PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA REQUEST

Applicant:

Board of Supervisors Meeting Date: 

Upperville Volunteer Fire Company, Owners

Sprint PCS/APC Realty, Applicant

March 18, 2002

Staff Lead:

Department: 

Brian Davis

Community Development

Topic:  SPECIAL EXCEPTION – UPPERVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, OWNER, SPRINT PCS/APC REALTY & EQUIPMENT COMPANY, LLC, APPLICANT, MARSHALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT

 

The applicant is seeking Special Exception approval and a Comprehensive Plan determination to locate telecommunications equipment at the ninety-foot level of a one hundred-foot flagpole structure that is proposed to be constructed at the rear of the Upperville Fire Company station house.  The antennas would be located within the flagpole structure, and equipment cabinets would be installed in a fenced area near the base of the pole.  (Please note that this application does not involve the construction of the pole-structure itself, as a zoning determination has already been made indicating that the pole is a “by-right” structure).  The flag pole structure would also house Fire Department equipment on the exterior, including a 911 whip antenna in the 53 - 63 foot range and a siren in the 63 - 77 foot range. 

The staff evaluation of the application identified two (2) major issues of concern: 

1)      The Plan for Commercial Wireless Facilities contains specific language indicating that facilities in the Route 50 corridor should be restricted to a maximum height of eighty feet, and

2)      Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the height of telecommunications facilities should be limited based upon technological need.  The County’s telecommunications consultant has provided information indicating that the applicant (Sprint PCS) could expect reasonable coverage with an antenna height of eighty feet when related to a recently approved tower to the east of this site at Crenshaw Road.

 

Requested Action of the Board of Supervisors: 

 Hold a public hearing and take appropriate action.  Resolutions for both denial and approval are attached for consideration. 

For the Board of Supervisors’ information, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on February 28, 2002.  Representatives for the applicant and the property owner spoke in favor of the application, along with one resident.  Two citizens spoke in opposition to the request.  The Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-1, forwarded this application to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of denial, for reasons included in resolution form. 

 

Financial Impacts Analysis:

 There was no financial impact analysis required for this request.

Identify any other Departments, Organizations or Individuals that would be affected by this request:

 None

 Attachments 

1.      Resolution of Denial

2.      Resolution of Approval

3.      Planning Commission Staff Report