staff report verizon casanova bos

8/9/2019 Staff Report Verizon Casanova BOS

1/19

1

Department of Community Development

Staff Report

Subject: SPEX-14-001998 – Dale Strother Childs (Owner)/Verizon Wireless (Applicant) –Casanova Telecommunications Tower

Date: May 14, 2015

Project Update:

After the Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 2015, the applicant requested a one-month

postponement. Two additional balloon tests were flown simultaneously on April 11, 2015. One

test was conducted on the subject parcel (Childs property), approximately 310 feet west of theoriginally-proposed tower site, behind the silo. The other test was conducted on the adjacent

property to the west (Pohzehl property) at a slightly higher elevation (about 15 feet higher) within

a stand of young trees, the tallest being approximately 70 feet above ground level (AGL), asestimated by staff on a site visit.

Propagation maps were produced for the tested site on the adjacent property and submitted to the

County on April 17, 2015. Due to the close proximity of the parcels, the radio frequency (RF) propagation of the tested site was comparable to the RF propagation for the originally-proposedsite. The applicant also produced new photo simulations, which are attached. Verizon is now

proposing to relocate the facility at the same height to the balloon test site on the subject parcel

(the Childs property), behind the silo. A revised plat was submitted to the County on April 24,2015 showing this new, proposed location. The applicant justifies this request by stating that the

trees on the adjacent parcel (Pohzehl property) “are not very tall, and the existing structures and

trees on the Childs’ track provide better screening than [if surrounded by] 100 feet of trees on thePohzehl property.” Additionally, the applicant states that if the site is relocated to the Pohzehl

property, there would be a need to construct a new access road to the facility.

Section 11-102.3(a)(Siting) of the Zoning Ordinance states that a new wireless service facility may

be a pole sited outside of existing trees or in an area surrounded by less than 100 feet of trees in

all directions, if mitigated or camouflaged in such a way to be less visible than if it were in thetrees. The applicant states that the facility positioned at the new location on the subject parcel

“would be well, if not better, mitigated so as to be less visible than if located on the Pohzehl

property within the trees.”

Topic Description:

The applicant is requesting a Special Exception to construct a 154 foot monopole

telecommunications tower and an associated equipment compound. Personal wireless facilities inexcess of 120 feet in height are permissible when they are technically justified due to unique

environmental and terrain features and technological constraints and they meet other performance

criteria. All tower requests exceeding 80 feet in height require a Special Exception. In addition, anew telecommunications tower must be surrounded by wooded areas for at least 100 feet on all


2/19

2

sides of the compound. The proposed facility is not surrounded by a wooded area, further

necessitating the Special Exception.

The applicant proposes to install up to twelve (12) antennas on the tower at a rad center of 150 feet

above ground level (AGL). The tower could potentially accommodate the antennas of three (3)

additional wireless providers. The Federal Airways and Airspace Summary Report included withthe application submission indicates that lighting would not be required on the tower.

The tower, equipment shelter, and support equipment would be located within a 50’ x 50’compound set back approximately 1,250 feet from Casanova Road (Route 616). According to the

original plat, the “barn-style” equipment shelter would measure 15’ x 17’ x 10’6”. The applicant

intends to surround the compound with an eight (8) foot high wood fence and proposes to installtwo (2) rows of evergreen trees along the north, east, and south sides of the compound. The existing

graveled drive from Casanova Road (Route 616), as well as a newly-constructed graveled drive

would serve as access to the compound. The applicant anticipates one (1) or two (2) monthlymaintenance visits per wireless provider.

The applicant’s Certified Engineer Statement states that the originally proposed location of the

facility was selected by Verizon Wireless to provide and improve wireless 4G LTE coverage alongMeetze Road (Route 643) to Warrenton, including providing coverage to the community of

Casanova. The applicant’s Radio Frequency (RF) engineer further states that the proposed facility

would provide better hand-off between existing tower sites, primarily those identified on theattached propagation maps as Leesview (6546 Lovers Lane), Catlett (3447 Catlett Road), Calverton

(4202 Old Calverton Road), and Litchfield (Opal Road). The area to be served by the proposed

facility is depicted on the attached propagation maps, which show Verizon Wireless 4G LTEcoverage in the area with and without the proposed tower site and potential antenna installation

heights at 80 feet, 100 feet, 120 feet, and 150 feet.

Section 11-102.3 of the Zoning Ordinance refers to a wireless telecommunications facility

proposed in excess of 120 feet in height as an application of last resort. The applicant is requiredto technically justify that (a) all existing structure, site, and height alternatives have been

exhausted; and (b) the facility proposed is at a minimum height, based on the best availabletechnology, to adjust to the identified environmental and topographical constraints for the

established service carrier, and without the site at the requested height, service cannot be provided.

