Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/2/2020 - Minuteschi %OAN ROANOKE COUNTY M 0 I'll PLANNING COMMISSION 1836 NOVEMBER 2, 2020 Commissioners Present: Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Rick James Mr. Troy Henderson Mr. Kelly McMurray Mr. Jim Woltz Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James Ms. Alyssa Dunbar Ms. Cecile Newcomb Ms. Bailey Howard -DuBois Ms. Susan McCoy, Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. James called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Henderson gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. Approval of Agenda Mr. Woltz made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the October 5, 2020 minutes, which passed 4-0-1, with Mr. Henderson abstaining, Mr. McMurray made a motion to approve the October 19, 2020 minutes, which passed 5- 0. Consent, Agenda Ms. Dunbar provided a PowerPoint presentation for the petition of Michael Fielder, including a brief history of the property, current zoning, and future land use designation., Ms. Dunbar and the Commissioners discussed the current use and proposed use of the property. Mr. Henderson made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which passed 5-0. Public Hearing 1. The petition of Appalachian Power Company and the Roanoke County Economic Development Authority to review a proposed substation and overhead ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2020 transmission lines per Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia for consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan, located within the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology at 5495 Corporate Circle, Catawba Magisterial District. Mr. Thompson presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation. He discussed the purpose of the review process. He stated the proposed use will improve reliability for current tenants and make the development more marketable. He discussed the concept plan and size of the substation and length of the transmission line connection, noting the site plan review process would require more detailed plans. He reviewed aerial photos with representations of the location of the substation. He noted the proposed use is allowed by right but installation of public utilities requires the 15.2-2232 review process. He reviewed the 2019 CRT masterplan revision process, noting it separated covenants from zoning issues. He stated the use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the future land use designation, and consistent with the Planned Technology Development (PTD) regulations. He stated this improvement will encourage more businesses to utilize the Center for Research and Technology (CRT). Mr. Rory Chisholm, Appalachian Power Company, provided an overview of the request, including project need site selection, project description, and overview of the construction schedule. Mr. Brandon Scott, site civil contractor, reviewed maps pertaining to the project. He discussed the project location, site photos, typical structure type, and concept plan. Mr. Henderson inquired about lighting at the site. Mr. Scott discussed this issue, noting dusk to dawn lighting and glare reducing lighting would be used. He stated a photometric simulation would be submitted during the site plan review process. Mr. Woltz inquired about the topography of the site. Mr. Scott reviewed the topography of the property. Mr. James opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Thomas Sample, 5610 Carter Lane, inquired about the distance the substation would be from Prunty Drive. He inquired why the substation was not on the east side of the site instead of the west side. Mr. James called for a 10 minute recess to receive comments via phone or email which began at 7:33 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 7:511 p.m. Mr. Thompson stated no calls or emails were received during the recess. Mr. James closed the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Scott stated the towers would be approximately 303 feet from the petitioner's property line. He discussed the proposed location of the distribution lines. Mr. Henderson made a motion to recommend approval of the request. Page 2 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2020 Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (5-0) with the following vote: AYES: Bower, James, Henderson, McMurray, Woltz NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Thompson stated the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing regarding this petition will be held on November 17, 2020. 