PRESENT: SAMUEL W. HAYES CHAIRMAN AT-LARGE BUTCH CUNNINGHAM DIST #4 EVERETTE PROSISE DIST #1. DEAN McCRAY DIST #2 GAYLE KIRKLAND DIST #5

Transcription

1 VIRGINIA: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DINWIDDIE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE BOARD MEETING ROOM OF THE PAMPLIN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ON THE 9 th DAY OF OCTOBER AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: SAMUEL W. HAYES CHAIRMAN AT-LARGE BUTCH CUNNINGHAM DIST #4 EVERETTE PROSISE DIST #1 THOMAS TUCKER AT-LARGE DEAN McCRAY DIST #2 GAYLE KIRKLAND DIST #5 LATE: ALVIN BLAHA VICE CHAIRMAN DIST #3 OTHER: MARK BASSETT PLANNING DIRECTOR TYLER SOUTHALL COUNTY ATTORNEY CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the regular meeting to order at 7:00p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE The Chairman asked everyone to stand for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. ROLL CALL The Chairman asked for the roll to be called and Mr. Blaha was absent. MINUTES The Chairman sa id we have the minutes from the July 1 0, workshop meeting before us. He asked if there are any corrections. He said if there are none, he w ould entertain a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Cunningham made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. It was seconded by Mr. Kirkland. W ith Mr. Kirkland, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Prosise, Mr. Hayes voting AYE and Mr. McCray, Mr. Tucker ABSTAINING the minutes were approved. The Chairman sa id we have the minutes from the July 1 0, regular meeting before us. He asked if there are any corrections. He said if there are none, he would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Cunningham made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. It was seconded by Mr. Tucker. W ith Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Kirkland, Mr. Prosise, Mr. Hayes voting AYE and Mr. McCray, Mr. Tucker ABSTAINING the minutes were approved. BOOK 5 PAGE 1 October 9, 2013

2 The Chairman sa id we have the minutes from the August 1 4, workshop meeting before us. He asked if there are any corrections. He said if there are none, he would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. McCray made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. It was seconded by Mr. Kirkland. W ith Mr. Tucker, Mr. McCray, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Prosise, Mr. Kirkland and Mr. Hayes voting AYE the minutes were approved. The Chairman sa id we have the minutes from the September 1 1, workshop meeting before us. He asked if there are any corrections. He said if there are none, he would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Mc C ray made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. It was seconded by Mr. Prosise. W ith Mr. Kirkland, Mr. McCray, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Prosise, Mr. Hayes voting AYE and Mr. Cunningham ABSTAINING the minutes were approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Chairman said we have the agenda before us. He asked if there are any additions. Mr. Cunningham made a motion to accept the agenda as presented. It was seconded by Mr. Tucker. W ith Mr. McCray, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Tucker, Kirkland, Mr. Prosise, and Mr. Hayes voting AYE the agenda was approved. CITIZEN COMMENTS The Chairman opened the citizen comments portion of the meeting and asked if there was anyone signed up to speak or anyone present who wanted to speak. He said since there is no one he was closing the citizen comments portion. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Staff Report File #: C-13-3 Request: Conditional Use Permit: Telecommunications Tower Applicant: Duboan, LLC, through its agent, Kelly S. Williams, Network Building & Consulting LLC for American Tower Corp Property Address: north of 7808 Wells Rd. Wilsons, Va. Tax Map Parcel #: 14-3 Acreage: Lease area 10,000 square feet & located 600 feet into the property from Wells Rd. Magisterial District: Darvills District Existing Zoning: A-2, Agricultural, General Public Hearing Date: October 9, 2013 BOOK 5 PAGE 2 October 9, 2013