Section 11-102.3(b)(4) requires that the height of new towers be limited based on technologicalneed and type of facility location.

CityScape, the County’s telecommunications consultant, reviewed the application and concluded

that the applicant justified the need for a new personal wireless facility in the subject area.However, CityScape maintained the position that alternative sites exist in wooded areas within the

applicant’s search ring that would have ground elevations in excess of the ground elevation at the proposed site. An alternative site at a higher ground elevation would allow a tower of less than150 feet, while still maintaining the same coverage goals for the applicant and better meet the

requirements in the County’s ordinance by placing the site within a wooded area. The applicant’s

additional submission materials and the CityScape reports are attached.


3/19

3

Planning Commission Action on March 19, 2015:

The Planning Commission discussed this item at its work session and conducted a public hearing

on March 19, 2015. There were thirty (30) speakers. Eighteen (18) residents spoke in support of

the project. Seven (7) residents spoke in opposition to the project. Four (4) speakers representing

Verizon spoke on behalf of the application. CityScape spoke to clarify its recommendation. ThePlanning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the application with the justification that

the application did not meet the requirements in Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance for towersiting and design, and did not fulfill submission requirements for towers exceeding 120 feet inheight.

Current Location, Zoning and Land Use:

The subject property is located at 5272 Casanova Road in Cedar Run District, approximately .8

mile northeast of the intersection of Meetze Road (Route 643) and Casanova Road (Route 616).The parcel is zoned Rural Agriculture (RA) and consists of 50.39 acres. The subject property is

used for residential and agricultural purposes. Much of the parcel is in agricultural fields with

sparse tree cover around the house.

Neighboring Zoning and Current Land Use:

Properties within a .5 mile radius of the proposed site are zoned Rural Agriculture (RA), Village(V), Commercial Village (CV), and Industrial General (I-2) and are used primarily for residential

and agricultural purposes. Vulcan Materials Company is located on the adjacent property to the

northwest.


4/19

4


5/19

5

Comprehensive Plan:

Chapter 9 Addendum of the Comprehensive Plan provides goals, objectives, and policies regarding

telecommunications facilities. They are intended to address infrastructure needs of the

telecommunications industry and County needs for public safety, while minimizing impacts on

adjacent and surrounding land uses. The principal goals and objectives are included below.

To encourage managed development of wireless communications infrastructures, while at

the same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitivecommunications marketplace.

To maintain and preserve the agricultural and residential character of the County and its

neighborhoods and to promote the creation of an attractive and harmonious community.

To ensure that wireless communications towers and related wireless communicationsfacilities are compatible and as visually unobtrusive as possible with surrounding land uses.

To minimize the adverse visual impacts of wireless communications towers and relatedfacilities through careful design, siting, landscape screening and innovative camouflaging

techniques.

The locations of personal wireless facilities and telecommunication towers in excess of 80feet may be permissible only when it is technically justified due to unique environmental

and terrain features and technological constraints, which preclude wireless communicationservice within the height standards.

To encourage the use of alternative support structures, collocation of new antennas onexisting wireless communications towers, and camouflaged towers.

According to this chapter, the most preferred sitings for wireless telecommunications facilities are

on or within existing structures where the antennas would not be highly visible (including, butnot limited to, existing towers, utility poles, electrical transmission towers, water tanks, building

rooftops, and other tall structures) and within wooded areas with only the antenna arrays above the

tree tops. The least preferred sitings are in open fields/areas or on highly visible rooftops. If

collocation is not possible, siting of towers is encouraged within wooded areas or remote sites

away from residences. While such locations may not obscure from view the entirety of the tower,they may reduce visual impact. Stealth or camouflaged tower designs are strongly encouraged.

Siting Policy 2.J states that no tower shall be sited within 1,000 feet of a Virginia Scenic Byway,unless an acceptable stealth tower design is utilized.

Historic Resource Analysis:

Section 11-102.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Fauquier County Architectural Review

Board (ARB) to review and provide recommendations of effect of new telecommunications tower

proposals that exceed 120 feet in height. The ARB reviewed the Casanova tower application at its business meeting on August 20, 2014. After identifying all significant cultural resources within a

one-mile radius of the project site and considering the viewshed and project design, board membersdetermined that the undertaking would create an adverse effect to the following historic resources:the Casanova Historic District (DHR #030-5163), Auburn Battlefield (DHR #030-0449),

Redwood Farm (DHR #030-5069), and Springhill Farm (DHR #030-0441). Rogues Road (Route

602) from Old Auburn Road (Route 670) to Casanova Road (Route 616) is identified as a VirginiaScenic Byway. It is located approximately 1,800 feet east of the newly-proposed project site.


