on Rt. 250, showing the tower in the distance. Exhibit A is an Johnson/Crown Sec 1704 Wing et -Hernandez, P.C. Page 2 of 10 aerial image of the farm and tower. Exhibit B is a plat of the property, showing the tower and related access easements. Ten years ago, Mrs. Johnson conveyed this open -space easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation over the whole of Limestone Springs Farm. Then in 2009, Dr. and Mrs. Johnson built a new home and outbuildings on the property, and moved there from their former home in Pennsylvania, their longstanding plan and hope having been to live on the farm for the remainder of their lives. t'leuru i The Johnsons lived happily on the property until Dr. Johnson's tragic, untimely, and accidental death on the farm last year. Mrs. Johnson has since resolved to remain there, and continues to live on the property and maintain it on her own. Her real estate holdings now include only Limestone Springs Farm and an adjacent unimproved tract of 12.61 acres (Parcel 94-040). As more specifically discussed below, it is this adjacent tract that Mrs. Johnson wishes to convey into a conservation easement as consideration for the granting of this application. A plat of Parcel 94-040 (including typical setbacks for a replacement tower) is attached as Exhibit C. Keswick Tower was already on the property when the Johnsons sold off their remaining properties and decided to make the farm their home in 2009. The Johnsons moved to the farm to pursue their dream of working the farm, caring for their horses, and enjoying their retirement peacefully on their only remaining property. However, the disruptions caused by the technical and infrastructural maintenance of the tower and its dependencies operated against their desire for simplicity and privacy. As a result, the relationship between the Johnsons and Virginia, PCS, and its successor Crown Castle, became strained. Johnson/Crown Sec. 1704 Winget-Hernandez, P.C. Page 3 of 10 Since then, both parties have come to better understand the role that the tower plays in supporting the telecommunications needs of the community and the apparent (and to some extent unforeseen) longevity of land -based cellular networks as the state -of -the art technology For her part, Mrs. Johnson now accepts the practical burdens the tower imposes on her peaceful enjoyment of her land. Crown Castle likewise has sought, for some time, to reduce those burdens upon her. As a result, the reasons for Mrs. Johnson's request to include the clause in the open -space easement which provides for the tower's removal by 2018 no longer exist. Mrs. Johnson and Crown Castle seed to perpetuate their existing relationship, and maintain the tower in its current location, for as long as it continues to serve a vital role in the telecommunications needs of the community. Key Player Keswick Tower has been operating for nearly twenty years and serves all five major national carriers. Its strongest footprint covers at least nine square miles in two magisterial districts and serves as the cellular communications gateway to Albemarle County entering and leaving on Interstate 64 and Route 250. It also serves Louisa and Fluvanna County consumers on their respective borders with Albemarle County. Figure 3 illustrates Keswick Tower's (816361) footprint in relation to the surrounding facilities in the network. 11gure 3 �# ter: �•'•, ��� ` 41- Johnson/Crown Sec. 1704 Winget-Hernandez, P.C. Page 4 of 10 Figure 4 takes a closer look at Keswick Tower's footprint in isolation from the network. As this figure illustrates, Keswick Tower serves a two-mile stretch of 164, a similar span of Route 250, and all of the local cellular traffic within an approximately nine square mile area on all five major Figure 4. Keswick Tower Footprint, isolated. carriers. Some estimates of the reach of towers in Keswick's class suggest that it can handle signals from cellular telephones which are as far as eight miles away, placing possible users well into Fluvanna and Louisa Counties. Figure 5 is a graphic representation of the cellular telecommunications infrastructure of most of Albemarle County. This illustration shows the proliferation of sites and the relative number of carriers they host. It is not an indication of reach or carrying capacity. But it does show that as the network has grown, there has been a proliferation of much smaller sites which cannot host multiple carriers, as Keswick does. • i - STY n l Gn Mir '�lJ �fi � ■ ��r�r W.�7� lMnsa .. Figure 5. Present-day to`vers in Albemarle Co., denoting carriers. Johnson/Crown Sec. 1704 Winget-Hernandez, P.C. Page 5 of 10 This is a function of changes in the County's telecommunications development plan and standards for the development of new telecommunications towers, particularly within the entrance corridors and in the Monticello viewshed, the easternmost periphery of which actually includes Keswick Tower. This means that the removal of Keswick Tower would represent significant injury to the network as a whole, but particularly to consumers within Keswick Tower's strongest footprint. The following illustration depicts the remaining local Sprint network (in yellow) in the event that Keswick Tower is removed or its service is disrupted. Comparing this image (Figure 6.) to the image at Figure 4., it is easy to see the significant void which Keswick's removal or disruption would cause. But it should be noted that this image merely indicates actual loss of coverage and does nothing to simulate the necessary eventuality of loss of service quality to consumers who find themselves in the periphery of the remaining Sprint coverage area. Similar illustrations of the effects on other carriers appear as Exhibit D. Difficult to Replicate While there are no regulatory impediments to the perpetuation of Keswick Tower in its present location, and no ordinance which would require its removal, its replacement would be challenging for both practical and legal reasons. First of all, the fact that the telecommunications network has literally grown up around Keswick Tower means, as a practical matter, that other towers have been located around it in a manner which takes advantage of its particular electromagnetic footprint. That footprint is a function both of its specific structure (a free-standing steel lattice 149 feet tall) and the topography of its placement. The structural element translates into the amount of equipment the tower will sustain, which in turn, translates into the number of carriers which may be accommodated. Johnson/Crown Sec. 1704 Winget-Hernandez, P C. Page 6 of 10 Sprint without 816361 S '�S�1YAQll Sources psi, HERE DtLunma U5G511lelinbp INCREMENT P. NRCun Evl Japan MET] Esri Chna 1"WOKQ�Ql LWK-0 Esntlhananol Mapmyln Jia N,�CC Upen51iee1Mep CpllnLU1MS and Ine GIS Figure 6. Void in Sprint's coveraHe in the er eet of disruption or remorill (it' K"c vick Toner (816361). As can be seen at Figure 5., Keswick Tower is host to all