PRIVATE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING

STAFF REPORT SUMMARY

 

Project Name:  SP 2009-00002: Keswick Hunt Club (AT&T) CV 333 – Tier III PWSF

Staff:  Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner, Brent Nelson Landscape Planner, ARB.

Planning Commission Public Hearing:  May 19th, 2009

Board of Supervisors Hearing:

July 1 2009

Owners: Keswick Hunt Club Inc.

Applicant: Gerry Sharp AT&T

Acreage: 5.55

(Lease Area: 540 square feet)

Rezone from: Not applicable

Special Use Permit for: Sec. 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District

TMP:  Tax Map 80, Parcel 6A           

Location: In the Keswick area at the intersection of Louisa Road [State Route 22] and Hunt Club Road [State Route 744].

By-right use: RA, Rural Areas (EC) Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and Southwest Mountains Rural Historical District

Magisterial District: Rivanna

Proffers/Conditions: Yes

Requested # of Dwelling Lots: N/A

DA – X               RA – Yes

Proposal: To install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility. The proposed facility consists of an 89 foot tall steel monopole, and associated equipment.

Comp. Plan Designation: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2

Character of Property: Wooded with areas cleared for Country Club amenities including horse arenas.

Use of Surrounding Properties: All adjacent properties are residential (zoned RA)

Factors Favorable: see report

Factors Unfavorable: see report

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of this personal wireless service facility at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree, with the conditions outlined in the staff report.

 

     

 

STAFF PERSON:                                          Gerald Gatobu, Brent Nelson

 

PLANNING COMMISSION:                      May 19th 2009

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:                      TBD2009

 

AGENDA TITLE:                                         SP 2009-02 –Keswick Hunt Club AT&T CV333

                                                                        Tier III PWSF

 

APPLICANT:                                                 Gerry Sharp AT&T

 

PROPERTY OWNER(S):                             Keswick Hunt Club Inc.

 

APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL:

This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A). The proposed facility consists of an 89-foot tall steel monopole, to be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown, which is a color that has been previously approved as an appropriate color for Tier III facilities at other sites in Albemarle County. The top elevation of the monopole is 531.5 feet, measured above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be 10 feet higher than the identified reference tree. The monopole will be equipped with three (3) flush-mounted antennas, a two (2) foot long lightning rod, and coaxial cables that will be run in the monopole’s interior. Supporting ground equipment will be contained within a proposed 18’x 30’ AT&T wood fence and lease area.

 

The property, described as Tax Map 80 Parcel 6A, contains approximately 5.55 acres, zoned RA, Rural Area (Attachment B). This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District, in the Keswick area at the intersection of Louisa Road [State Route 22] and Hunt Club Road [State Route 744].

 

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:

The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 2.

 

REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:

 

This property is located in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historical District, therefore, the facility is held to Tier III standards, and is allowed in the Rural Area per section 10.2.2 (48) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the Rural Areas [RA] Zoning District by Special Use Permit. Section 31.2.4.2 requires Planning Commission review of applications for Special Use Permit.

 

PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:

 

No planning and zoning history found for this tax map and parcel number.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility. The proposed tower is a tier III personal wireless facility because it is located within a historical district. If this property was not located within the South West Mountains Rural Historical District, this personal wireless service facility application would be processed as a Tier II facility.

 

The tower will be located on property that is within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Historic districts are identified as “avoidance areas” by the zoning ordinance.

 

Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state scenic highway or by-way. (Added 10-13-04)

 

Tier II personal wireless service facility or Tier II facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop facility not located within an avoidance area.

 

Tier III personal wireless service facility or Tier III facility: A personal wireless service facility that is neither a Tier I nor a Tier II facility, including a facility that was not approved by the commission or the board of supervisors as a Tier II facility.

 

The proposed facility consists of an 89-foot tall wood monopole to be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown, which is a color that has been previously approved as an appropriate color for Tier II and Tier III facilities at other sites in Albemarle County. The top elevation of the monopole is 531.5 feet, measured above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be 10 feet higher than the identified reference tree. The monopole will be equipped with three (3) flush-mounted antennas, a two (2) foot long lightning rod, and coaxial cables that will be run in the monopole’s interior. Supporting ground equipment will be contained within a proposed 18’x 30’ AT&T wood fence and lease area.