3 APPLICATION OVERVIEW The applicant, Duboan, LLC, through its agent, Kelly S. Williams, Network Building & Consulting LLC for American Tower Corp., is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for the construction and operation of a 199-foot monopole wireless telecommunications tower and related equipment. The property is located north of 7808 Wells Rd. Wilsons, Virginia The property is designated as Tax Map Parcel 14-3 and is zoned Agricultural, General, A -2 which allows such u se upon receiving a conditional use permit. The County Comprehensive Land Use Plan places this property within the Resource Conservation Area which recommends public service facility development for this general area. INFORMATION INCLUDED The following information is included for your review: Conditional Use Permit Application Attachment A Applicant s Supporting Information Attachment B County s Telecommunication Consultant s Technical Review CASE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting to locate a 199-foot tall tower with six total co-locations in this area of the County to support 4-G Broadband Data wireless service delivery and to fill in a gap in their existing coverage area along Hwy. 460 thereby providing improved and increased coverage for the surrounding area. The possibility of co-locating on existing towers in the surrounding area was pursued by the applicant, and no additional sites are available meeting the applicant s coverage objectives (see Attachment B, Technical Review by Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc.). It is apparent that gaps in adequate coverage exist and the addition of the proposed tower will fill in any dead areas enhancing the coverage area along Hwy. 460 and the surrounding properties. ZONING AND LAND USE ANALYSIS The property under review is designated by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a part of the Resource Conservation Area. As such, the area is expected to accommodate future public service facility development for this general area as appropriate. The properties around this land parcel have agricultural, forestal, and low density residential uses, and the properties surrounding the tower site are zoned Agricultural, General, A-2. Section (2) (45) of the Dinwiddie County Zoning Code allows for the location of this proposed use, communication tower with station, within the A-2, Agricultural, General, Zoning District provided that a conditional use permit is approved. Additionally, Article IX of Chapter 22 of the Code of Dinwiddie, Virginia sets forth guidelines for the siting of telecommunication antennae and towers. Section outlines the purpose and intent of the article, and within this section the goals of the ordinance are set forth. The goals are as follows: a. encourage the location of antennae and towers in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal; BOOK 5 PAGE 3 October 9, 2013

4 b. to accommodate wireless telecommunication services to county residents, businesses, and travelers; c. strongly encourages the co-location of telecommunication equipment on existing towers; d. maximize the use of existing structures; e. m ake available public property to facilitate the deployment of wireless telecommunication facilities; f. m inimize adverse visual effects of wireless telecommunication facilities through careful sitting and design and; g. m inimize adverse impacts on the natural, scenic, environmental, historic, cultural, and recreational resources of the county. As previously noted the applicant explored the opportunities for co-locating on the existing towers in the area, but co-locating on these towers does not achieve the coverage goals. The applicant s plan does comply with all federal, state, and local regulations regarding providing future co-location of equipment on the existing telecommunications tower and equipment site. It is the applicant s intent to develop their telecommunication network within the framework established by the above stated goals. Additionally, there will be no impact on the subject and adjacent properties concerning by-right agricultural, forestal, and residential uses. As per the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section (3) Setback requirements, Towers must be setback a distance equal to 200% of the height of the antenna or tower to the nearest residential structure and in no case less than 400 feet, and the distance from the proposed tower to the nearest residential structure is approximately 910 feet. In addition, Section (4) requires that All antenna support structures must be setback 110% of the height of the structure from all property lines. The proposed location of the tower does meet this setback requirement; the setback from the proposed tower to the nearest property line is 610 feet. OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS Public Utilities, School System, Environmental & Historic Recourses, & Surrounding Properties The potential impacts on the subject property are minimal. Electricity is the only utility needed to develop the site for a cellular telecommunications tower. There is no impact on the public school system. The Section 106 filing as part of the National historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) has taken place and as the County s consultant has recommended the final comments on the 106 filing and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and NEPA Review shall be received prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Given the existing tree cover, visibility of the proposed tower from the surrounding properties will be limited and minimal. Finally, there is no hazard to air space navigation, and the tower will be designed to collapse upon itself once wind loads exceed the required limits, and there are required monthly site maintenance visits to the tower. COUNTY CONSULTANT S RECOMMENDATION The County s telecommunications consultant, Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc., has reviewed the conditional use permit and new-build tower application and is satisfied that the applicant has addressed the impacts of and need for the tower and has recommended approval of the request. BOOK 5 PAGE 4 October 9, 2013