five national carriers (Sprint, AT&T, T- Mobile, Verizon, and U.S. Cellular) because it is a robust, steel lattice structure which can carry the weight of the necessary equipment, and withstand the pressure of foreseeable weather events. Current towers which comport to the standards for new structures are typically of the "treetop monopole" variety, which while less apparent in the landscape generally, are also not comparably strong. Consequently, they typically host a single carrier with a much smaller footprint, as can be seen again at Figure 5. In order to achieve a satisfactory "hand-off' of a mobile cellular signal moving through the area from one cell to the next, it is vital that the footprints of adjacent structures overlap one another. This is because the way the technology works is that each cell phone sends out its signal omni- directionally, roughly in a hemispherical pattern, emanating from the phone and reaching out to cell antennae on towers up to several miles away. The network continually monitors the strength of the phone's signal and determines, among those towers in communication with it. Then, at the moment that the signal strength in the next tower exceeds a threshold level, the signal is handed off to that tower from the one before. Johnson/Crown Sec. 1704 Winget-Hernandez, P.C. Page 7 of 10 This need for overlapping footprints means that a replacement facility would need to be very close to the existing one. Because the ground in the vicinity of the existing tower falls off toward the west, any replacement in that direction would need to be taller than Keswick Tower in order to fill the void its absence would leave in the network service area. The prospect of building a replacement tower that is taller (larger) than the existing one in the current regulatory climate seems remote. This means that the viable alternatives are limited and as a practical matter, all to the east of the existing tower. There are two viable alternatives which contemplate a tower of similar size and construction, only one of which is currently being formally pursued. This alternative is located on the tract of land directly adjacent to Limestone Springs Farm, at Parcel 94-39, which is owned by Virginia Oil. This proposed location is shown in the aerial view of the two properties at Figure 8. This proposed tower would sit approximately 100 feet outside the property line of Limestone Springs Farm to the east, and as shown in Figure 7., some thirty or more feet higher in elevation than Keswick Tower. Figure 7. Topographical iufortnation at Keswick Town- location. The rod arrow shows that area west of Keswick Tower slopes downward, to lower elevations. Johnson/Crown Sec. 1704 Wing et -Hernandez, P.C. Page 8 of 10 Figure 8. Aerial view of proposed alternate tower location. Ramifications The history of Keswick Tower, around which the local cellular network infrastructure has been built, has crystallized a particular space around it. This is its service area, which varies only slightly by carrier. If Keswick Tower is removed, according to the current provisions of the open - space easement affecting it, that space will be left unserved unless a facility of similar character and capacity can be erected to replace it. Such a replacement would, if approved, of necessity be very close to the spot where Keswick Tower now stands. Further, replacing Keswick Tower's capacity and reach necessarily means erecting a tower of similar size and conspicuousness, but necessarily new and unknown to the local community. The current proposal for an alternative is just such a proposition: essentially a clone of Keswick Tower, a hundred or so feet from the property line and on higher, more visible terrain. This creates two significant ramifications: first, the health and safety of cellular consumers within the affected area, whether their existing service is eliminated or simply interrupted, will be diminished, because they will either cease to have access, or have more limited access to emergency services for fire, police, or emergency rescue by cellular telephone; second, to the extent that open space conservation values are implicated by the removal of Keswick Tower, such values will be compromised by its replacement, which necessarily must be of similar character and position in the landscape in order to adequately address the need which will be created by Keswick Tower's removal. In support of Mrs. Johnson's application, and consonant with her concerns about the health and safety ramifications of the impending removal of Keswick Tower, formal communications from local law enforcement and emergency services agencies, including but not limited to the Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center (Tom Hanson, Director) and the Johnson/Crown Sec. 1704 Winget-Hernandez, P.C. Page 9 of 10 emergency communications officials of the neighboring counties are forthcoming and will be received separately. Allowing Keswick Tower to remain would avoid the waste which is would necessarily attend the demolition of a robust, reliable facility only to have it reiterated a few feet away. But the additional positive ramification of receiving the land in mitigation into open -space would slow further development already underway in this historically sleepy rural community. The adjacent parcel, which has commercial zoning, is currently under development as a matter of right into a service station and convenience store. The property being offered in mitigation is located in such a way that it blocks prospects for additional, more intense development. This represents a legitimate open -space conservation value which is separate and apart from, and in addition to the significant variance in the value of the 12.61 acre tract of land offered in mitigation over the 2500 square feet of land involved in the conversion/diversion of open space supporting Keswick Tower. Conclusion Mrs. Johnson is a private person who has shouldered the responsibility of managing the property she has left on her own, while still making time and expending considerable energy in community service. Due to circumstances beyond her control, she has been left to do this by herself, which is not want she had hoped. But in spite of her personal loss, or perhaps due to it, she has realized that the value of Keswick Tower to the community at large, particularly in respect to its utility as a means of reaching emergency services, is vital to the community and worthy of being perpetuated, even at the expense of the eventual development of the last piece of real estate in her portfolio. This application is calculated to uphold the core conservation value of avoiding economic waste, preserving the working status quo, preventing unnecessary risk to the health and safety of her neighbors, and promoting the specific conservation values of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. She offers her remaining property to VOF in mitigation for the tower, not only for herself, but because it is the right thing to do. For all the reasons stated herein, Mrs. Johnson respectfully requests that the Board of Trustees approve this application. Johnson/Crown Sec. 1704 Winget-Hernandez, P.C. Page 10 of 10 0 ell ti Gooqle�' 4" A 11 is � aaan Gow - " "D-, -1 II ° Exhibit B M fj IVA z Z q gIT, Pn W* a ct a o� Im a E m! 4 i o f 91 4 11�4 i�1� A+ATOH iAArCli A $ , a • �a� 1 1 10A' So tin ,a m o� f a ° m� £B aw, ~ IFATPLL ` MATCH A zin tu m 0 off JI . ,�� $y Z8,Ell 14 G*41,qj) R � p1 � � i!i 1ST �1�7G� A 1 rl� � �� •I ] o �s avN + + t + + "I y S dr' 1 + +ter 7Y �i azr `�4 + + + + + + + rr t + + •I• t t ir1 + + + + +/ $ F + + / r� + + / Ilk I A. 41 + + +/ + + +/ + + + / i + g / + + + j + + + I / �N • + + / + -+- Ir' 1r + +/ i Ir?a! + / 1 / I 1'++j y z wb1y d A c Sca a 'S� kkfi tca < oo ��' < a a o a a a s < < W t<< wp zo p G pgg: 3 Ni M rl IS ♦ Q y v1 T i') W o$o$$ lo�oi000000o 0000 og og�000'Fv 3 W 3 # aW aat $ !Qf .i} (3, y!