2. The petition of Milestone Tower Limited Partnership IV to rezone approximately 9.55 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, District to AR, Agricultural/Residential, District and to obtain a Special Use Permit for a broadcasting flower (cell tower) approximately 137 feet in height, located at 420 Swan Drive, Vinton Magisterial District. Ms. Newcomb provided a PowerPoint presentation, including an overview of the request, concept plan, topography, buffering, zoning, and future land use designation. She provided a summary of the public comments received. She stated the County sent approximately 280 letters to surrounding property owners. She stated the citizens are concerned the park will be eliminated. She stated two petitions against the application have been submitted to the County. She reviewed a summary of the virtual public meeting the petitioner held on October 2, 2020. She reviewed the suggested conditions for the petition. Ms. Lori Schweller, Esquire, introduced Mr. Paul Dugans, Millennium Engineering, PC, and Mr. Chris Harold, Milestone Tower Limited Partnership IV. Ms. Schweller provided an overview of the request, noting wireless use has dramatically increased including home use and E911 calls using cell phones. She stated the tower has been designed for Shentel's needs but may benefit other carriers. She discussed Shentel's objective by reviewing the propagation map, Including in - building calls, vehicular calls, outdoor calls, and streaming of data. She discussed both the site selection and site facility, noting no other changes are proposed for the park. She reviewed the aerial maps, Including environmental constraints and flood zone area. She discussed the monopole elevation and balloon test results, including a photo of the location and visibility of the tower. Mr. James inquired if the information is the same information which was presented at the virtual meeting. Ms. Schweller affirmed it was the same information. She reviewed the photo simulation. Mr. James inquired about the concept plan. Ms. Schweller discussed the concept plan including the buffering from the surrounding forested area. She discussed the compound area, noting it will be 45 feet by 43 feet with the greenway to the left side of the facility. Mr. Paul Dugans, Millennium Engineering, PC, stated the facility falls within the established safety guidelines. Mr. George Condyles, Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc., discussed the Technical Review Report, dated October 15, 2020. He noted that wireless technology has taken over the communications field. He stated this tower would be addressing primarily data transmission. He stated the tower would have the Page 3 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2020 capability to have four co -locators. He discussed the need for rural connectivity and the evolution of home offices and virtual school classes. He stated the tower has the proper setbacks for the fall zone once the restroom structure is removed. He stated it is low impact regarding maintenance and visitation to the tower. He stated the site has passed the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) study, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) study, and Virginia Department of Historic Resources study. He stated that the proposed location has met all of the requirements, noting he recommends approval of the proposed tower. Mr. James inquired about co -location potential. Mr. Condyles stated he believes there will be co -locators on the tower in the future. Mr. James inquired about the location being near schools. Mr. Condyles stated it is not uncommon for towers to be located near schools. Mr. Bower inquired about the reason the tower would only be 135 feet. Mr. Condyles discussed this issue including the fall zone and property lines, noting the applicant is trying to work with the community. He stated the proposed tower is a 413 tower, noting it will help the technology in the area. Mr. Bower inquired about the size of tower and sight distance. Mr. Condyles discussed this issue including mini -cells and micro -cells. Mr. Woltz inquired about tower height. Mr. Condyles discussed in -building penetration and exterior antenna to carry signal. Mr. Woltz inquired if the tower could be enhanced in the future. Mr. Condyles discussed this issue, noting antennas and equipment could be added. Mr. James inquired if the tower could be shorter. Mr. Condyles discussed this issues noting co -location is to prevent tower farms which are not desirable. He also discussed aesthetics of fencing type near the greenway. Mr. James inquired about other locations on this site. Mr. Condyles discussed the topography, noting there is a lot of lower ground which he would not recommend for locating the tower. He discussed visual impacts of other sites. Mr. James noted the park is attached to the William Byrd High School sports bathhouse which could make it challenging for future uses of the park. Ms. Lower stated that in 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides, that no State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's (the Federal Communications Commission) regulations concerning such emissions. 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(iv); and any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(iii). Mr. James opened the public hearing for public comment. Roy Lee, 3206 Robindale Drive, stated he has provided a petition with five hundred signatures of citizens who do not want the tower in the park. He stated there are houses near the park. He stated he will be able to see the tower from his bedroom window. He stated the tower will be 140 yards from his house. He discussed the closed proximity of the ball field, playground, and picnic area to the proposed Page 4 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2020 tower. He stated he knows it is about the money but wants the County to consider the residents. He inquired why William Byrd High School turned down the tower. He asked why citizens need the tower in their backyards. He asked why the tower could