6/19

6

The ARB suggested minimizing adverse effect through modification of the project’s scale, design,

and location. They recommended a tower shorter in height (possibly 80-100 feet) or a towerconcealed at a shorter height, as long as the design and height of a concealment tower is

harmonious with the surrounding landscape (such as a silo concealment design), or a tower sited

at an alternate location that would not produce an adverse effect to significant cultural resources.1

Balloon Test:

The applicant first conducted a balloon test on November 14 and 15, 2014. Two additional balloon

tests were conducted simultaneously on April 11, 2015. Photographs and photo simulationsgenerated from the balloon tests are attached to this application.

5-006 General Standards for Special Permits and Special Exception Uses

In addition to the special standards set forth hereinafter for specific uses, all special permit and

special exception uses shall also satisfy the following general standards:

1. The proposed use shall be such that it will not adversely affect the use or development

of neighboring properties. It shall be in accordance with the applicable zoning districtregulations and the applicable provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The

location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and the nature and

extent of screening, buffering and landscaping shall be such that the use will not hinder

1 A historic property is adversely affected when an undertaking alters, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics

of the property (or district) that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places in a manner that

would diminish the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Setting,

which encompasses surrounding open spaces and landscape features, is one the more important aspects essential to

understanding historic integrity of a resource and determining the effect of an undertaking.


7/19

7

or discourage the appropriate development and/or use of adjacent or nearby land and/or

buildings or impair the value thereof.

The proposed use will not adversely affect the use or appropriate development of

neighboring properties. The application is in accordance with Rural Agriculture (RA)

zoning district regulations should the Special Exception be granted. The proposal is notin conformance with the provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, specifically

tower siting and design preference policies. See the Comprehensive Plan analysisabove.

2. The proposed use shall be such that pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated will not

be hazardous or conflict with the existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood andon the streets serving the site.

The applicant anticipates a maximum of one or two monthly maintenance visits per

wireless provider, which should not generate excessive traffic in the neighborhood orconflict with existing traffic patterns. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

staff has yet to comment on this project. VDOT may have additional requirements for

the access road entrance, which would be addressed during the Site Plan process.

3. In addition to the standards which may be set forth in this Article for a particular category

or use, the BZA and Board may require landscaping, screening, yard requirements orother limitations found to be necessary and appropriate to the proposed use and location.

The applicant intends to screen the base of the tower and tower compound with an eight

(8) foot high wood fence. The Zoning Ordinance requires landscaping—a mix ofevergreens and hedges—around a tower compound for additional screening. The

applicant is proposing two rows of evergreen trees on the north, south, and west sides

of the facility. The applicant will be required to install additional landscaping along the

east side of the facility if the Board of Supervisors finds this to be necessary andappropriate to the proposed location. Staff has added a condition for Board

consideration that addresses the landscape buffer.

4. Open space shall be provided in an amount at least equal to that specified for the zoning

district in which the proposed use is located.

Open space is not required for this application.

5. Adequate utility, drainage, parking, loading, and other necessary facilities to serve the

proposed use shall be provided. Low impact development techniques are encouraged bythe County and shall be incorporated into the site and facility design when deemed

appropriate by the applicant after consultation with appropriate county officials. Parking

and loading requirements shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article 7.

This will be addressed during the Site Plan application process.

6. Signs shall be regulated by the provisions of Article 8, except as may be qualified in theParts that follow for a particular category or use. However, the BZA and the Board,


8/19

8

under the authority presented in Section 007 below, may impose more strict standards

for a given use than those set forth in this Ordinance.

Typical public warning and FCC informational signs are required to be placed at a

telecommunications facility.

7. The future impact of a proposed use will be considered and addressed in establishing a

time limit on the permit, if deemed appropriate. Existing and recent development,current zoning and the Comprehensive Plan shall be among the factors used in assessing

the future impact of the proposed use and whether reconsideration of the permit after astated period of time would be necessary and appropriate for the protection of properties

in the vicinity and to ensure implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.

The applicant has requested no time limit be placed on the proposed use.

8. The proposed use shall be such that air quality, surface and groundwater quality andquantity, are not degraded or depleted to an extent that would hinder or discourage the

appropriate development and/or use of adjacent or nearby land and/or buildings or impair

the value thereof.