5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff has reviewed the conditional use permit request for a 199-foot telecommunications tower to be located on a 100 X 100 lease area and finds that the applicant has successfully addressed the impacts of the telecommunication tower: 1. The impact of the proposed tower will be minimal given that the proposed tower will not have a direct effect on public utilities, the transportation network, public safety, schools, and water quality. 2. The subject property is of adequate acreage and the proposed location of the 199-foot unlit monopole tower will not adversely impact the surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed location of the tower conforms with the goals of the Resource Conservation Area as set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, s taff recommend s APPROVAL of the request for a conditional use permit to construct the subject telecommunications tower based on the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall limit the height and type of tower to a 199-foot monopole located on a 100 X 100 lease area as stated in the application. 2. If requested by the county, the applicant will provide space to Dinwiddie County, at no cost to the county, to co-locate communication equipment on the proposed tower. 3. Prior to obtaining final building permit approval, the applicant shall post a bond equivalent to the cost of removal of the tower with the Dinwiddie County Planning Department. 4. The tower shall be engineered to accommodate six (6) service provider antennae arrays. 5. The tower will be constructed to meet the setbacks as shown on Site Plan sheet number Z- 1 of the tower site plan with revisions titled American Tower Preliminary/Final Land Development Plans ATC Site Number: , AT&T Site: RI545B and dated 06/20/ The conditional use permit shall be reviewed at least every two (2) years for compliance with the subject CUP conditions and all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements for wireless telecommunication facilities. 7. The applicant shall maintain compliance with all federal, state, and county rules and regulations related to the tower use. Since this is a zoning matter, the standard statement regarding action on this zoning request m ust be read and in order to assist, staff prepared the following motion statement: BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to assure compliance with Virginia Code Section (A) (7) it is stated that the public purpose for which this Resolution is initiated is to fulfill the requirements of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, I move that conditional use permit C be recommended for (approv al OR disapprov al ) with conditions to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bassett said he was done with his presentation and he was going to let Mr. Condyles, the County s consultant, come forward and answer any tower questions the Commissioners may have. Mr. Condyles said this tower is actually placed between two existing sites because the carrier need ed coverage in that area. The tower not only fills in a s a Route 460 site, but it also extends north beyond the County s line and south toward the center of Dinwiddie County. That means that the tower won t be just for the traveling public but it will also be for the residents in the area. The site is in a cleared area, well positioned back in the woods and with all of those factors in play I endorse the application for its BOOK 5 PAGE 5 October 9, 2013

6 completeness and its technical merit. The Chairman asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Condyles. Mr. Cunningham asked Mr. Condyles if the County still has preference to where it can locate its 911 services on the tower. Mr. Condyles said the County does have preference on the tower. The reason is because the VHF antennas used by the County would not affect any cellular antennas. Mr. McCray asked Mr. Condyles if the historic homes on Wells Road will be affected by this tower. Mr. Condyles said the historic homes won t be affected by the tower. T hey will not be able to see the tower because of the tree line. The Chairman asked the Commissioners if they had any more questions for Mr. Condyles. He said since there are none would the applicant like to come forward and make any comments. Mr. Mat Russell, agent for American Tower, said Mr. Bassett and Mr. Condyles have covered most of the details so I will answer any additional questions you may have. Mr. Prosise asked how far out does the tower s signal extend allowing a person the maximum benefit. Mr. Russell said the distance is about 3 miles. The Chairman asked the Commissioners if they had any more questions for Mr. Russell. He said since there are none he was opening the public hearing portion of the case. Ronald E. Williams 8810 Wells Road Ford VA asked if the tower will interfere with any other aerial signals. He asked if the tower company was purchasing the entire property. He asked if the re was going to be a condition to always have a buffer around the tower site. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else present who wanted to speak. He said since there is no one else he was closing the public hearing portion of the case. He asked Mr. Russell or Mr. Condyles if either would come forward and answer Mr. Williams s questions. Mr. Condyles said the tower will not interfere with any aerial signal and the applicant is not purchasing the property the y are only leasing it. He said this C ommission could put a condition on the application that would say a 100 foot buffer must be maintained from the center of the tower outward or it could be 200 feet. The Chairman asked if the C ommissioners had any more questions f or the applicant or the consultant. He said since there are none he was closing the public hearing portion of the case. Mr. McCray said he would like to see a condition addressing a buffer from the center of the tower site going outward. BOOK 5 PAGE 6 October 9, 2013

7 Mr. Southall said he has drafted some language concerning the buffer. It said, A landscape buffer atleast fifty (50) feet wide of mature loblolly pines or similar vegetation shall be maintain at or near the perimeter of the 100 by 100 foot leased area described in section one above. The Chairman said if there are no other questions or comments he would entertain a motion. Mr. Tucker made a motion and read the following: BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to assure compliance with Virginia Code Section (A) (7) it is stated that the public purpose for which this Resolution is initiated is to fulfill the requirements of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, I move that conditional use permit C-13-3 be recommended for approval with conditions as discussed to the Board of Supervisors. It was seconded by Mr. Cunningham with Mr. Prosise, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Kirkland, Mr. McCray, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Hayes voting AYE and Mr. Blaha ABSTAINING the Conditional Use Permit was approved. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Staff Report File #: P-13-2 Applicants: Board of Supervisors of Dinwiddie County, Virginia and the County of Dinwiddie, Virginia Rezoning Request: Agricultural, General, A-2 to Planned Unit Development-Commercial, PUD -C Property Location: Route 460 West, Airport Street North Dinwiddie Tax Map Parcel # s: a portion of (15.02 acres) and all of (4.62 acres) Property Size: acres Magisterial District: Rohoic District Planning Commission Mtg.: October 9, 2013 CASE OVERVIEW The applicants, the Board of Supervisors of Dinwiddie County, Virginia and the County of Dinwiddie, Virginia in connection with a proposed transfer and development of a portion of property, including the former Rohoic Elementary School property, are requesting to rezone the aforementioned property from A- 2, Agricultural General, to PUD-C, Planned Unit Development District Commercial, with proffers. This portion of property totals to approximately acres and is located on the north side of Airport Street (Route 460) near its intersection with Airpark Drive. The subject property is further defined as a portion of Tax Map parcel and all of Tax Map parcel The County Comprehensive Land Use Plan places the property within the Urban Planning Area which allows for commercial and industrial development. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Rezoning Application Attachment B Proffer Statement with Master Plan LAND USE/ZONING ANALYSIS BOOK 5 PAGE 7 October 9, 2013

