SP-2007-00051 Peacock(Weber Property)-Verizon Wireless PWSF ( Sign # 82)
PROJECT: SP 2007-00051 Peacock (Weber Property) - Verizon Wireless PSWF
PROPOSED: Installation of a personal wireless facility with a 100-foot tall treetop monopole tower
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA - Rural Areas; EC Entrance Corridor overlay
SECTION: 10.2.2(48) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE: Rural Area in Rural Area 3
LOCATION: Tax Map Parcel 07300-00-00-031D0, contains 10.31 acres, and is located on Dry Bridge Road (Route # 708) between I 64 and Dick Woods Road (Route 637)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Ms. Frederick presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
Ms. Frederick summarized the staff report and presented a power point presentation.
∑ This is SP-2007-51 Peacock (Weber Property) Ė Verizon Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility application for a special use permit. The property is located in the Entrance Corridor. It has existing special use permits SP-1999-11, SP-2000-31, SP-2000-64 and SP-2000-38. The proposal is for the construction of a 100í monopole with 3 flush mounted antennae and a 365 square foot structure to house necessary ground base transmitting equipment. The proposed lease area for all of the equipment is 2,500 square feet. The reason this is considered to be a Tier III Wireless Facility is that the section does not allow more than three (3) Tier II facilities to be located within 200í of each other without a special use permit. This is the fourth tower in the area. So that bumps it up to a Tier III review. A balloon test was done.
∑ Staff recommending approval of the special use permit with the conditions listed in the staff report. The first condition is that the tower should not exceed 10í above the identified referenced tree. The second condition is that the current owner and any subsequent owner of the tower and its supporting facilities shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator each year by July 1. The third condition is that all equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the date its use is discontinued. The fourth condition is that the personal wireless service facility be installed as shown on the plan approved by County staff. It should be noted that the plans in their packets did go to the Architectural Review Board for approval. One of the conditions of approval was that the ground equipment shed could be built as shown in the plans or could be built using hardiplank siding. So that condition was the condition of the ARB approval, but did not make it into this packet. The applicant has requested that to be added on to the Planning Commissionís approval if they so choose.
Ms. Joseph asked if that would be part of the site plan conditions.
Ms. Frederick replied yes, that would be part of the site plan that is attached to this special use permit.
Ms. Joseph said that if they added that it would become a condition of the special use permit. So they would have to do that.
Ms. Frederick replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it was normal in this type of application to have a motion sensitive light.
Ms. Frederick replied that it was normal in these types of applications.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the applicant could address the need for the motion sensor light.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Steve Blaine, attorney representing the applicant Verizon Wireless, said that the staff report is very thorough. They agree with the conditions as described. As a point of clarification on the ARB condition they submitted an option that would involve a structure encompassing the shelter. But, some of their health and safety people have pointed out that could pose a safety risk for technicians. So they cleared with the ARB the option of the idea to make that structure look like a farm structure. That is what the ARBís condition is. So they can do that with a particular siding and they donít have to put it within a false farm structure. That is what that condition is about. There were 2 alternative forms of the structure in he plans, which he wanted to explain. The only point is about the lighting. The lights are full cut off and donít illuminate upward and are only suppose to be on when there is a technician there or a cow walks by.
Ms. Porterfield said that was her point. This is in the rural area and she wondered if these lights were going to continually be coming off and on.
Mr. Blaine replied that most of these facilities are going to be fenced. So there is really only going to be someone setting off that sensor who is suppose to be in there.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph assumed with the condition that everything they see in this they will have to comply with. So when they see all of those trees and not just the marker tree they will all stay.
Ms. Frederick replied that there needs to be a tree conservation plan.
Mr. Fritz noted that condition 4 addresses that because those plans have all of that information about the color of the tower, the mounting style and the tree area.
Mr. Kamptner noted to clarify a lot of the requirements for Tier I and Tier II facilities are carried over into Tier III requirements. Actually conditions 2 and 3 doesnít appear that they are necessary since they are required to be complied with as part of the Tier III special use permit anyway by ordinance.
Ms. Joseph asked to invite the applicant back up. One of the questions she had was about co-locating. She asked if it was impossible to co-locate on the other towers on site.
Mr. Blaine replied yes, that at those heights these tree top facilities are really only designed for one carrier. That is the trade off. The other carriers are just above the tree tops. So to be able to maintain that signal there is really only one array that can on each of these monopoles and be able to serve the needs.
Ms. Joseph said that they only other thing that they could do is to extend something that was out there and make it higher than 10í above.
Mr. Blaine replied that was correct. The trade off is visibility.
Ms. Frederick noted that essentially this is a Tier II tower and it is designed as a Tier II tower. So it will look like the other towers that are out there.
Mr. Strucko noted that there is one metal tower and one is wood. He asked if this one is metal that would be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown #6090.
Mr. Fritz replied that was correct.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that it becomes visible when there are 3 or 4 towers. It starts to look like Carterís Mountain that they just looked like. This is about as far as she could go on this site.
Mr. Loach asked if there was a maximum number allowed.
Mr. Fritz replied no, but that once there are 3 towers on the site they jump from a Tier II type facility to a Tier III facility that requires a special use permit. There is no ultimate limit, but once it gets above 3 it is a much more difficult review process that requires Board approval.
Mr. Cannon asked if he needed to add a condition for the farm like appearance of the building.
Mr. Fritz replied that it was not necessary because the applicant needs to get a certificate of appropriateness in order to get their building permit.
Mr. Cannon noted that if it was not necessary he would not include it.
Mr. Kamptner suggested that conditions 2 and 3 could be deleted because they are already required by ordinance for a Tier III facility.
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of SP-2007-00051 Peacock (Weber Property)-Verizon Wireless PWSF subject to conditions as set forth in the staff report, as amended to include only conditions 1 and 4
1. The tower height shall not exceed ten (10) feet AMSL more than the AMSL height of the reference tree.
2. The PWSF be installed as shown on plans approved by County Staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2007-00051 Peacock (Weber Property) would go before the Board of Supervisors on February 13, 2008 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to Action Letter