The proposed use should not affect air quality and surface or groundwater.

9. Except as provided in this Article, all uses shall comply with the lot size, bulk

regulations, and performance standards of the zoning district in which located.

The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable zoning district regulations.

11-102.2 Personal Wireless Facilities.

These facilities are allowed in all zoning district categories by right, subject to meeting the

following performance criteria. The applicant shall file a site plan with supporting documentationadequate to demonstrate that the following standards have been met:

1. Location and Siting Requirements:

b. All Other Facilities.

1. The facility shall be 100 feet from the public highway, street or road, measuredfrom the right-of-way line as shown within a State Highway Plat Book,

subdivision plat, or 15 feet from the centerline of a prescriptive right-of-way.

The proposed facility is more than 100 feet from all public roadways. The

nearest public road, Casanova Road (Route 616), is approximately 1,250 feet

from the tower compound.

2. The facility shall be 5,000 feet from a Federal, State or County park or wildlife

management area. For purposes of this section, the term “wildlife managementarea” shall mean the Chester Phelps Wildlife Management Area and the G.

Richard Thompson Wildlife Management Area, or any other geographical area


9/19

9

within the County designated by the Commonwealth of Virginia as a wildlife

management area.

The proposed facility is more than 5,000 feet from a federal, state, or county park or wildlife management area. The closest park or wildlife management

area is Weston Wildlife Refuge, approximately 6,200 feet from the new proposedtower site.

3. The facility shall be 300 feet or more from an adjoining property’s existing

residential unit.

The closest residential unit on an adjoining property is approximately 1,100 feet

southeast from the proposed facility.

4. The facility shall be located downslope from ridgelines so that the top of the

structure is below the ridgeline.

The top of the structure would not appear above a ridgeline.

5. The facility shall be surrounded by wooded areas for at least 100 feet on all

sides. For all provisions of this article, the terms “woodland” and “wooded

areas” shall mean growth of deciduous or conifer trees at a minimum density of

80 wooden stems per acre of trees that measure at least four inches in diameter breast high (DBH) or four and one half feet.

The tower site would not be surrounded by a wooded area, thus necessitatingthe Special Exception.

6. Existing trees within 200 feet of any facility shall not be removed, except as may be authorized to permit construction of the facility and installation of vehicular

access.

The applicant has indicated that no trees would be removed to install thecompound. After its installation, the removal of trees within 200 feet of the

facility shall not be permitted by the applicant or the property owner, according

to Zoning Ordinance requirements.

2. Design Requirements. All new facilities, including silos, shall meet the following

design criteria:

a. Constructed no higher than eighty (80) feet from ground level to the highest

part of the personal wireless facility, including all antennas. In the case ofsilos, height shall be measured to the top of the silo.

The tower is designed to be 154 feet in height, thus necessitating the Special

Exception.


10/19

10

b. Equipped with dual-polarization or omni-directional antennas, or another

antenna alternative identified at site plan, which would be more efficient atthe proposed location, as determined by the Zoning Administrator;

The facility will be equipped with directional antennas.

c. Surrounded by a six (6) foot or higher security barrier, including a locked

gate, for a ground-mounted pole and/or base station. For camouflagedfacilities (e.g., a silo, with all components located inside the structure), anapplicant can request this requirement be waived by the Zoning

Administrator in conjunction with site plan approval if all components are

secured internally within the structure.

The applicant is proposing to install an eight (8) foot high wood security

fence with a locked gate around the compound.

d. Antennas: All antennas shall be of a material or color that matches the

exterior of the building or structure.

The applicant’s Statement of Justification states that all antennas will be of

a material and color that matches the tower.

e. No commercial advertising shall be allowed on any portion of the facility.

The applicant has stated that there will be no commercial advertising of any

kind at the site.

f. Signals or lights or illumination shall not be permitted on any portion of the

facility, unless required by the Federal Communications Commission

(FCC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), State or Federalauthorities, or the County, except for security lighting at the base station

(100-watt).

According to the Federal Airways & Airspace summary report included in

the applicant’s application packet, the tower will not require illumination. However, emergency security lighting may be needed at the compound.

Staff has prepared a condition for Board consideration that would permit

one light, no more than 100 watts or equivalent, at each equipment shelter,

as needed for security purposes.

g.

Fall zone criteria contained herein shall be met.

The measurements on the Special Exception plat submitted on April 24,

2015 indicate that the fall zone criteria would be met.