8 At their August 2, 2005 meeting, The Board of Supervisor approved an Ordinance Amendment (A-05-9) to include the PUD-C in the County s Zoning Ordinance. Through the use of this light industrial and commercial mixed use zoning district, the Board of Supervisors wishes to promote efficient use of land, allow flexible application of development controls, allow a mix of land uses, protect surrounding property and protect the natural features and scenic beauty. The PUD-C zoning district is intended for areas within the community that are appropriately located for the conduct of general business to which the public requires direct and frequent access, and given the location of the subject property fronting on Route 460 and in close proximity to the I-85/Route 460 interchange and Route 1 as well as being located close to other existing light industrial and commercial uses zoned PUD-C, B-2, and M-2 the property is well suited for general business and light industrial uses requiring frequent vehicular access. The property located to the south (the Airport Industrial Park property) is zoned Industrial, General, M-2, and B-2, Business General along Airport Street (Route 460) where the Bank of McKenney is located. To the north and east the adjoining Commerce Park property is zoned PUD-C, Planned Unit Development District Commercial. The adjoining property on the west is zoned B-2, Business General where there is a mix of restaurant, retail, and service uses. An approximately 1.5 acre triangular shaped portion of the subject property which fronts on Route 460 and extends back along the western property line that is currently zoned M-2, Industrial, General, will remain zoned M-2 and is not made a part of this rezoning request. The subject and surrounding property is identified in the Route 1 and Route 460 Corridor Enhancement Study, and when the study was adopted it became a part of the Comprehensive Plan. In the Corridor Enhancement Study, the subject property is considered a part of the Business Focus Area and commercial/service development is identified for this general area. Additionally, in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan the subject property is located within the Urban Area, which recommends commercial and service development for this general area. The property under review is designated by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a part of the Urban Planning Area. As such, page X-14 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the area is expected to accommodate approximately 70% of future industrial and commercial development. The Comprehensive Plan also supports the development of cluster commercial and industrial parks within the Urban Planning Area. The subject proposed light industrial and commercial development as proposed in the Master Plan (see Exhibit A in the proffer document) proposes the type of development set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for this general area of the County. OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS Public Utilities, School System, Public Safety, & Land Use Impacts The impacts related to the rezoning of the subject property are dependent on the type of business being conducted on the subject property. With the existing vacant Rohoic Elementary School, gym, and institutional use (the Sheriff s Department substation) there are no immediate impacts to the subject property. Currently, there is no impact to the public utility system and future impacts will be dependent on any changes made to the property. The proposed Master Plan does propose remodeling and utilizing the existing school facilities for light industrial and commercial uses. The existing gymnasium is to remain. Future development will include a 15,000 square foot commercial/light industrial building fronting on Route 460, a 20,000 square foot light industrial material warehouse, a 5,000 square foot light BOOK 5 PAGE 8 October 9, 2013

