02PD0273-June26.pdfMay 2!, 2002 CPC
June 26, 2002 BS
SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION
02PD0273
VoiceStream Wireless
Ben'nuda Magisterial District
South line of West Hundred Road
REQUEST:
Appeal of the Plamfing Commission's Substm~tial Accord Detemfination. The Code
of Virginia requires that the proposal must be determined to be substantially in
accord with the County's Comprehensive Plan. This appeal was submitted in
conjunction with Conditional Use Plam~ed Development, Case 02SN0233.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A communications tower and associated improvements are planned. Specifically,
expansion of an existing tower is proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT
COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the Planning Commission's findings be upheld for the following reasons:
The request does not conform to the Public Facilities Plan, a component of the
Comprehensive Plan, which suggests that communications towers should generally
be located so as to minimize impacts on existing and future areas of development
and that such facilities should be designed so as to minimize impacts on adjacent
properties.
The Chester Village Plan suggests that this portion of the West Hundred Road
Corridor should maintain its suburban residential appearance with a mixture of
office and single family residential uses. Expansion of the existing tower will have
a negative visual impact on the residential character of this portion of the Corridor.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE CommuniO, Through Excellence in Public Service.
GENERAL iNFORMATION; PUBI~IC FACILITIES: AND LAND USE
For details, refer to "Staffs Request Analysis and Recommendation" for Case 02SN0233.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposal does not satisfy the criteria of location, chm'acter and extent as specified in the Code of
Virginia. The details of this finding are outlined in the "Request Analysis" for Case 02SN0233.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Board uphold the Planning Commission's determination that
the proposal is not in substantial accord with the provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (5/21/02):
The applicant did not accept the determination.
There was opposition present. Concerns were expressed relative to the visibility and the
potential adverse impact the increased height would have on Chester Village. It was
suggested that alternative sites such as church steeples or water tanks should be explored.
Mr. Cunningham stated that the proposal does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
On motion of Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission determined that
the proposal does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
AYES: Unanimous.
Applicant (5/23/02):
The Commission's determination was appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
The Board of Super¥isors, on Wednesday, June 26, 2002, beginning at 7:00 p.m., wilt take under
consideration this request.
2 02PD0273-JUNE26-BOS