11/19

11

h. Equipment shelters and cabinets:

Shall be designed to be architecturally consistent, with respect to

materials and appearance, to the buildings within the area of the

facility;

Sheet C-3 of the original Special Exception plat shows that Verizon plans

to install a concrete block equipment shelter with a gambrel roof and metal panel roofing that is designed to resemble a barn, which would be

architecturally consistent with the buildings within the surrounding area.

If mounted on a rooftop, the equipment shall be concealed orcamouflaged so that the shelter or cabinet either is not visible at gradeor appears to be part of the structure.

The applicant is not proposing to mount equipment on a rooftop.

i. Any personal wireless facility located on, within or near a historic site, shall

not alter the character defining features, distinctive construction methods,or original materials of the site.

The Architectural Review Board has determined that the undertaking would

have an adverse effect on significant historic sites near the proposed tower site that would alter character-defining features of those resources. See the

Historic Resources Analysis Section above.

11-102.3 a. Zoning Application Category. New personal wireless facilities which cannotachieve the standards in Section 11-102.2 shall require special exception

approval, subject to findings of fact based on the following criteria:

Siting: A new personal wireless service facility may be a pole that issited outside of existing trees, or in an area surrounded by less than 100

feet of trees in all directions, if the design is mitigated or camouflaged

in such a way to be less visible than if it were in the trees;

Siting is being proposed outside of existing trees, in an area surrounded

by less than 100 feet of trees in all directions. The applicant has proposed to relocate the tower site approximately 310 feet west of the

originally-proposed site on the subject property. The applicant argues

that relocation to this new site constitutes mitigation and makes the

tower less visible than if the site was relocated to a wooded area on theadjacent parcel.

Photographs taken during the April 11, 2015 balloon tests and the photo simulations presented by the applicant indicate that the relocation of

the tower site to the newly-proposed location appears to mitigate the

view of the tower from Rogues Road and the Auburn Battlefield. However, staff believes that there are other feasible tower siting and


12/19

12

design options on the adjacent property within the wooded area and

other probable sites within the search ring that were left unexplored bythe applicant. For instance, the ground elevation on the adjacent

property (Pohzehl property) is higher within the wooded area than at

the originally-proposed site. A tower sited there could potentially be

lowered to accommodate the difference in ground elevation and theview possibly mitigated through the use of a concealment tower design,

such as a tree pole.

Special Circumstances:

With the exception of emergency communication tower facilities, a

personal wireless or telecommunication facility proposed in excess of120 feet in height is an application of last resort. The applicant/carrier

must technically justify that (a) all existing structures, site and height

alternatives have been exhausted; and (b) the facility proposed is at theminimum height, based on the best available technology, to adjust to the

identified environmental and topographical constraints, for the

established service carrier, and without the site at the requested height,service cannot be provided.

The applicant’s Certified Engineer’s Report states that Verizon

identified no existing structures of sufficient height in the area to support the facility and provide the desired coverage objectives. Radio

frequency (RF) propagation maps were included with the application

submission that depicted coverage for 700 MHz LTE service at fourtower heights—150 feet, 120 feet, 100 feet, and 80 feet—indicating that

service could be provided at all four tower heights. However, the maps

showed that as the structure height was reduced, the coverage slightly

diminished at the propagation edges.

The applicant’s engineer report dated July 23, 2014 indicates that the

engineer was previously requested to consider the quarry northeast ofthe subject property as a potential site. The engineer reported that any

area within the quarry shifted coverage too far to the northwest and

would compromise coverage objectives for the Casanova community tothe southeast “where more of the user traffic resides.”

The applicant was asked to provide additional technical informationthat would demonstrate that the applicant has considered other site

alternatives that would better meet the County’s Ordinancerequirements. The property owned by the Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) along Rogues Road (Route 602), which iswithin the applicant’s search ring, was suggested to the applicant as an

alternative tower site. The applicant produced RF propagation maps

for this location and two engineer reports dated December 11, 2014 and January 21, 2015. The engineer evaluated the SPCA property with

possible tower heights of 150 feet and 180 feet. It was the engineer’s

opinion that a tower on the SPCA property would diminish coverage


13/19

13

mostly to the north and northwest and would not meet the applicant’s

coverage objective. However, the propagation maps indicate thatadditional coverage would be provided to the south and southeast if

relocated to the SPCA property.

In April 2015, the applicant produced propagation maps for analternative site within a stand of trees on the adjacent property to the

west (Pohzehl property) at the height of 154 feet. The ground elevationat this potential site was approximately 14-15 feet higher than theoriginally proposed location. The maps indicated that propagation for

a tower at this proposed site would be comparable to the initially-

proposed location. However, the applicant has chosen to relocate the site on the subject parcel because the trees on the adjacent parcel

(Pohzehl property) “are not very tall, and the existing structures and

trees on the Child’s track provide better screening than [if surrounded

by] 100 feet of trees on the Pohzehl property.”

