| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Board of Appeals > 2006 > Minutes > December 2, 2006 Minutes |  |
City of Rockville Board of Appeals Mayor and Council Chambers | ||||||
| ||||||
Mr. Deitchman disclosed that from 1977-79 he worked at Bell Telephone Laboratories involved in the development of the early mobile equipment. He said he was not directly involved with telecommunications since the late 1999. Special Exception Application SPX2005-00364, Omnipoint CAP Operations, LLC – the applicant is requesting approval of a special exception for the installation and operation of a wireless communications facility on the existing County public school property known as Julius West Middle School at 651 Great Falls Road. An Affidavit of Posting was not submitted into the record. It was explained that no sign had been posted on the site. Sondra Block, Assistant City Attorney, explained the federal (FCC) pre-emption power for all tower sitings. The Julius West school site is approximately 22 acres in size and is zoned R-60, One-Family Detached, Residential. The site is located on the west side of Great Falls Road approximately 100 feet west of its intersection with Maryland Avenue. It is bounded to the north and east by residential land uses, to the south and southwest by I-270, and is accessed from Great Falls Road. The school building has three levels and serves students in grades six through eight. There are on-site parking facilities designed to accommodate 150 cars and 23 exclusive school bus parking spaces. Separate bus and parent drop-off areas are provided. The site has outdoor recreational facilities that include unpaved and paved play fields, three softball fields, three soccer fields, a 60 yard running track, a long jump pit, an eight foot wide continuous running track, three basketball courts, four tennis courts, and a tennis backboard. The proposed facility will be located in the far northwest corner of the school site, approximately 550 feet southwest of the nearest residential structure and 95 feet east of I-270. The applicant proposes to install a travel way/service drive that will allow vehicular access to the facility, and has agreed to control access to the travel way. The telecommunications facility is intended to provide greater cellular telephone coverage to T-Mobile customers living within the subject site area, as well as those traveling through the area and along adjacent I-270. At its meeting on November 15, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the subject application request and voted 5-0 to recommend to the Board of Appeals that the application be denied because the applicant had not adequately shown that the proposed land use would not be detrimental to the use of the adjacent properties or people living in the neighborhood, or that the character of the site area would not be adversely impacted by the proposed site facility. That recommendation was transmitted to the Board of Appeals by Memorandum dated November 22, 2006. In the record is a letter from Montgomery County Public Schools (MPCS), the owner of the subject school site, authorizing the applicant to file this special exception request. Attached to the letter is a copy of the MCPS policy for allowing placement of monopoles on school property. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility will be operational twenty-four hours a day. The facility will be unmanned and, once operation, it is expected that the vast majority of visits to the site will be from personnel responsible for repairs and/or scheduled maintenance of the facility and its support equipment. Ed Donohue, Attorney with Blue & Donohue, PLC presented the applicant’s request. Mr. Donohue introduced four witnesses into the record. Steve Weber with T-Mobile, Abiy Zewde, T-Mobile’s Senior Radio Frequency (RF) Engineer, Oakleigh Thorne, Thorne Consultants, Inc., and Jules Cohen, Consulting Engineer for the project. Mr. Zewde, T-Mobile’s Senior RF Engineer described the site area and T-Mobile’s existing co-location sites. He testified that all existing T-Mobile sites now operate at full power and maximum antenna adjustment. In response to a question from the Board, he explained that any loss in coverage resulting from the drop in the monopole height from 70 feet to 50 feet could be addressed by making directional antenna adjustments at other sites. However, such antenna adjustments on other sites can only be made in conjunction with the installation of the proposed facility to cover the service gap along I-270. Mr. Donohue referenced a previously submitted engineering study prepared by Jules Cohen, P.E., entitle, “Engineering Statement Radio-Frequency Exposure Study, Julius West Middle School.” The study contained calculations of RF exposure from the proposed 50-foot facility and concluded that the maximum exposure from the proposed facility measured at various distances from the antennas are well below the maximum RF exposure permitted (“MPE”) by FCC rules for the general population. (This study follows an earlier study by Mr. Cohen evaluating RF exposure from a 70-foot pole). Mr. Cohen did not testify at the hearing, but was present and available to answer questions. The applicant submitted with its application a number of photographs of a test balloon with superimposed images of the original proposed 70-foot monopole, illustrating