 

Access to the facility will be provided off an existing gravel access road off Hunt Club Road that currently provides access to the property and runs parallel to the tree line of the wooded area surrounding the location of the proposed tower. The personal wireless service facility will be located approximately 95 feet south of the nearest property line, and away from existing horse arenas.

 

A balloon test was conducted on March 3rd, 2009. The balloon was raised to the same height as the proposed pole, 10’ above the reference tree. The balloon was minimally visible from various sections of the entrance corridor. Visibility of the proposed monopole at ten feet above the tallest tree is not expected to have any negative impacts on the State Route 22 (entrance corridor). The ground equipment is not expected to be visible due to the vegetation existing between the state road and the facility.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:

Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as follows:

 

Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?

Based on the antenna’s location and the results of the balloon test, it is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not impose any substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed tower will have minimal visual impact to adjacent properties and the equipment shelter will be screened from adjacent properties by existing trees.

 

Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?

The site of the proposed facility will require little to no additional land disturbance. An exiting access road will provide access to the proposed facility. The addition of the personal wireless service facility at this location will not adversely impact the visual character of the area.

 

Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?

Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved through the special use permit process are appropriate in the location requested.  This request is consistent with both sections.

 

Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?

The addition of the personal wireless facility will not adversely impact the visual character of the area, and will not restrict any nearby by-right uses within the Rural Areas district.

 

Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?

Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses the installation of public utility structures such as towers and antennas by stating, in part, that those items shall not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents, and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties.  In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with all of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines that are intended to protect the public health and safety from high levels of radio frequency emissions and electromagnetic fields that are associated with wireless broadcasting and telecommunications facilities.

 

Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved?

The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved through the special use permit process are appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility will give AT&T the ability to offer another choice of personal wireless service communication by providing a full range of voice and data services in addition to the required E911 call services. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on a regional level.

 

 Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance:

 

The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e) are addressed as follows.

 

Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following:

 

1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit review.

2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.

 

Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.2.4 special use permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]

 

Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations in this chapter.

 

AT&T’s equipment shelter will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached site drawings, antennae and equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have been addressed.

 

Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.

 

The proposed monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted with any whip antennas. The proposed grounding rod complies with the size requirements. The facility will only have one outdoor light fixture attached to the proposed shelter and it will only be used by AT&T's technical operations staff during times when night-time maintenance of the site is necessary. The proposed light fixture shall be shielded in accordance with the Albemarle County lighting ordinance requirements and operated by motion sensor. The proposed lighting is for temporary maintenance and security purposes only.

 

Subsection 5.1.40(C)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.

 

The proposed antennae configuration will consist of three sectors each with a panel antenna that measures 51.92”x 12.71”x 1.61”, giving each antenna an area of approximately 700 square inches. These antennas will be installed using “pipe-mounts” that will allow for any required amount of down-tilting without exceeding the County’s requirements for flush-mounts (12- inches maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antenna). All antennas will be painted to match the color of the tower.

 

Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.

 

AT&T must provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to issuance of a building permit.

 

Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved.

 

AT&T must provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to issuance of a building permit.

 

Subsection 5.1.40(C)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.

 

Should use of the antenna site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future, AT&T and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.

 

Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.

 

After the proposed personal wireless service facility has been installed, AT&T must submit annual reports updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility within the required time period.

 

Subsection 5.1.40(C)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed.

 

The installation of this facility and accessory uses does not create slopes steeper than 2:1or greater.

 

Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

 

In order to secure the facility which would otherwise be easily accessible, AT&T is proposing the installation of a wooden fence. The fence will surround the full extent of the 18 x 30 lease area. The facility will be screened by existing vegetation on all sides, and will not be visible from any adjacent residences. The facility will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. The character of the area will not be impacted.

 

Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.

 

The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 89 feet above ground level (AGL) or 531.5 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is about 76 feet above ground level (AGL) or approximately 522.3 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located 16 feet 5inches from the proposed monopole.