9 industrial maintenance shop, and a 10,000 gallon in-ground fuel tank with an enviro -safe fueling system as well as providing areas for the PUD-C Zoning District required 20% open space. This future development is subject to governmental agency site plan reviews and permitting. There is no impact on the public school system with the proposed rezoning; the newly constructed Sutherland Elementary School replaced the former Rohoic Elementary School. The potential impact on public safety with the proposed future use of the property is not an issue and will be addressed during the site plan review process. To note the Dinwiddie County Water Authority (DCWA) and the Dinwiddie County Public Safety Department indicated that in the future having a thirty-foot wide utility easement running along the western property line would be beneficial for creating a looped water system thereby providing public water to the subject property and other undeveloped property in the area. The location of the property is well suited for responding to public safety related calls. Transportation Impacts The impacts on the existing transportation network are dependent on the future use of the property, and the Master Plan depicts how traffic is to flow through the site and to and from Route 460 utilizing the existing commercial entrances. The subject property has direct access to Route 460, and the access points and commercial entrance design will have to be evaluated by VDOT. Under current VDOT Code as part of the site plan review process when there is a proposed change in use, the road network in this area will have to be evaluated to see if road improvements are required based on the traffic generated by the proposed uses. The transportation related improvements will have to be designed and planned during the site plan review and approval process. PROFFER STATEMENT As part of the subject rezoning request, t he Owner has submitted a proffer statement to address possible impacts of the development and to control the proposed land uses. The proffer Conditions address the proposed development of the property under the Master Plan that is Exhibit A, the Concept Layout. Additionally, the Owner has proffered to address any VDOT requirements as part of any road improvements and commercial entrance improvements, as well as any future water and/or sewer improvements needed or required by the DCWA as a part of future development of the property. The Owner has also proffered to maintain the existing natural landscape buffers located along the perimeter of the property. Staff Recommendation: The planning staff has reviewed the rezoning request and staff recommends APPROVAL of the request to rezone the subject property given that: 1. The zoning classification requested is compatible with the surrounding zoning pattern and surrounding land uses; 2. The requested zoning classification conforms to the underlying uses recommended in the Route 1 and Route 460 Corridor Enhancement Study and those uses recommended for the Urban Planning Area as set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for this general area; and 3. The proffers made a part of the rezoning request address the potential impacts of the proposed development. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION BOOK 5 PAGE 9 October 9, 2013

10 Since this is a zoning matter, the standard statement regarding the Planning Commission s recommendation on this zoning matter must be read. In order to assist, staff prepared the following statement: BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to assure compliance with Virginia Code Section (A) (7) it is stated that the public purpose for which this Resolution is initiated is to fulfill the requirements of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, I move that rezoning request P-13-2 be recommended for (approval, OR disapproval) with proffers to the Board of Supervisors. The Chairman asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Bassett. Mr. Blaha asked Mr. Bassett if a buffer had to be placed between the two land owners. Mr. Bassett said there is no existing buffer and because the property to the west is zoned B-2 there is no buffer required. The Chairman asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Bassett. He said since there are none he was opening the public hearing portion of the case. Bobby Bowman 6219 Boydton Plank Road Dinwiddie VA said he wanted to know what type of operation was going into the location. I have some concerns and that is why I a m asking that question. There are two automobile body shops in the shopping center close to where this proposed rezoning will take place. One body shop does regular body repair and the other specializes in paint jobs for s treet r od and s how c ars. If the development will produce silicon it can damage the paint jobs done on the se cars. Also, if there is going to be a lay down yard it will most certainly produce dust and that to will affect the paint jobs done on the cars. I would like for the lay down yard to be paved. Another concern I have is odor. There is a restaurant in the shopping center and depending on the kind of manufacturing that goes on at this site odor could affect that establishment. The last concern I have is noise. There are some professional office buildings in the shopping center and noise could affect their work. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else present who wanted to speak. He said since there is no one he was closing the public hearing portion of the case. He asked the Commissioners if they had any other questions or comments. Mr. Cunningham asked Mr. Bowman how long has the body shops have been at their current location. Mr. Bowman said they have been there for about twenty years. Mr. Cunningham said that means they have been there for a while with the dust as the buses drove through the unpaved parking lot at the school. Mr. Bowman said that is correct. Mr. McCray asked Mr. Bassett if there were any residents behind this property and if so where is the closest resident. Mr. Bassett said the closest resident is on the other side of the railroad tracks. BOOK 5 PAGE 10 October 9, 2013

11 The Chairman said if there are no other comments he would entertain a motion. Mr. McCray said he would like for the following information to be added to number five. The lay down yard area will be screened from view from the B2 line on the west and from Route 460. Mr. Blaha made a motion and read the following: BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to assure compliance with Virginia Code Section (A) (7) it is stated that the public purpose for which this Resolution is initiated is to fulfill the requirements of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, I move that rezoning request P-13-2 be recommended for approval with the recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors. Those recommended changes are as follows: (1) A dding a buffer to the west boundary between the PUD -C zoning and the B-2 zoned property. (2) A dding screening to the lay down yard so it cannot be seen for Route 460. It was seconded by Mr. Tucker and with Mr. Tucker, Mr. Prosise, Mr. Blaha, Mr. Hayes voting AYE and Mr. McCray, Mr. Kirkland and Mr. Cunningham voting NAY the rezoning was approved. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mr. Cunningham made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. McCray seconded it with all members voting Aye the meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mark Bassett Planning Director Signed: Planning Commission Chairman Dated: BOOK 5 PAGE 11 October 9, 2013