CityScape concluded that there are numerous alternative ground

elevations located in wooded areas within the applicant’s search ringin excess of the ground elevation at the originally-proposed site that

would permit a tower of less than 150 feet in height, while still

maintaining the desired coverage goals for the applicant and therequirements in the Ordinance.

The applicant has provided technical evaluation of three alternative

sites.

b. General Performance Criteria. All personal wireless or telecommunication

facilities, whether permitted by right or permissible with the approval of a

special exception or special permit application, shall be subject to the followingsubmittal standards and criteria.

Applicable Standards are included below.

(2) The proposed telecommunication tower or monopole, and associateduses and equipment shelters, shall be compatible with development in

the vicinity with regards to the setting, color, lighting, topography,

materials, and architecture. In addition, the facility should be located in

the interior of the property, and areas of existing vegetation, ifapplication, shall be used to screen the facility.

The facility is being proposed within the interior of the property. While thedesign of the proposed equipment shelter would be compatible with

development in the vicinity of the site, the tower, at the proposed height,

would not be compatible with area development with regards to setting,topography, and architecture.


14/19

14

(3) New telecommunication facilities greater than 80 feet in height shall be

designed to accommodate collocation, complete with the engineeringreport attesting to that capacity, unless the Applicant is able to certify:

(a) Doing so would create an unnecessary visual impact on the

surrounding area; or

(b) No additional need is anticipated for any other potential user inthe vicinity; or

(c) There is some valid economic, technological or physical justification as to why collocation is not possible.

In addition to Verizon’s antennas, there is enough space on the tower to

accommodate collocation of three (3) additional wireless providers.

(4) The height of new towers shall be limited based on technological need,

type of facility location, and/or required permit approval.

The applicant’s Statement of Justification states that the height of the tower

is necessary to support the antenna at a level to achieve the needed

coverage. However, CityScape has concluded that if located on a higherelevation, the height of the tower could be lowered and still meet the

applicant’s coverage objective.

(7) Unmanned equipment structure(s) shall not contain more than 500

square feet of total gross floor area per telecommunication provider on

each site. Structures shall not exceed 12 feet in height.

The proposed equipment shelter will not contain more than 500 square feet

of total gross floor area. Zoning staff has confirmed that the height of a structure is measured to the mid-point of the roof. The drawing submitted

with the application indicates that the measurement of the structure’s height

from the concrete pad to the mid-point of the roof would be twelve (12) feet.The measurement to the roofline is fifteen (15) feet.

c. Additional Submission Requirements. In addition to Section 5-011.II, thefollowing additional information shall be submitted by applicants for towers or

monopoles which require special exception or special permit approval:

(1) A map showing the telecommunication system of which the proposeduse will be an integral part, together with a written statement outlining

the functional relationship of the proposed facility use to the utility

system.

Propagation maps depicting Verizon’s existing and projected coverage and

telecommunications system are attached.

(2) A statement, prepared by a certified engineer, giving the basic reasons

for selecting the particular site as the location of the proposed facility

and certifying that the proposed use will meet the performance standardsof the district in which located.


15/19

15

A statement from a certified engineer explaining the basic reasons for site selection and compliance with performance standards is attached.

(3) Photo imagery or other visual simulation of the proposed

telecommunication tower or monopole must be shown with theexisting conditions of the site. This simulation shall be provided from

a minimum of three (3) perspectives. The applicant shall address howthe facility can be designed to mitigate the visual impact on arearesidents, facilities, and roads. More specifically, a sight line

presentation must be presented.

The applicant’s photographs and photo simulations are attached.

(4) Except for areas where permitted by right, an applicant for the proposedtelecommunication facility must demonstrate that an antenna location

on an existing facility is not feasible.

The County’s objective is that no new tower/monopole shall be permittedunless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Board

of Supervisors that no existing tower, monopole, or structure can

accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna.

Collocation may be determined not to be feasible in the following

situations:

(a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of

existing and approved telecommunications facilities, considering

existing planned use of those facilities cannot be reinforced to

accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost;(b) The planned equipment will cause interference with other existing

or planned equipment for that telecommunication facility, and thatinterference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost;

(c) Existing or approved telecommunication facilities do not have space

on which equipment can be placed so as to provide adequate service;and

(d) Existing and approved telecommunication facilities will not provide

adequate signal coverage.

The applicant’s engineer report states that there are no other existing tall

structures suitable for collocation in the target area.