the likely view that some of the neighboring properties would have of the originally proposed monopole. Also in the record are photographs marked to show the approximate relation of the original 70-foot pole, as well as the reduced 50-foot pole, to the height of the existing trees. Mr. Thorne, a professional real estate appraiser, testified as to the report prepared by his firm, Thorne Consultants, Inc., concluding that the proposed 50-foot monopole will not have a negative economic impact on the value of surrounding properties or the general neighborhood surrounding the subject site. His testimony and report reference 11 studies performed by his firm involving communication installations and their impact, if any, on adjacent property prices. Based on a search of public records for sales and listing information on homes near Great Falls Road and I-270, the report concludes that the character of the housing stock is very similar to others studied in connection with the effect of nearby monopoles. According to Mr. Thorne, the results of the studies have been consistent, and his firm has found “no discernable negative impact” on adjacent properties due to the presence of a cell pole. Mr. Thorne acknowledged that the existence of a nearby monopole may be a factor in any given potential buyer’s decision, but reiterated that the data demonstrates that housing prices are not demonstrably lower in areas where there are monopoles. Mr. Thorne emphasized that the empirical evidence suggests that, once constructed, such poles are accepted as part of the communication infrastructure, much like any other visible public utility. The following citizens testified in opposition to the application: Nadia Azumi, 6 Nocturne Court The primary thrust of the monopole opposition was that the Julius West site was not an appropriate location for the proposed monopole for a number of reasons, including the following: 1. The monopole is an industrial structure that will be visible from nearby residential areas and will adversely affect home values and the character of the neighborhood. 2. The health effects from cell phone tower radiation are unknown and present an unacceptable risk to the children and others that will use the site. With a lower monopole, the radiation will be lower to the ground. 3. The outside recreational areas are heavily used by the community and would interfere with the use of the playing fields, constitute an attractive nuisance to children using the fields, impact the playing fields and present a hazard to those using the fields, and the proposed service drive might serve as a close-in parking area for parents, if not controlled. 4. There are alternative, less intrusive technologies, such as a distributed antenna system (DAS). 5. The applicant’s statement of its need for the proposed facility is suspect in light of the fact that the applicant reduced the proposed monopole height from 70’ to 50’ after having asserted that 70’ was the absolute minimum height that would be workable. 6. The tower may become a lightning conductor. A number of people questioned the applicant’s diligence in exploring other possible sites, including the State-owned property adjacent to the Falls Road interchange and the Montgomery County police substation site adjacent to the detention center. Still others stated that monopoles were not appropriate anywhere in a residential zone. In response to comments regarding notification sent out to the citizens regarding this application, Mr. Chasten stated that the City sent out notices to more than 2,000 property owners within the subject site area, well in excess of what is required by law. In addition, notice of the pending special exception appeared in Rockville Reports, the City’s cable channel, and the City’s web page to keep the City informed as to the progress of this application. There is also evidence that the applicant met with the Julius West PTSA on January 10, 2006, the West End Citizens Association on February 23, 2006, and notified approximately 1,900 residents to attend a balloon test on March 4, 2006. In addition, at the request of the Mayor and Council, the hearing on this matter before the Board of Appeals was postponed more than three months so as to allow the newly elected PTSA leadership to consider the application and have an opportunity to address the Board. The Board further notes that the Julius West PTSA presented no evidence or testimony to the Board on this application. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1 – Staff Report NOTE: Staff stated that an Affidavit of Posting was not submitted into the record due to the fact that the application sign had either blown away or it was removed. It was noted that the sign was posted at the appropriate time. The City’s telecommunications consultant, Robert Hunnicutt of Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC), upon request of the application and supporting documentation, provided written reports and testimony confirming that the existing service in the vicinity of the site does not meet T-Mobile’s target signal level. CTC concluded, however, that T-Mobile’s stated coverage requirements could be met by a 50-foot pole rather than a 70-foot pole, permitting the applicant to amend its application to provide for the shorter monopole. CTC also concurred that the calculated RF exposure from either