� e ; ; p;, 3 �'tp 3 ♦R !®[ 3♦ s W W r � # J/ Y • ry MI � � � n ~ "' ti ✓1 M) Yl � � S^ � V ,� fV N � � YI •� N rV � � N N N z Z = N p N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N Z S a PN MYIl b. N100-m-ON-01000 10�I1 IQdS 1261 JpP60X, NHIN ; 9NUAR '/I IXMl9 9: M/M11 .Iq,6g1 JI IRUS9 r IW RIY AIN � r XFSMpt W YA19 JI9,JmX, YJAq R 1RU9nE / =D LL`/p .,,,/1l0 — 1M — — I 91-999] N-M N•r', M •9K1 ' �l '4 9N_09-II 9U-OB_,5 91-Y I i w�•1 1 \ I Jr &-1NI 1 J �� � 91-JL 1599 SCALE IN FEET 0 100 200 400 600 PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION I Exhibit C ''••'� tk7 TRUE NORTH BC e chi, n e i n e e, J.. 8MM tT., SH— YSroN� ff YR. KESWICK 616361 9,9 WM M AM MOM %% W47 udl w FI WP mee. 9� tom, ,NI +ms �911 � VJ M TOM LOCATION LE_1 A T-Mobile withou.t..816361 0 Source$ E$n, HERE, WLorme, USGS, InteEmap. INCREMENT P, NRCan, Earl Jupam, METI. Esrl China (Hong Nang), Esd Korea. Esii(Tiratlancl). MapmyIndfa. NdCC, 0Op$nStreetMapcontrlbutors, and IRIS User Community Loor-a Rd Sprint without 816361 816361VA Oil s f 0 Sources: Esri, HERE, DoL*rme, UbGS, Intermsp, INCREMENT P,`NRCan, EsrlJapan. METl. Earl ChIm (Hong Kong), Est Korea, Een (Thalland). Mapmyindia, NGCC. C:Open3lreatMap contributors. and the GSS User Community r,j n—IJ AT&T without 816361 i !r ~~ ! ti e$76�k3$1VA did r -. •"`'c`r"9°� � r F *VW `-A ur r:uti ! Sr •rF 1it .k'L.dr rue v%,$ INdr In xF •I IN r RE m F..NF P. yh";, A11 USA JJP4r1 h1E1'r Csb '�11i r1B r Hilai; lC iigiu IJCr t, d fl ri.S`1'eiet Jlz. urnrllri Wlors and [[ea rrs "Mer roirrrnunar. c October zo, z017 Brian Fuller Assistant Director of Stewardship Virginia Outdoors Foundation soio Harris St. Suite 4 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Re: Sec. 1704 Application for Conversion/Diversion at 4464 Richmond Road, Albemarle County, Virginia; Crown Castle Telecommunications Tower #816361 Assistant Director Fuller: US Cellular relies on a 150' telecommunications tower ("Keswick Tower") at 4464 Richmond Road (Parcel Number 94-41A). The reason for this letter is to provide support to the Johnson Trust's Section 1704 application for conversion/diversion of open -space, so thatthe importance of conserving the existing tower at its present location is clear. Background Keswick Tower was built in 1998 and now houses five (5) wireless carriers. The wireless carriers lease space on the tower from its owner, Crown Castle, who in turn leases the space where the tower resides from the owner of the farm, which is the Johnson Trust. In 2007, the property owner granted a perpetual conservation easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") for the farm. According to a term of that easement, the tower must be removed during 2o18, after the original term of the lease expires. If the parties to the lease are unable to reach an understanding with the VOF so that the facility may remain in place, they must have a replacement facility in place to which US Cellular and the other four (4) installed wireless carriers can migrate to prevent any interruption in service. Keswick Tower -• A Kev Position US Cellular has been providing wireless service to its subscribers in this area of Albemarle County, periodically upgrading its installations to meet the increasing subscriber demand for nearly two decades. With customers talking less, but texting, emailing and using data much more, the importance of this facility cannot be overstated. This site provides critical coverage to those living, working and traveling though this part of the County and emergency first responders rely on the seamless coverage achieved by this site to provide rescue services. About 41,000 vehicles travel through the tower's coverage area every day, not to mention the Page 12 local stationary subscribers. If Keswick Tower is not allowed to stay, a replacement facility or replacement facilities must be built. Not only must new locations be found, but these locations must be close to the existing site to work in conjunction with the surrounding sites (discussed in more detail below). Building a replacement tower (or towers) too far from the existing site would hamper the effective hand off of signal from this site to neighboring sites. This concept is best illustrated by the attached propagation maps. These maps show the distribution of low -band signal from the Keswick Tower for US Cellular. Clearly, if this site is forced off air, the resulting gap in coverage would be substantial. Wireless signal would no longer be handed off between adjacent sites. Customers traveling in the area would experience dropped and blocked calls due to the resulting lack in coverage. Some customers might have trouble getting the emergency services they need in a crisis. Specific Replacement Site Considerations When the search ring for a possible replacement tower was originally designed, three significant considerations became apparent. First, the site's main coverage area is an interstate and the rural area surrounding it. It is very important that the replacement site keep contiguous coverage along the interstate and work well with the neighboring sites as noted above. The second consideration is the capacity of the site. A replacement would need to serve the same number of users that are currently served in their homes and as they travel through the site's footprint. The third consideration is the elevation. There is a significant area of lower terrain to the west of the existing site, but the replacement site needs to remain on a higher elevation, in orderto avoid having to increase the size of the structure. Contiguous Coverage The relocation site and its surrounding neighbors must have overlapping coverage to prevent lost service and dropped calls when subscribers are moving east and west on Interstate 64. The overlapping coverage areas allow the system to measure a mobile phone's signal as it moves through the area. The network constantly calculates which cell site is best suited to process the call while the mobile