MINUTES. For. Bedford County Planning Commission. August 15,2011

Transcription

1 MINUTES For Bedford County Planning Commission August 15,2011 The Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Monday, August 15, 2011 in the Bedford County Administration Building Boardroom. Commissioners Stephens, Noell, Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Stevick and Wilkerson were present. County staff present was Mr. Carl Boggess, County Attorney, Mr. Tim Wilson, Director of Community Development, Mrs. Mary Zirkle, Chief of Planning, Mr. Brad Robinson and Mr. Jordan Mitchell, Planners and Mrs. Patricia Robinson, Planning/Zoning Technician. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and determined a quorum was present to conduct business and asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Mr. Barnes requested to add an item under Old Business. The item added was the consideration of a resolution to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wilkerson made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Fralick seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0. The Chair asked if there were any citizens to speak during the Citizen's Comment Period. There being no speakers, the Citizen Comment Period was closed. The Chair opened the public hearing for Special Use Permit application SU and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Jordan Mitchell, Planner noted Mr. R. Smith Farris and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless are requesting a Special Use Permit to allow the replacement of an existing 64-foot lattice tower with a new 124-foot monopole tower in an existing wireless communication facility compound. The portion of property for which the application is being made is classified AR (Agricultural/Residential) District and is located on the west side of State Route 43 (Virginia Byway) and at the end of Deer Lane. Tax Map Reference Number: 147-A-l is approximately 135 acres in size. Mr. Jordan reviewed the list of possible conditions for this application as stated in the staff report in the Commissioners meeting packets. Questions/comments from the Planning Commission covered the following: Height of the fire tower located behind the exiting tower? Does the height of the existing antenna include the monopole on top of the antenna? The fire tower height is 81.5'. Mr. Ed Givens of Verizon Wireless noted the top of the steel of the existing tower is 64'. The OMNI antennas being referenced go above the existing tower approximately 10'. Mr. George Condyles of Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. referred the Commissioners to page 11 of his report in their packet. Page 11 depicts a picture of the VHF antenna in question. The Chairman asked for the applicant's presentation. Mrs. Lori Schweller, Attorney with LeClair Ryan 123 East Main St. Charlottesville, Va. provided the presentation. The existing tower currently provides Verizon Wireless Cellular Services, which were acquired from Alltel, to the southeastern potion of the City of Bedford and to the east Planning Commission Minutes 1 08/15/11

2 along Route 460. Coverage further in the County is currently restricted due to the fact that the treetops to the south and west are taller than the tower. The proposed tower extension will allow services to be expanded to resident in those areas, while supporting in-car coverage for travelers along the Virginia Byway (Route 43), Moneta Road (Route 122) Falling Creek Road (Route 714) and other local roads. Additionally, the proposed monopole will enable Verizon Wireless to integrate its LTE service, expand the size of their service footprint and also provide additional space for the collocation of equipment by public safety services and/or other wireless carriers. The current lattice structure is overstressed and has recently been reinforced to support the existing antennas. The structure is not able to be extended for additional antennas. Questions/comments from the Commissioners covered: What height would you need if you only had two collocations instead of the three being offered? Is part of the 124' height to allow for additional income through the three collocations? Characterize the services, exiting and new, this new tower will provide. Is the 124' higher than you need to clear the tree line? Have you considered all collocations available? Mrs. Schweller indicated the 124' is the height requested by our RFP engineer to provide optimum service. A height below the 124' would be a different design and offer only one collocation. Mrs. Schweller noted she could not state what height the design would require. The primary reason for the 124' height is to provide the best coverage. The new tower will provide three technologies, cell, data and 3g. The 4g technology will be offered to localities in The tower will allow for faster speeds in uploading and downloading of data and accommodate a higher volume of traffic. Currently you cannot see the Verizon Wireless antennas located on the tower. The antennas need to be above the tree lines or the signal is degraded. There are no towers on which to collocate. George Condyles of Atlantic Technologies, Inc. consultant for the County noted he supports the application. The existing tower has reached it capacity. It will be an advantage to the county to approve at the 124' height. The tower will bring voice, data, texting and 4g technology and offer a more robust signal for downloading. The Chairman asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding this application. Being none the public hearing was closed. The Chairman asked for discussion among the Commissioners. Comments covered: Appropriate place for this tower. The additional service provided and opportunities for collocation out weight the marginal visual impacts. Support the request. The request is not a convenience, it is a necessity. Support the request. 80' was our limit and we continue to go up in height. Until wireless ordinance is updated we are put in a bind. Would have to take a picture at the D-Day Memorial and possibly see the tower in the background Understand the concern on the increase in height; however will support this request. Planning Commission Minutes 2 08/15/11