a 50-foot or 70-foot monopole is within FCC limits. Mr. Donohue presented evidence as to the applicant’s efforts to locate non-residentially zoned land suitable on which to locate a telecommunications facility that would provide the coverage it needed. Mr. Donohue presented four sites that were considered and all of which were found not to be suitable for completing T-Mobile’s coverage objectives. Mr. Donohue stated that, at the suggestion of the Planning Commission, they have also explored the feasibility of locating its facility on the Bank of America building (1101 Wootton Parkway) in the Tower Oaks development, but found that the site was also unsuitable, a conclusion supported by CTC. Mr. Donohue stated that they have done several drive tests which resulted in the fact that there are no existing structures within the vicinity of the proposed site on which to install the antennas needed to provide the coverage that the applicant requires. Mr. Donohue stated that he believes that what they have presented to the Board today with regard to special exception requirements, he feels they have demonstrated that there is a need for this monopole and there is no opportunity to co-locate on an existing structure until they address the need. Mr. Donohue stated that the location of the monopole would be greater than 500 feet from the nearest residences, and that its visual and physical presence will be mitigated by the substantial number of large mature trees located along the site’s southern and northwestern tract boundary, which are near equal in height to the proposed 50 foot tall monopole. The Board questioned Mr. Donohue regarding other alternate sites to locate the subject monopole as well as the impact of the access road to the site and the service drive on the playing fields. The Board and staff noted, and the applicant agreed that the service drive would have to be redesigned to avoid impacting an existing playing field. The Board noted that the MCPS policy on locating telecommunications transmission facilities on school sites requires that the installation and location of such structures shall not disrupt the normal operation of school system activities and/or community activities on the site and shall not compromise the Board of Education’s primary mission of providing a “safe and supportive environment for the academic success of every student.” The Board further notes that such policy provides for community input prior to MCPS making a decision on allowing the location of telecommunication facilities on school property. There being no one else to speak for or against the special application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. The record reopened for questions and discussion of the applicant’s diligence in exploring other possible sites, including the State-owned property adjacent to the Falls Road interchange and the Montgomery County police substation site adjacent to the detention center. Mr. Donohue explained to the Board that Montgomery County did not want to be involved in this type of structure. Peter Lovell, again, testified that the applicant did not make a sufficient effort to locate alternative, non-residentially zoned sites, noting the existence of nearby State property and right-of-way around the interchange of Falls Road and I-270. The Board discussed this site and felt that any such State installed antenna support structure would likely be much larger and more elevated than the proposed facility on the Julius West school site, and not subject to regulation by the City. The Board and staff noted that both the police substation site and the detention center site are zoned for residential use. Telecommunication facilities must be located on non-residential properties. Mr. Donohue discussed a type of agreement for accessing the site before and after hours to be worked out with staff. Mr. Breisch explained that there is an agreement between Redgate Golf Course and the carriers for the monopole on the grounds. In order not to impact the golf course, the carriers have worked out an agreement of access rules with the golf course superintendent regarding the times of days they would enter the site. Mr. Donohue stated that they would work out an agreement with the City and Julius West School. There being no one else to speak for or against the special application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Special Exception Application SPX2005-00364, Omnipoint Mr. Sternstein moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to grant Special Exception Application SPX2005-00364, Omnipoint per staff recommendations, and, also to direct staff to prepare a written decision approving the requested special exception with the revision of Condition 6 in the staff report: Mr. Sternstein made the following findings required by Section 25-338 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The proposed land use will not adversely affect the City’s Master Plan (the Plan), Zoning Ordinance, or any other applicable law. Based on available records, Julius West Middle School, was constructed in 1961. The proposed wireless telecommunication facility does not violate or adversely affect the Plan or any known laws of the City. While, the Master Plan contains no guidance on locating wireless communications facilities, the Ordinance does “provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development and installation of wireless communication facilities, related structures and equipment” as in referenced in Section 25-333. The applicant has addressed all of the standards of Section 25-333 of the Ordinance as is reflected in the application request and supporting materials and testimony. 