device is within that overlap area. When the signal strength measured by the cell site being approached reaches a set threshold, an instruction is given to the system telling the new site to take over the call. This is how the system "hands -off' a cellular call from one telecommunications site to another, and it requires the sites ortowers to be placed within a particular distance and at a particular elevation with respect to one another. Capacity The capacity concern has to do with the site's ability to process a certain number of calls and provide the bandwidth requested by each user within the site's coverage area. As wireless devices have become more prevalent and are used for more data -driven tasks, such as streaming music and video, greater demand for bandwidth and capacity is placed on the Page 13 networks. Because the licensed bandwidth is limited, only so many mobile sessions can occur at a given time through a particular tower. When that number is reached, the next potential call is rejected due to a lack of capacity. In this instance, the subscriber would get a "System is busy" error, or a call which would otherwise be handed -off to a new tower would be dropped. This means that sites with overlapping service areas are necessary in order to share demand and reduce call rejection during periods of high demand. Keswick Tower is a robust site which is properly placed in the developed network, in fact, the network has grown up around it. This would make it very difficult to adequately replaced if it were removed. Terrain The terrain also has implications for the coverage of the replacement site. Currently there are five (5) carrier operators on Keswick Tower. The elevation to the west of the falls approximately 30' below the existing elevation. A replacement tower work best if it were on the same or higher elevation. This would allow the replacement site to `see' the surrounding area as well as the existing site without having to build a replacement tower 30 to 40 feet taller to match Keswick's current coverage. Conclusion If Keswick Tower is removed, a replacement site (or sites) that will minimize the impact or changes to the surrounding sites will be needed so that when the carriers move to it (or them) the impact on the public is minimized and subscribers do not have a significant change or disruption in services. If the existing structure cannot be replaced, then problems in either capacity or contiguous coverage will necessarily result. Capacity and coverage deficiencies will result in dropped calls, blocked access to the network, or poor quality and reliability. It could also mean no coverage at all for some current subscribers. This not only affects every day personal and business communications within the area, but also endangers lives as access to emergency services is negatively impacted. Given these considerations, it is understandable that the potential loss of a cell tower is viewed as a critical event for our network and our customers. On the other hand, the existing facility has served the surrounding community, traffic into and out of Albemarle County on the interstate highway as well as on Virginia highway 25o, and the area's emergency services needs for almost twenty years. With responsible maintenance and timely upgrades, there is no reason it cannot continue to serve reliably into the foreseeable future, perhaps as long as land -based wireless networks remain technologically relevant. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully offer our enthusiastic support to the Johnson Foundation's application for Section 1704 conversion or diversion of open -space land, in the hope thatthe existing facilitywill be conserved, and not removed. Page 14 Sincerely, Venables, Digitally signed by Venables, Kurt DN: cn=Venables, Kurt Kurt Date: 201710,2015:5311-04'00' Signature Sr RF Engineer, US Cellular Title Enclosures verizonv October 17, 2017 Brian Fuller Assistant Director of Stewardship Virginia Outdoors Foundation 1010 Harris St. Suite 4 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Verizon Wireless 1831 Rady Court Richmond, VA 23222 Re: Sec. 1704 Application for Conversion/Diversion at 4464 Richmond Road, Albemarle County, Virginia; Crown Castle Telecommunications Tower #8163& Assistant Director Fuller: Verizon relies on a iSo'telecommunications tower ("Keswick Tower") at 4464 Richmond Road (Parcel Number 94-41A). The reason for this letter is to provide support to the Johnson Trust's Section 1704 application for conversion/diversion of open -space, so that the importance of conserving the existing tower at its present location is clear. Backcground Keswick Tower was built in 1998 and now houses five (5) wireless carriers. The wireless carriers lease space on the tower from Its owner, Crown Castle, who in turn leases the space where the tower resides from the owner of the farm, which is the Johnson Trust. In 2007, the property owner granted a perpetual conservation easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") forth e farm. According to a term of that easement, the tower must be removed during 2o18, after the original term of the lease expires. If the parties to the lease are unable to reach an understanding with the VOF so that the facility may remain in place, they must have a replacement facility in place to which Verizon and the other four (4) installed wireless carriers can migrate to prevent any interruption in service, Keswick Tower--_A_Kgy Position_ Verizon has been providing wireless service to its subscribers in this area of Albemarle County, periodically upgrading Its installations to meet the increasing subscriber demand for nearly two decades. With customers talking less, but texting, emailing and using data much more, the Importance of this facility cannot be overstated. This site provides critical coverage to those living, working and traveling though this part pf the County and emergency first responders Page 12 rely on the seamless coverage achieved by this site to provide rescue services. About 41,000 vehicles travel through the tower's coverage area every day, not to mention the local stationary subscribers. If Keswick Tower is not allowed to stay, a replacement facility or replacement facilities must be built. Not only must new locations be found, but these locations must be close to the existing site to work in conjunction with the surrounding sites (discussed in more detail below). Building a replacement tower (or towers) too far from the existing site would hamper the effective hand off of signal from this site to neighboring sites. This concept is best illustrated by the attached propagation maps. These maps show the distribution of low- and mid -band signal from the Keswick Tower for Verizon. Clearly, if this site is forced off air, the resulting gap in coverage would be substantial. Wireless signal would no longer be handed off between Site Nos. 80147S, 580013.2 and 861959. Customers traveling in the