not go at the reservoir. He stated if service is bad in Bedford why does the tower need to go in this park. He discussed the view of the mountains, the park, and the greenway. He asked if the County would compensate the property owners for the decrease in their property values if the tower is approved. He stated the residents on the petition do not want the tower. Virginia Clark, 336 Swan Drive, stated the tower would be visible from her yard. She discussed frequency of the use of the park by parents and their children. She stated the children play in the creek and at the shaded playground. She provided a petition signed by two hundred eleven parents not wanting the tower. She stated the park could use some improvements. She stated the park has been wonderful for the children during this time with virtual school and working from home. She discussed the views of the mountains in the area. She stated there are six subdivisions which have clear site view. She stated she is concerned about the property values and resale values. She stated the community is fighting an uphill battle. She stated they are trying to protect the park. Gretchen Stinnett, 3224 Robindale Drive, stated her children and grandchildren enjoy the park, noting the tower will be the destruction of the park. She stated they use the picnic tables for parties, noting the children use the playground, basketball court, and tennis courts. She stated there are many dog walkers. She stated the children play in the creek and the school uses the fields. She stated the park gives access for the greenway. She stated people play football and bicyclists use the area. She stated she is concerned the park will be dismantled. She stated if the schools do not want the tower why does the County want it. She stated she is concerned property values will be diminished. She ask that the tower be put somewhere else. Mr. James called for a 10 minute recess to receive comments via phone or email which began at 9:15 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Ms. Newcomb provided a summary of the phone calls and emails received during the recess. Wayne Foster, 366 Sunflower Drive, asked why the school turned the tower down. He stated it will devalue the homes in the area. He asked what monetary value the tower has for the County or Vinton. He stated the proposed site is between two neighborhoods. He stated if the tower would benefit the schools then it should be on school property. He stated since the proposed equipment is 4G and they are already pushing 5G the proposed equipment will be obsolete before it is constructed. He stated they should not be rezoning parks. Mark Ferris, 104 E. Virginia Avenue, asked why the tower was not put on school property. He stated he is concerned about the views in the area. He stated he Page 5 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2020 would like the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to represent their constituents. Karen Carter, 3206 Robindale Drive, stated the neighborhood is very unhappy about the proposed tower. She discussed concerns about emissions and cancer and that children will be affected. She said they should use property that is not near residences. She stated she is fearful of health impacts. Oneil Campbell, 517 Cambridge Court Road, inquired if the tower was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated issues with the tower will stay the same in agricultural zoning. Katrenna Sandy, 518 Cambridge Court Road, stated the tower would have negative effects on the Blue Ridge Parkway. Josh Costman, 2148 Mountain View Road, stated they moved to the area from Las Vegas and own a farm which connects to the greenway which is in clear view of the park. He stated the reason they moved to the area was the beauty, sites, views, and neighborhoods. He stated the tower will be a nuisance to the neighborhood, greenway, wolf creek waterway, and animal safety. He stated it will be an eyesore. He stated another location should be used which has less environmental impact. He asked why William Byrd turned the tower down. Heather Ferris, 104 East Virginia Avenue, stated there is no reason they need a cell tower in the park. She stated they have great service. She stated the schools turned down the tower for a reason. She stated she is concerned the park will be demolished. She stated that she and her children use the park daily. She stated property values will decrease and people will not be able to sell their homes. She stated there are location options down Route 24. Patricia Steahly, 537 Castleridge Road, stated she has trouble with her cell phone service and the tower would help them. Stephen Holman, 331 Stonebridge Drive, stated the majority of the beneficiaries are not the residents of the neighborhood surrounding the park. He stated residents will be forced to live with negative consequences and receive no direct benefit from the tower. He asked why the schools denied the tower if the benefit would be for the school. He stated the voices of the residents in the Stonebridge area must be heard. Mr. James stated two emails for Milestone Tower petition were received during the previous recess. He provided a summary of the emails. Kris and Heidi Pada, 2861 Tulip Lane, stated they are in opposition to the proposed rezoning. They said their home is 800 feet from the proposed