3 Since joining the Commission we have been adamant about the 80' height. Do not want the citizens to be deprived of the service. Will support the plan since it will be an advantage for citizens. Mr. Stevick made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisor approval of SU to include conditions by staff. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Noell, Stevick, Wilkerson and Stephens voted in favor of the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0. The Chairman opened the public hearing for the Zoning Ordinance text amendment for Broadcasting Tower, Radio. The hearing is to consider an ordinance to amend and readopt the Bedford County Zoning Ordinance by revising certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance text as follows: Section , Permitted Use Table, Commercial Uses be amended to add Broadcasting Tower, Radio as a listed special use permitted in the 1-1,1-2, C-l, C-2 and AV Districts, and to list Communication Services as a list special use in the AV District. Article IV, Use and Design Standards be amended to indicate that the location and permitting of radio broadcast towers be subject to the same general and specific requirements set forth in the Wireless Communication Overlay District used for the locating and approval of wireless communication facilities. Mr. Jordan Mitchell provided the staff presentation providing a brief review of the events resulting in this text amendment being presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the three text changes listed in a memorandum dated July 29, 2011 and provided the changes suggested by staff. Staff recommends item one be placed under Miscellaneous Uses in the Permitted Uses Table where Wireless Communication Facilities is currently located. Additionally, staff proposes to combine and reword standard 1 and 2, general standards for a Broadcasting Tower, Radio. Both of these conditions are related to Article III requirements set forth in the Wireless Communications Overlay District (WCO). This proposed change would appropriately link the two related standards. Additionally staff proposes changes to items 3 and 4 to increase the setback requirement from the property lines and residential structures. Broadcasting towers are not designed to break in segments in the event of a collapse like a Wireless Communication would. Therefore, staff recommends that the setback from property lines and residential structures be 110% of the Broadcasting Towers height. Questions/comments from the Commissioners covered the following: Explain the difference between Broadcasting Tower, Radio and Communication Services. What would be the setbacks for commercial and industrial areas? Is the toppling of the structure different in a commercial area than in a residential area? Planning Commission Minutes 3 08/IS/11

4 Does this proposal offer the same level of protection in a commercial area as in a residential area? How is the tower protected from obtrusions? Who enforces the safety requirements in the manuals? Which document July 18th or August 15,2011 is the correct document? Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Condyles addressed the questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Wilson noted the requirement for the setback as written is specific to residential areas. Setbacks in the commercial areas would be subject to the setbacks required by the zoning district. The Commission has the opportunity to impose additional setback conditions at the time of the public hearing for the Special Use Permit. Mr. Condyles provided a brief overview of the differences between cell towers and radio broadcast towers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulations to be followed regarding the safety associated with broadcast towers. The FCC is responsible for enforcement of the safety guidelines and is complaint driven. A sentence is normally added as a condition that the application must conform to all federal, state and local laws. Mr. Mitchell noted the August 15, 2011 document covers the information from the July 18, 2011 memorandum as well as the proposed staff changes. The Chairman asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding this text amendment. Mr. Tim Herandez asked if the text amendment allows for the collocation of the communication facility i.e. radio station on the same parcel as the antenna? Mr. Wilson noted in a district both the broadcasting tower and communication facility are allowed as a Special Use Permit, the applicant could file one Special Use Permit application. Mr. Herandez and Mr. Condyles continued with a brief discussion regarding height, ground systems, waive lengths and radials. There being no additional speakers the Chairman closed the public hearing and asked for discussion among the Commissioners. Questions/comments from the Commissioners covered the following: Mr. Wilkerson asked if Mr. Stevick's concerns about the setback language had been addressed to his satisfaction. Mr. Stevick stated "I feel confident now with the information I've been provided by the consultant to abstain from this vote". Mr. Boggess noted he would defer to Mr. Wilson for wording of the motion. Mr. Wilson noted the motion would address the proposed ordinance initiated by the Planning Commission with the changes/modifications as presented in the August 15, 2011 staff memorandum. Mr. Barnes made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the proposed text amendment to the ordinance including the content of the memo of August 15, Mr. Noell seconded the motion. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Noell, Wilkerson and Stephens voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Stevick abstained from voting. The motion carried with a vote of The Chairman moved to Old Business and asked Mr. Barnes to address the issue he added regarding a resolution to the Board of Supervisors (BOS). Mr. Barnes provided a Planning Commission Minutes 4 08/15/II