area would experience dropped and blocked calls due to the resulting lack in coverage. Some customers might have trouble getting the emergency services they need in a crisis. Specific Replacement Site Considerations When the search ring for a possible replacement tower was originally designed, three significant considerations became apparent. First, the site's main coverage area is an interstate and the rural area surrounding it. It is very important that the replacement site keep contiguous coverage along the interstate and work well with the neighboring sites as noted above. The second consideration is the capacity of the site. A replacement would need to serve the same number of users that are currently served in their homes and as they travel through the site's footprint. The third consideration is the elevation. There is a significant area of lower terrain to the west of the existing site, but the replacement site needs to remain on a higher elevation, in order to avoid having to increase the size of the structure. Contiguous Coverage The relocation site and its surrounding neighbors must have overlapping coverage to prevent lost service and dropped calls when subscribers are moving east and west on Interstate 64. The overlapping coverage areas allow the system to measure a mobile phone's signal as it moves through the area. The network constantly calculates which cell site is best suited to process the call while the mobile device is within that overlap area. When the signal strength measured by the cell site being approached reaches a set threshold, an instruction is given to the system telling the new site to take over the call. This is how the system "hands -off" a cellular call from one telecommunications site to another, and it requires the sites or towers to be placed within a particular distance and at a particular elevation with respect to one another. Capacity The capacity concern has to do with the site's ability to process a certain number of calls and provide the bandwidth requested by each user within the site's coverage area. As wireless Page 13 devices have become more prevalent and are used for more data -driven tasks, such as streaming music and video, greater demand for bandwidth and capacity is placed on the networks. Because the licensed bandwidth is limited, only so many mobile sessions can occur at a given time through a particular tower. When that number is reached, the next potential call is rejected due to a lack of capacity. In this instance, the subscriber would get a "System is busy" error, or a call which would otherwise be handed -off to a new tower would be dropped. This means that sites with overlapping service areas are necessary in order to share, demand and reduce call rejection during periods of high demand. Keswick Tower is a robust site which is properly placed in the developed network, in fact, the network has grown up around it. This would make it very difficult to adequately replaced if it were removed. Terrain The terrain also has implications for the coverage of the replacement site. Currently there are five (5) carrier operators on Keswick Tower. The elevation to the west of the falls approximately 3o' below the existing elevation. A replacement tower work best if it were on the same or higher elevation. This would allow the replacement site to 'see' the surrounding area as well as the existing site without having to build a replacement tower 30 to 40 feet taller to match Keswick's current coverage. Conclusion If Keswick Tower is removed, a replacement site (or sites) that will minimize the impact or changes to the surrounding sites will be needed so that when the carriers move to the it (or them) the impact on the public is minimized and subscribers do not have a significant change or disruption in services. If the existing structure cannot be replaced, then problems in either capacity or contiguous coverage will necessarily result. Capacity and coverage deficiencies will result in dropped calls, blocked access to the network, or poor quality and reliability. It could also mean no coverage at all for some current subscribers. This not only affects every day personal and business communications within the area, but also endangers lives as access to emergency services is negatively impacted. Given these considerations, it is understandable that the potential loss of a cell tower is viewed as a critical event for our network and our customers. on the other hand, the existing facility has served the surrounding community, traffic into and out of Albemarle County on the interstate highway as well as on Virginia highway 25o, and the area's emergency services needs for almost twenty years. With responsible maintenance and timely upgrades, there is no reason it cannot continue to serve reliably into the foreseeable future, perhaps as long as land -based wireless networks remain technologically relevant. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully offer our enthusiastic support to the Johnson Foundation's application for Section 1704 conversion or diversion of open -space land, in the hope that the existing facility will be conserved, and not removed. Page 14 Stefanie M. Lewis Verizon Engineer IV, Regulatory/RE Enclosures at&t October 10, 2017 Mr. Brian Fuller Assistant Director of Stewardship Virginia Outdoors Foundation 1010 Harris St. Suite 4 Charlottesville, VA 22903 AT&T Mobility Virginia/West Virginia Market Office 4801 Cox Road, Suite 300 Glen Allen, VA 23060 Re: Sec. 1704 Application for Conversion/Diversion at 4464 Richmond Road, Keswick, Virginia; Crown Castle Telecommunications Tower #816361 / AT&T Cell Site: CV335; FA: 10069168 Dear Mr. Fuller: I am writing in support of the Johnson Trust's Section 1704 application for conversion/diversion of open - space related to the 150' telecommunications tower owned by Crown Castle at 4464 Richmond Road, Keswick VA (Parcel Number 94-41A), As you may be aware, AT&T is one of several carriers who lease space on the tower for operation of wireless facilities. It is my understanding that (i) in 2007 the property owner granted a conservation easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and that according to the terms of that easement, the tower must be removed when the lease term expires in 2018; (ii) if the Application for Conversion/Diversion is approved, the tower may be allowed to remain. Please be advised that the wireless facility operated by AT&T at this location is a critical part of the AT&T network. The site provides coverage to those living, working and traveling in the surrounding area, including along a large section of Interstate 64. If the tower is not allowed to remain, AT&T customers on Interstate 64 and in the surrounding rural area will experience wide -scale degradation of service including inability to make calls, dropped calls, and loss of text and data services. In an attempt to minimize such loss of service, AT&T will begin pursuing a replacement