building site and they are concerned about their safety. They stated they have health concerns regarding the tower being close to their home. They said they researched the area for potential hazards before buying their home, noting if they had known about the Page 6of9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2020 tower they would not have purchased the home. They stated the tower should be built further from homes. Tim and Brooke Dooley, 4220 Denbeigh Circle, stated they are concerned that the rezoning is a first step to begin demolition of the park for additional towers or other purposes. They inquired about the long term land use plan for the site. They stated they support the residents of the Stonebridge neighborhood who do not want a change of use to hurt their property values and they do not want a cell tower near their homes. Mr. James closed the public hearing for public comment. Ms. Schweller discussed the rezoning in conjunction with the special use permit. She noted some residential uses are more intense uses than the proposed use. She stated the County would be in complete control of the property and the petitioner would have control through a lease. She stated there would be only one wireless facility with co -locators. She stated the infrastructure becomes part of the surroundings similar to the lighting poles and telephone poles. She discussed property values noting homebuyers look for good wireless service. She stated according to a study there is no evidence of negative impact on property values. She stated the petitioner would be agreeable to using stockade type fencing. She stated they are waiting on final NEPA approval for the site. Ms. Newcomb reviewed a summary of public comments. Mr. James stated that there is no intention of the Board of Supervisors selling the park. He noted more people are working remotely due to the pandemic. Ms. Newcomb stated there is some confusion due to the entire park being rezoned, noting that spot zoning is not permitted. Ms. Lower stated spot zoning is unlawful in some courts of law. Mr. James stated they do not know the reason the schools denied the proposed tower. He stated the health concerns are outside of the Commission's purview. Mr. Woltz discussed downzoning the property will better protect the park. He noted there is no way to insure the property will always stay a park, noting the change of use would require another public hearing by the County. Mr. Bower discussed the petitions which want to save the greenway and the park. He stated they have added four conditions in order to protect the park. Mr. James made a motion to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the conceptual site plan prepared by Entrex Communication Services, Inc. and dated September 8, 2020, subject to any changes required during the site plan review process. 2. Only one broadcast tower shall be constructed on site. The maximum height of the broadcasting tower shall not exceed 137 feet in height. The broadcast tower shall be galvanized, gray, or brown in color. Page 7of9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2020 3. Fencing around the lease area shall be chain link or wood as approved by the County. A row of large evergreen tress shall be planted along the outside of the fenced compound to screen it from public view. If any trees are cut down or removed during construction of the broadcast tower the applicant shall replant the same number of trees in the park at locations approved by County staff. The planting of new trees shall be warrantied for 12 months. 4. The broadcast tower shall not impact nor create any barriers to recreational amenities (trails, parking, playgrounds, athletic fields, etc.). Construction of the broadcast tower shall not alter the flow of stormwater in the park to impede any recreational amenity. Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (4-1) with the following vote: AYES: Bower, James, McMurray, Woltz NAYES: Henderson ABSTAIN: None Mr. James stated the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing regarding this petition will be held on November 17, 2020. Mr. Thompson stated information submitted at the Planning Commission Public Hearing would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Citizen Comments There were none. Commissioners' and Staff Comments There were none. Final Orders 1. The petition of Engineering Concepts, Inc. to rezone property to remove the proffered conditions on approximately 2.66 acres zoned C -1C, Low Intensity Commercial, District with conditions, and to obtain a special use permit for religious assembly in a R-1, Low Density Residential, District, CAC, Low Intensity Commercial, District with conditions, and C-2 High Intensity Commercial, District on approximately 10.68 acres, located at and near 2500 East Washington Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District was approved by the Board of Supervisors at a Public Hearing on October 20, 2020. With no further business or comments, Mr. James adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: O�!& te�m - & " Susan McCoy Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 8 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PFfllip Th pson Secr a ,Roanoke County Planning Commission s Rick James Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 9 of 9 NOVEMBER 2, 2020