 

A balloon test was conducted on March 3rd, 2009 [Attachments D]. During the site visit, the balloon was launched close to the proposed monopole location. The balloon was raised to the same elevation as the proposed pole, ten (10) feet above the reference tree. State Routes 22, 731, 744, Interstate 64, Little Keswick Lane, and a private driveway approximately one mile west of the site were traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon was approximately 350 feet south of the entrance corridor and only visible for a short distance along portions of the Route 22 entrance corridor, including near the entrance to Hunt Club Road and the entrance driveway to Keswick Farm. The balloon was not visible from Interstate 64. Given the distance from which the balloon was seen and the treeline in between the balloon and the EC, there was not a substantial difference in visibility when the balloon was reduced in height from 10’ to 7’ above the reference tree.

 

The monopole at the proposed elevation of four (10) feet above the reference tree is not expected to have an adverse impact on the State Route 22 entrance corridor due to its limited visibility. It is also anticipated that the limited visibility of the monopole will be noticeably reduced when the trees are in full foliage. The ground equipment will not be visible from the entrance corridor. The remaining trees and the “Java Brown” color of the monopole and antennas are expected to further limit views of the facility.

 

Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan.

 

Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. Staff believes there is no significant loss of resources related to the installation of the tower. The property [Tax Map 80 Parcel 6A] is in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historical District. This tower will not impact any adjacent properties, and there will be no significant loss of historical resources related to the installation of the tower. The lead architectural and historical review senior planner has noted that at the requested height of 10’ above the reference tree, the facility is not expected to have a detrimental impact on important public views or historic landscapes because it would not visually overwhelm its surroundings, dominate the setting, or create a focal point. It is not anticipated that the public will be visually aware of the proposal, allowing their enjoyment of the rural historic district to remain undisrupted; hence, adverse impacts on the scenic quality of the district are not anticipated.

 

The county’s wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility, facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact avoidance areas (including Entrance Corridors and Historic Resources). The proposed pole is expected to be visible for a relatively short period of time when traveling on State Route 22 [entrance corridor]. As mentioned above, the degree of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the entrance corridor, or the historical district. The Architectural Review Board has approved the location with conditions; therefore, it is staff’s opinion that the visibility of the monopole will not adversely impact entrance corridor or historic district resources.

 

A tree conservation plan and a certified arborist report with measures limiting the impacts to existing trees will be submitted as an architectural review board condition of approval, as well as a requirement prior to building permit application/issuance.

 

Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).

 

The proposed monopole will have a height of approximately 531.5 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 522.3 above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet (measured from the trunk of the tree). The height approved by the Planning Commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed 10 feet above the tallest tree. Based on the balloon test mentioned above, staff determined that there would be little or no material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the tallest tree, rather than at a height of seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree.

 

Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street.

 

The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The proposed tower and equipment cabinet are to be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown to match existing surroundings.

 

Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.

 

The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 32.2.4):

       

Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:

 

This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.

 

In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and design of wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna mounting at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services.

 

SUMMARY OF STAFF REVIEW:

 

Factors favorable:

 

Staff has identified the following favorable factors:

 

1. New ground equipment cabinet will not be visible from neighboring properties.

 

2. Minimal clearing is necessary for the placement of the monopole, antennas, and equipment.

 

Factors Unfavorable:

 

Staff has identified the following factors as unfavorable to this request:

 

1. None identified.

 

 

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of this personal wireless service facility at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree, with the following conditions:

 

1.      The proposed personal wireless service facility must be developed in general accord with the plan prepared by BC Architects and Engineers with a revision date of 4-28-2009, and a certified engineer’s seal and signature dated 5-01-2009.

2.      AT&T must provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to issuance of a building permit. The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan.

3.      Should use of the antenna site at this location become discontinued at anytime in the future, AT&T and/or its assignee(s) must remove the facility within 90 days.

4.      After the proposed personal wireless service facility has been installed, AT&T must submit annual reports updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility within the required time period per section 5.1.40(c)(7):of the Albemarle County Code.

5.      Address all conditions outlined by the Architectural Review Board. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board staff.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

  1. Site Plan
  2. Aerial Map
  3. Architectural Review Board Action
  4. Balloon Test Photographs

Return to PC actions letter