facility immediately, but replacement of the existing facility will be tremendously difficult. Identifying suitable locations for new wireless facilities in Albemarle County is generally challenging and in this instance it will be even more so. The pool of candidates will be quite small because any potential replacement site will need to fit precisely into the existing network. It will need to be very close to the existing tower and at the same elevation in order to "hand off' properly to the surrounding sites. It is likely that any replacement site, no matter how carefully chosen, will provide inferior coverage when compared to the existing site. AT&T therefore offers its wholehearted support of the Johnson Foundation's application for Section 1704 conversion/diversion of open -space and awaits the ruling anxiously. Please let me know if you require any additional information, Sincerely, Carol A. Murphy Sr. Manager, Real Estate and Construction cm9506@att.com 804-201-2245 ,ISHENTEL Always connected to you November3-7, 2017 Brian Fuller Assistant Director of Stewardship Virginia Outdoors Foundation solo Harris St. Suite 4 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Re: Sec. 1704 Application for Conversion/Diversion at 4464 Richmond Road, Albemarle County, Virginia; Crown Castle Telecommunications Tower #816361, Shentel Site ID 68328/CV117 Keswick Assistant Director Fuller: Shenandoah Personal Communications, LLC ("Shentel"), successor in interest to Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C. ("NTELOS") relies on a 15o'telecommunications tower ("Keswick Tower") at 4464 Richmond Road (Parcel Number 94-4iA). The reason forthis letter is to provide supportto the Johnson Trust's Section 1704 application for conversion/diversion of open -space, so that the importance of conserving the existing tower at its present location is clear. Background Keswick Tower was built in 1998 and now houses five (5) wireless carriers. The wireless carriers lease space on the tower from its owner, Crown Castle, who in turn leases the space where the tower resides from the owner of the farm, which is the Johnson Trust. In 2007, the property owner granted a perpetual conservation easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") for the farm. According to a term of that easement, the tower must be removed during 2o18, after the original term of the lease expires. If the parties to the lease are unable to reach an understanding with the VOF so that the facility may remain in place, they must have a replacement facility in place to which Shentel and the other four (4) installed wireless carriers can migrate to prevent any interruption in service. Keswick Tower -- A Key Position Shentel has been providing wireless service to its subscribers in this area of Albemarle County, periodically upgrading its installations to meet the increasing subscriber demand for nearly two decades. With customers talking less, but texting, emailing and using data much more, the importance of this facility cannot be overstated. This site provides critical coverage to those living, working and traveling though this part of the County and emergency first responders rely on the seamless coverage achieved by this site to provide rescue services. About 41,000 vehicles travel through the tower's coverage area every day, not to mention the local stationary subscribers. If Keswick Tower is not allowed to stay, a replacement facility or replacement facilities must be built. Not only must new locations be found, but these locations must be close to the existing site to work in conjunction with the surrounding sites (discussed in more detail below). Building a replacement tower (or towers) too far from the existing site would hamper the effective hand off of signal from this site to neighboring sites. This concept is best illustrated by the attached propagation maps. These maps show the distribution of low- and mid -band signal from the Keswick Towerfor Shentel. Clearly, if this site is forced off air, the resulting gap in coverage would be substantial. Wireless signal would no longer be handed off between Site Nos. 801475, 58003.12 and 86195g. Customers traveling in the area would experience dropped and blocked calls due to the resulting lack in coverage. Some customers might have trouble getting the emergency services they need in a crisis. Specific Replacement Site Considerations When the search ring for a possible replacement tower was originally designed, three significant considerations became apparent. First, the site's main coverage area is an interstate and the rural area surrounding it. It is very important thatthe replacement site keep contiguous coverage along the interstate and work well with the neighboring sites as noted above. The second consideration is the capacity of the site. A replacement would need to serve the same number of users that are currently served in their homes and as they travel through the site's footprint. The third consideration is the elevation. There is a significant area of lower terrain to the west of the existing site, but the replacement site needs to remain on a higher elevation, in order to avoid having to increase the size of the structure. Contiguous Coverage The relocation site and its surrounding neighbors must have overlapping coverage to prevent lost service and dropped calls when subscribers are moving east and west on Interstate 64. The overlapping coverage areas allow the system to measure a mobile phone's signal as it moves through the area. The network constantly calculates which cell site is best suited to process the call while the mobile device is within that overlap area. When the signal strength measured by the cell site being approached reaches a set threshold, an instruction is given to the system telling the new site to take over the call. This is how the system "hands -off' a cellular call from one telecommunications site to another, and it requires the sites ortowers to be placed within a particular distance and at a particular elevation with respect to one another. Capacity The capacity concern has to do with the site's ability to process a certain number of calls and provide the bandwidth requested by each user within the site's coverage area. As wireless devices have become more prevalent and are used for more data -driven tasks, such as streaming music and video, greater demand for bandwidth and capacity is placed on the networks. Because the licensed bandwidth is limited, only so many mobile sessions can occur at a given time through a particular tower. When that number is reached, the next potential call is rejected due to a lack of capacity. In this instance, the subscriber would get a "System is busy" error, or a call which would otherwise be handed -off to a new tower would be dropped. This means that sites with overlapping service areas are necessary in order to share demand and reduce call rejection during periods of high