5 synopsis regarding the current direction of changes to the Zoning Ordinance. He highlighted the following: BOS has proposed wide spread and far reaching changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Good chance every citizen in the county could be affected by these changes. Citizens deserve to be informed of proposed changes and allowed time to comment. BOS plans to conduct one public hearing proposed for mid October. Likely impossible for staff to prepare completed Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision package and fully understand its nuances in a short period of time. Planning Commission cannot begin any assessment until staff completes its work. There is neither a plan nor time for this work, communication and feedback to share with citizens other than one public hearing in a few weeks. Mr. Barnes made a motion that a resolution from the Planning Commission be adopted and presented to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Barnes read the resolution "Be it resolved by either (consensus or unanimous) vote depending on what the result of the Planning Commission's vote is, the Bedford County Planning Commission on this date, August 15, 2011, requests of the Board of Supervisors that any Public Hearing for the purpose of adopting significant and widespread changes to the County's Zoning Ordinance, not be scheduled or conducted until such time as the Planning Staff and Planning Commission have had ample time to thoroughly review, fully understand and package into complete documents the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and do so for the purpose of thoroughly disseminating, discussing and reviewing the documents with the citizenry of the County, while providing ample opportunity for citizens to comment, after which Planning Staff and Planning Commission will make recommendations to the Board prior to the Board's scheduling of formal Public Hearing(s)." Mr. Stevick seconded the motion. A discussion was held covering the following: Does staff have enough time to complete the package? Does it seem that the Board will want a joint public hearing in mid October? Is there a problem with the Planning Commission resolution being communicated to the Board? Better to request the Board provide ample time now rather than later. Need citizen input before the public hearings. Concern public input process will be abbreviated. What will the public be asked to comment on? Will it be the information proposed by the Board and not options such as that offered by the Planning Commission. Concern that the public understand their comments should be related to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wilson stated he does not have a definitive timeline at this time. Mr. Wilson noted he will be preparing an initiating resolution outlining and describing the changes proposed to the zoning ordinance based upon the Board of Supervisors review of the ordinance. The presentation of this initiating resolution to the Board is tentatively scheduled for September 12, If the Board takes action on the resolution, then we Planning Commission Minutes 5 08/15/11

6 have an "application" to amend the zoning ordinance that will move through the formal process of public hearing. Staff will ask the Board what their desire is in terms of scheduling the required public hearings, and if they desire to have a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission. Discussion thus far by the Board indicates that the Board may prefer to have a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission on proposed zoning amendments, and to hold public hearing in mid-october. When the Board does take definitive action and sets a public hearing date, the County Administrator, the County Attorney, and my staff will work as required to ensure the required public notifications and staff report are done within the timeframe set out by the Board. In regards to the time allowed the Planning Commission to review the proposed amendments, that timeframe is set out in the state code and local ordinance, and is 90 days beginning after the amendments are presented to the Planning Commission for consideration at public hearing. A vote was taken on Mr. Barnes motion. Commissioners Barnes, Fralick and Slevick voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Crockett, Noell, Wilkerson and Stephens voted against the motion. The motion failed with a vote of 3-4. The Chairman asked if there were any items for New Business. Mrs. Zirkle provided copies of an article from Randall Arendt to the Commissioners. Mr. Wilson provided a status on the Wireless Communication Plan update. Mr. Wilson noted staff does not have any applications or action items to come before the Commission at the September 6, 2011 meeting. Mr. Fraiick made a motion to cancel the meeting of September 6, Commissioner Wilkerson seconded the motion. Commissioners Crockett, Fralick, Noell, Stevick, Wilkerson and Stephens voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Barnes voted against the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 6-1. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm. There being no additional business Commissioner Fralick made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Noell seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:34 pm. Respectfully submitted. Timothy L. Wilson, Secretary Approved by: L Curtis Stephens, Chairman Planning Commission Minutes 6 OS/15/1!