01pd0244-Sept26sa2.pdfSeptember 26, 2001 BS
STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
01PD0244
SBA Properties, Inc.
Matoaca Magisterial District
South line of Spring Run Road
REQUEST:
Appeal of Planning Commission's decision that a Substantial Accord Determination
for a communications tower at this location fails to comply with the County's
Comprehensive Plan. This appeal was submitted in conjunction with Conditional
Use Planned Development, Case 01 SN0235.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A' 199 foot communications tower and associated improvements, are planned.
(STAFF NOTE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS CASE BE
REMANDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF THE
CASE.)
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COUNTY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the Board determine that the propOsal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan for file
following reasons:
Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public serVice.
Bo
The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Public Facilities
Plan suggests that communications towers should generally be located to minimize
the impact on existing or planned areas of development. The recommended
conditions of the Conditional Use Planned DeveloPment (Case 01 SN0235) address
specific measures to minimize the impact on existing and future development.
The recommended conditions in Case 01SN0235 will further minimize the
possibility of any adverse impact on area development, the Chesterfield County
Public Safety Tmnked System or the County Airport.
GENERAL'INFORMATION; PUBLIC FACILITIES; AND LAND USE
For details, refer to" Staff's Request Analysis and Recommendation" for Case 01 SN0235.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed communications tower, subject to the recommendation and recommended conditions
of Case 01 SN0235, would generally satisfy the criteria of location, character and extent as specified
in the Code of Virginia. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board find the proposal in substantial
accord with the provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (6/19/01):
The applicant did not accept the Commission's decision. There was opposition present.
Concerns were expressed relative to the visibility of the proposed tower from area
residences; lighting of the tower; impacts on health, impacts on property values; and
proximity to area homes.
Mr. Marsh stated that the proposal is located in a residential area and does not comply with
the recommendations of the Public Facilities Plan or "Siting Policy."
On motion of Mr. Marsh, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission determined that the
proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
AYES: Unanimous.
Applicant (6/20/01):
The applicant filed this appeal to the Commission's determination.
2 01PD0244/WP/SEPT26SA2
BOard of Supervisors' Meeting (7/25/01):
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to September 26, 2001.
Staff (7/26/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than August 29, 2001, for consideration at the Board's September 26,
2001, meeting. The applicant was also advised that a $150.00 deferral fee was due.
Applicant (8/1/01):
The application was amended and the deferral fee paid.
Applicant (9/4/01):
The applicant requested that the case be remanded to allow the Commission to consider the'
amended case.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, September 26, 2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
3 01PD0244/WP/SEPT26SA2
R-15
A
_~PRING RUN RD
~ V
A
C
NORTH
/
/
C
/
/
; ESTATES
//
/
/
600 0 ~600 ·Feet
01PD0244
SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD
SH, 24.