demand. Keswick Tower is a robust site which is properly placed in the developed network, in fact, the network has grown up around it. This would make it very difficult to adequately replace if it were removed. Terrain The terrain also has implications for the coverage of the replacement site. Currently there are five (5) carrier operators on Keswick Tower. The elevation to the west of the falls approximately 3o' below the existing elevation. A replacement tower work best if it were on the same or higher elevation. This would allow the replacement site to'see'the surrounding area as well asthe existing site without having to build a replacement tower 30 to 40 feet taller to match Keswick's current coverage. Conclusion If Keswick Tower is removed, a replacement site (or sites) that will minimize the impact or changes to the surrounding sites will be needed so that when the carriers move to it (or them) the impact on the public is minimized and subscribers do not have a significant change or disruption in services. If the existing structure cannot be replaced, then problems in either capacity or contiguous coverage will necessarily result. Capacity and coverage deficiencies will result in dropped calls, blocked access to the network, or poor quality and reliability. It could also mean no coverage at all for some current subscribers. This not only affects every day personal and business communications within the area, but also endangers lives as access to emergency services is negatively impacted. Given these considerations, it is understandable that the potential loss of a cell tower is viewed as a critical eventfor our network and our customers. On the other hand, the existing facility has served the surrounding community, traffic into and out of Albemarle County on the interstate highway as well as on Virginia highway 25o, and the area's emergency services needs for almost twenty years. With responsible maintenance and timely upgrades, there is no reason it cannot continue to serve reliably into the foreseeable future, perhaps as long as land -based wireless networks remain technologically relevant. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully offer our enthusiastic support to the Johnson Foundation's application for Section 1704 conversion or diversion of open -space land, in the hope that the existing facility will be conserved, and not removed. Sin , Signature Daniel J. Meenan Name Vice President, Wireless Network Development Title September 7, 2017 Brian Fuller Assistant Director of Stewardship Virginia Outdoors Foundation 1010 Harris St. Suite 4 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Re: Sec. 1704 Application for Conversion/Diversion at 4464 Richmond Road, Albemarle County, Virginia; Crown Castle Telecommunications Tower #816361 Assistant Director Fuller: T-Mobile relies on a 150' telecommunications tower ("Keswick Tower") at 4464 Richmond Road (Parcel Number 94-41A). The reason for this letter is to provide support to the Johnson Trust's Section 1704 application for conversion/diversion of open -space, so that the importance of conserving the existing tower at its present location is clear. Background Keswick Tower was built in 1998 and now houses five (5) wireless carriers. The wireless carriers lease space on the tower from its owner, Crown Castle, who in turn leases the space where the tower resides from the owner of the farm, which is the Johnson Trust. In 2007, the property owner granted a perpetual conservation easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") for the farm. According to a term of that easement, the tower must be removed during 2018, after the original term of the lease expires. If the parties to the lease are unable to reach an understanding with the VOF so that the facility may remain in place, they must have a replacement facility in place to which T-Mobile and the other four (4) installed wireless carriers can migrate to prevent any interruption in service. Keswick Tower -- A Key Position T-Mobile has been providing wireless service to its subscribers in this area of Albemarle County, periodically upgrading its installations to meet the increasing subscriber demand for nearly two decades. With customers talking less, but texting, emailing and T-Mobile USA, Inc. 200 Westgate Parkway, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23233 using data much more, the importance of this facility cannot be overstated. This site provides critical coverage to those living, working and traveling though this part of the County and emergency first responders rely on the seamless coverage achieved by this site to provide rescue services. About 41,000 vehicles travel through the tower's coverage area every day, not to mention the local stationary subscribers. If Keswick Tower is not allowed to stay, a replacement facility or replacement facilities must be built. Not only must new locations be found, but these locations must be close to the existing site to work in conjunction with the surrounding sites (discussed in' more detail below). Building a replacement tower (or towers) too far from the existing site would hamper the effective hand off of signal from this site to neighboring sites. This concept is best illustrated by the attached propagation maps. These maps show the distribution of low - and mid -band signal from the Keswick Tower for T-Mobile. Clearly, if this site is forced off air, the resulting gap in coverage would be substantial. Wireless signal would no longer be handed off between Site Nos. 801475, 5800112 and 861959. Customers traveling in the area would experience dropped and blocked calls due to the resulting lack in coverage. Some customers might have trouble getting the emergency services they need in a crisis. Specific Rel2lacement Site Considerations When the search ring for a possible replacement tower was originally designed, three significant considerations became apparent. First, the site's main coverage area is an interstate and the rural area surrounding it. It is very important that the replacement site keep contiguous coverage along the interstate and work well with the neighboring sites as noted above. The second consideration is the capacity of the site. A replacement would need to serve the same number of users that are currently served in their homes and as they travel through the site's footprint. The third consideration is the elevation. There is a significant area of lower terrain to the west of the existing site, but the replacement site needs to remain on a higher elevation, in order to avoid having to increase the size of the structure. Contiguous Coverage The relocation site and its surrounding neighbors must have overlapping coverage to prevent lost service and dropped calls when subscribers are moving east and west on Interstate 64. The overlapping coverage areas allow the system to measure a mobile phone's signal as it moves through the area. The network constantly calculates which