11-103 Landscaping and Buffer Requirements. The following landscaping and buffering

requirements shall apply to all telecommunication facilities.

1. Security Fencing. Facilities shall be enclosed by security fencing not less than

six (6) feet in height.


16/19

16

The applicant proposes to enclose the equipment compound with an eight (8)

foot high wooden security fence with a locked gate.

2. Landscaping. The telecommunication facility shall be landscaped with a mix of

hedge and trees to screen internal communications buildings from adjacent

properties. The standard buffer should consist of an area 10 feet in width outsideof the fenced area. Plantings will comply with Zoning Ordinance landscaping

requirements.

The applicant proposes to install two rows of evergreen trees on the north, south,

and west sides of the compound with the justification that the row of small

deciduous trees along the fence row to the east provides sufficient screening onthe east side. If the Board of Supervisors does not find that the existing line of

trees provides a sufficient buffer on the east side of the compound, the applicant

would be required to install additional landscaping. Staff has added a condition

for Board consideration that requires the installation of landscaping on all sidesof the facility.

3.

Existing mature tree growth and natural land forms onsite shall be preserved tothe maximum extent possible. In special exception applications, the Board of

Supervisors may determine that the natural growth surrounding the property

perimeter may be sufficient as the required buffer.

The applicant has stated that no trees within 200 feet of the facility shall be

removed to install the facility or access road. The applicant proposes to install

landscaping along the west, north, and south sides of the compound but does not propose landscaping on the east side. Staff has added a condition for Board

consideration that requires the installation of landscaping on all sides of the

compound.

4. Existing trees within 200 feet of the telecommunication tower or monopole shall

not be removed, except as may be authorized to permit construction of thefacility and installation of vehicular access.

As previously stated, the applicant does not intend to remove trees to constructthe facility or access road. No trees within 200 feet of the facility shall be

permitted to be removed following the installation.

Staff and Agency Review Comments:

Staff and certain referral agencies have reviewed this application for conformance with theComprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other relevant policies and regulations. Findings,comments, and recommendations are summarized below. Following each comment is a staff note

in italics stating how the comment has been addressed.

Technical Considerations

CityScape Consultants, Inc., the County’s telecommunications consultant, reviewed the technicalaspects of the application and provided reports, which are attached. CityScape has identified


17/19

17

alternate locations at a higher elevation within the applicant’s search ring. CityScape maintains

the position that should the applicant wish to locate the support structure in a manner that bestoptimizes the desired propagation, an alternative method exists that meets siting requirements in

the Ordinance, permits a tower at a lower height, and still allows the applicant to meet the desired

coverage objective. CityScape recommended that the applicant resubmit a modified application.

Planning Considerations

See analysis provided within the staff report.

Zoning Considerations

The Zoning Office reviewed this Special Exception request and notes the following findings:

1. The subject property is zoned Agriculture District (RA).

Noted, no action required.

2.

Section 3-320 Public Utilities (Category 20), use 8 (Telecommunications Facilities, Radio,Television, Microwave, Antenna and Transmitting Equipment) allows atelecommunications facility with subsequent site plan approval in the RA zoning district.

The proposed Special Exception application is asking to allow the telecommunications

facility greater than 80 feet in height and to allow a facility which is not surrounded by

wooded areas for at least 100 feet on all sides (Section 11-102.1.b.5 of the ZoningOrdinance (ZO)).

Noted, no action required.

3. Section 5-006 General Standards for Special Permits and Special Exception Uses applies

to the subject property. Zoning Staff defers to Planning Staff in the compliance assessmentof these standards.

Analysis provided within this report.

4. Section 5-2001 Additional Submission Requirements applies to the subject property.

Zoning Staff defers to Planning Staff in the compliance assessment of these standards.

Analysis provided within this report.

5. The applicant will be required to file a major site plan if the Special Exception request isapproved. The proposal will disturb approximately 21,231 square feet, most of which will

be new impervious area. Stormwater management calculations shall be reviewed as part

of the major site plan application. Further, Note #3 on Sheet C-1 shall not be construed asthe approved measures used to satisfy stormwater management regulations. This Note

should also be revised to state, “disturbance is greater than 10,000 sq. ft…”

The applicant will be required to comply with all stormwater regulations at the time of Site Plan application submission and correct any inaccurate measurements or notes on the Site

Plan. An Environmental & Sediment Control Plan is required when 10,000 square feet of


18/19

18

ground is disturbed. A Stormwater Management Plan is required when an applicant intends

to provide 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. If approval is given for theSpecial Exception and the applicant submits an application for a Major Site Plan, these

corrections will be made at that time.