2. The proposed use at the location selected will not: a) Adversely affect the health and safety of residents in the area; or b) Overburden existing public services, including water, sanitary ewer, public roads, storm drainage and other public improvements; or c) Overburden existing and programmed storm drainage and other public improvements; or d) Be detrimental to the use or development of adjacent properties or the neighborhood; or e) Change the character of the neighborhood in which the use is proposed, considering services currently required, population density, character, and number of similar uses. By pre-emption of federal law, the Board is precluded from denying the special exception on the basis of perceived risks from RF emissions from the proposed facility asking as it meets Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards. The Board notes that there was a large amount of testimony on this issue, but also notes that, under the law, the FCC standards are part of the federal regulatory process that controls this issue. According to the information provided, the proposed facility will comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) emissions standards. The applicant has provided a report from its consulting engineer that discusses the level of RF emissions that would be generated from the proposed facility and is in compliance with the standards adopted by the FCC. The City’s telecommunications consultant (CTC) concurs with the conclusion of the report that the RF emissions resulting from the proposed facility are well within the FCC standards. There was no evidence presented that refuted these conclusions, although many nearby residents expressed concerns about the adequacy of the FCC standards and the unknown future effects of the RF emissions. Based on the assessments rendered by the applicant’s consulting engineer and confirmed by the City’s consultant, the Board finds that the proposed facility and its equipment will comply with FCC guidelines for RF emissions. 3. The proposed use complies with requirements of the Zoning Ordinance that are applicable thereto. The Board finds that the special exception application submitted, as amended and subject to the conditions imposed herein, complies with the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the installation and operation of a wireless communication facility in the R-60 Zone. Conditions set forth in the Staff Report dated November 9, 2006, as modified by the Board are as follows. 1. The proposed telecommunication facility must be installed and operated in accordance with the evidence as submitted and site development and building plans prepared by Daft-McCune-Walker, Inc., subject to the requirements of Condition 6. 2. Any and all antennas installed by the applicant and future carriers must be painted a color to match the color of the proposed monopole. 3. Submission of a use permit amendment application, which shall include a detailed site development showing all existing and proposed site improvements, i.e., the wireless telecommunications facility and all accompanying equipment, existing building structures, site street entrances, all site surface parking and travel ways, existing plantings/vegetation, etc. [Note, the applicant must submit conventional sized site development plans, reflecting the entire applicable site plan detailed information.] 4. Any/all installations of new antenna by future telecommunication carriers must be in 5. The proposed 8-foot tall chain link fence, which will serve as the enclosure for the proposed facility, must have vinyl slats interwoven within the links of the fence, in order to insure the equipment compound is fully screened from open view of the general public. 6. The applicant must work closely with MCPS in designing, constructing and maintaining the proposed on-site travel way/service drive that will be installed in order to provide vehicular access to the proposed wireless telecommunications facility, so as to:
If acceptable to MCPS, access to the service drive shall be locked and only be available for use by the school and telecommunication carriers with equipment located at the telecommunications facility. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Chasten stated that this is the Board’s last meeting in 2006. Therefore, the Board must vote to elect the next Chair for 2007. Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to appoint Mr. Sternstein as the next Chair for 2007. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to designate Mr. Maravilla as the alternate for 2007. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chasten reported that staff will email the Board members the calendar dates for 2007. He noted that January 6, 2007 will be the Board’s next meeting. MINUTES Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 5-06 as written. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 2:05 p.m. NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available. The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting. | ||||||