cell site is best suited to process the call while the mobile device is within that overlap area. When the signal strength measured by the cell site being approached reaches a set threshold, an instruction is given to the system telling the new site to take over the call. This is how the system "hands -off" a cellular call from one telecommunications site T-Mobile USA, Inc. 200 Westgate Parkway, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23233 to another, and it requires the sites or towers to be placed within a particular distance and at a particular elevation with respect to one another. Capacity The capacity concern has to do with the site's ability to process a certain number of calls and provide the bandwidth requested by each user within the site's coverage area. As wireless devices have become more prevalent and are used for more data -driven tasks, such as streaming music and video, greater demand for bandwidth and capacity is placed on the networks. Because the licensed bandwidth is limited, only so many mobile sessions can occur at a given time through a particular tower. When that number is reached, the next potential call is rejected due to a lack of capacity. In this instance, the subscriber would get a "System is busy" error, or a call which would otherwise be handed -off to a new tower would be dropped. This means that sites with overlapping service areas are necessary in order to share demand and reduce call rejection during periods of high demand. Keswick Tower is a robust site which is properly placed in the developed network, in fact, the network has grown up around it. This would make it very difficult to adequately replaced if it were removed. Terrain The terrain also has implications for the coverage of the replacement site. Currently there are five (5) carrier operators on Keswick Tower. The elevation to the west of the falls approximately 30' below the existing elevation. A replacement tower work best if it were on the same or higher elevation. This would allow the replacement site to 'see' the surrounding area as well as the existing site without having to build a replacement tower 30 to 40 feet taller to match Keswick's current coverage. Conclusion If Keswick Tower is removed, a replacement site (or sites) that will minimize the impact or changes to the surrounding sites will be needed so that when the carriers move to the it (or them) the impact on the public is minimized and subscribers do not have a significant change or disruption in services. If the existing structure cannot be replaced, then problems in either capacity or contiguous coverage will necessarily result. Capacity and coverage deficiencies will result in dropped calls, blocked access to the network, or poor quality and reliability. It could also mean no coverage at all for some current subscribers. This not only affects every day personal and business communications within the area, but also endangers lives as access to emergency services is negatively impacted. Given these considerations, it is understandable that the potential loss of a cell tower is viewed as a critical event for our network and our customers. T-Mobile USA, Inc. 200 Westgate Parkway, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23233 On the other hand, the existing facility has served the surrounding community, traffic into and out of Albemarle County on the interstate highway as well as on Virginia highway 250, and the area's emergency services needs for almost twenty years. With responsible maintenance and timely upgrades, there is no reason it cannot continue to serve reliably into the foreseeable future, perhaps as long as land -based wireless networks remain technologically relevant. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully offer our enthusiastic support to the Johnson Foundation's application for Section 1704 conversion or diversion of open -space land, in the hope that the existing facility will be conserved, and not removed. Sincerely, ( j ?4UV3� Juhn L. Louissaint ajm®®Mobiles Virginia Engineering and Operations Manager, Engineering Development (757) 305-8000 Mobile juhn.louissaint@t-mobile.com T-Mobile USA, Inc. 200 Westgate Parkway, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23233 Ell'r r :G Office of the Sheriff October 16, 2017 Sheriff Virginia Outdoors Foundation Eric Hess hes*bnuvannashe rtif.cam ATTN: Brian Fuller Assistant Director of Stewardship 600 East Main St., Suite 402 Executive Assistant Richmond, VA 23219 Martha Gatlin mgafljt�finvarina�h�.ri� C4>� To The Board of Trustees, Admin/Judicial/ Civil Bureau Captain von Hill Re: 1704 Conversion Request on behalf of Karen S. Johnson -Easement # ALB-02399 vh 4 tluva asherm"Ecoxn The primary mission of the Fluvanna County Sheriff's Office is Law Enforcement and Investigations/Operations Bureau Emergency Communications (E911) for Fluvanna County. In 2016 we received 6483 Captain David Wells emergency calls for service, 3463 were from wireless communication devices and 186 of dw ll nvanna riff. aM those calls were dropped due to poor wireless communication's coverage. Our current CAD system does not have the capability to generate a report that would reflect Training/Crime prevention specialist Lt. Jesse Lt. Jesse Ellis the number of E911 calls from wireless devices - that may have originated from the Keswick Y ,i�_uh�i .cor Tower and were rerouted to either Louisa or Albemarle Counties. We routinely work with Albemarle and Louisa Law Enforcement agencies in the Troy and Keswick communities judicial/Civil. Division where the Counties connect, geographically. Our Deputies are Issued or use personal smart Lt. Thomas Rensch tree►-44h; fluviumal;heriff.com phones for communications with all E911 centers and numerous Law Enforcement Personnel. Patrol Div. -Shift Commander We have reviewed the details of the 1704 Application filed on behalf of Mrs. Johnson. We Lt. Sean Peterson ,atcrrQz kluvannashoriff.corn are very concerned about the possibility of losing this tower location and its potential for a catastrophic impact on the safety of neighboring communities. Patrol Div. - Shift Commander Lt. Forrest Lawhorne In conclusion we submit our support for Mrs. Johnson's Application to avoid removal of the Bawha �g �iu� n�sheriff.com Keswick Tower under Section 1704. We respectfully ask the Board to exercise discretion in allowing the tower to remain in place as an aid to provide wireless communication for Investigations Division public health and safety of our neighboring counties. Sgt. Aaron Hurd @&AXd*figvaammINgFfff•.e4m Respectfully submitted, Emergency Communications Center Director Michael Grandstaff- xxkaxl Xt. St talf'.00UV.ixukasi:crif;.com Sheriff Eric B. Hess Fluvanna County Sheriffs Office Fluvanna County Sheriff's Office 160 Commons Boulevard Post Office Box 113; Palmyra, Virginia 22963 Emergency: 911 Non -Emergency: (ph) 434-589-821 l; (fax) 434-589-6594 Administration: (ph) 434-591-2013; (fax) 434-591-2012