6. Note #7 on Sheet C-1 should be revised. The proposed shelter, as shown on Sheet C-2,will be 204 sq. ft. while the Note indicates the shelter will be 560 sq. ft. In addition, Note

#7 indicates the shelter will be no more than 12 feet in height. The Statement ofJustification indicates the shelter will be 10’ 6” in height and the plan is showing the shelterat 15’ (12’ to the mid-line of the roof) in height. Clarification is needed.

Staff has noted the discrepancies. If approval is given for the Special Exception and theapplicant submits an application for a Major Site Plan, any inaccurate measurements will be

corrected at that time.

7.

On Sheet C-1, the applicant shows the setbacks to the monopole from property lines and

the right-of-way. The required setbacks listed in Section 11-102.2.1.b of the Zoning

Ordinance are setbacks to the “facility” and not just the cell tower. The setbacks should be

shown to the outer edge of the compound to demonstrate compliance with the requiredsetbacks.

Staff has noted the discrepancies. If approval is given for the Special Exception and theapplicant submits an application for a Major Site Plan, any inaccurate measurements will be

corrected at that time.

8. Staff recommends conditioning the creation of an ingress/egress easement to the facility

from Casanova Road for Emergency Services prior to Site Plan release.

Staff has added a condition of development for Board consideration that would require the

applicant to record the access easement prior to release of the Site Plan.

9. Unless the Board of Supervisors makes a finding that the existing wooded areas issufficient as the required buffer along the east side of the compound, the applicant will be

required to provide a 10 foot landscape buffer along this side of the compound (Sections

11-103.3 and 11-103.2 of the Zoning Ordinance).

This is noted earlier in the staff report. Staff has added a condition for Board consideration

that would require the applicant to provide a ten (10) foot landscape buffer along all sides of

the compound.

10.

On Sheet C-3, the applicant indicates a security light will be installed on the equipmentshelter. Details of the fixture will be required at the Major Site Plan application stage toshow the fixture meets the requirements of Article 9, Performance Standards for Glare.

The applicant will be required to add details of the proposed security lighting with the first submittal of Site Plan application, along with an explanation of how the lighting meets the

requirements of Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has prepared a condition for Board

consideration that addresses lighting at the compound.


19/19

19

Department of Fire & Rescue and Emergency Management

This office does not oppose the Special Exception request. No changes are requested at this time.

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

No comments received.

Summary and Recommendations:

On March 19, 2015, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the applicationwith the justification that the application did not meet the requirements in Article 11 of the Zoning

Ordinance for tower siting and design, and did not fulfill submission requirements for towers

exceeding 120 feet in height.

With the submission of the technical evaluation of siting on the adjacent parcel (RF propagation

maps and accompanying engineer’s report), the applicant has now fulfilled the application

submission requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for tower requests exceeding 120 feet in height.Verizon has justified the need for a new telecommunications tower in the general area and has

provided a technical analysis of three alternative sites.

However, Section 5-600.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires an application to be in conformance

with Comprehensive Plan provisions, and the application does not meet County tower siting and

design preferences stated in the goals, objectives, and policies of Chapter 9 Addendum of theComprehensive Plan.

Section 11-102.3(a)(Siting) of the Zoning Ordinance states that a new wireless service facility may

be a pole sited outside of existing trees or in an area surrounded by less than 100 feet of trees in

all directions, if mitigated or camouflaged in such a way to be less visible than if it were in thetrees. The applicant has proposed to relocate the tower site approximately 310 feet west of the

originally-proposed site on the subject property. The applicant argues that the facility positionedat the new location on the subject parcel “would be well, if not better, mitigated so as to be less

visible than if located on the Pohzehl property within the trees.” Photo simulations presented by

the applicant indicate that the relocation of the tower site to the newly-proposed location appearsto mitigate the view of the tower from Rogues Road and the Auburn Battlefield. However, staff

believes that there are other unexplored tower siting and design options on the adjacent property

within the wooded area that could better meet Comprehensive Plan policies, while still meeting

the applicant’s desired RF coverage objective.

CityScape maintains the position that should the applicant wish to locate the support structure in amanner that best optimizes the desired propagation, an alternative site exists that meets sitingrequirements in the Ordinance, permits a tower at a lower height, and still allows the applicant to

meet the desired coverage objective. CityScape recommended that the applicant resubmit a

modified application.

Staff has prepared two resolutions for the Board’s consideration. Resolution A is a resolution for

denial, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Resolution B is a resolution of approval.

staff report verizon casanova bos

Documents