Search Tags < T-Mobile, T. Mobile, PI, Roswell Road, Shady Hill Road, Hampton Chase, East Cobb Presbyterian Church, East Cobb Christian school, Easthampton, Shady Hill, Princeton Lakes, cell tower, telecommunications tower, SLUP >
T. Mobile, 404-226-8915, represented by Kimberly J. Adams, 404-226-8915, requests a Special Land Use Permit for a 120 foot tall Telecommunications Tower and associated equipment building.
Property is located on the southeasterly side of Roswell Road, south of Shady Hill Road (4616 Roswell Road, East Cobb Presbyterian Church (PCA) Inc.); 1st District, Land Lot 17, Parcel 3.
Size of tract is 8.15 acres
Current zoning is R-80
Contiguous zoning is: North: PRD (Easthampton subdivision), R-80 (Shady Hill subdivision); East: R-20 (Shady Hill subdivision); South: R-20 (5 acre unplatted land), R-15 (Hampton Chase subdivision); West: PRD (Easthampton subdivision).
Current land use is Public Institutional.
Case manager is Marvin Shams
Planning Commissioner is Tom McCleskey
District Commissioner is Joe Thompson
Proposed use: 120 foot Telecommunications Tower.
Maximum of 3 antennas (two-other antennas collocated on same mast)
Will appear to be a (tall) pine tree with branches to shroud the equipment
?? x ?? foot compound with equipment building, surrounded by 8 foot wood fence
Site located at least 50 feet from all property lines.
Well buffered by existing mature trees
A 15 foot landscape buffer will be provided on all sides
Buffer will be planted with 5 foot high landscaping trees, which will be regularly maintained.
Height of cell tower: 126 feet
Distance from north tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from east tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from south tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from west tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from nearest church building: ?? feet
Distance from nearest residence: 139 feet
Reversion: SLUP revoked if site not operated by T-Mobile for 24 months
The applicant’s proposal is located in an area designated as Public Institutional on the Future Land Use Map. The property is located in an area that contains single-family homes, a horse farm, and is fairly close to the Avenue at East Cobb.
For cell towers, non-residential sites are encouraged, and the use of platted lots in residential subdivisions are discouraged, which this proposal complies.
The tower is setback it’s full height from all off-site residential structures, and is designed for additional co-locations, as required by code.
The tower look, or profile has changed from a typical tower with exterior antennae, to a stealth unipole, which is much more aesthetically pleasing.
Additionally, the property is on a four lane divided highway that already has very tall power lines along the road.
Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
Site plan received by the Zoning Division on July 2, 2008;
Fire Department comments;
Stormwater Management comments and recommendations; and
DOT comments and recommendations.
(August) Recommend denial – or continuance
We think the East Cobb community would benefit from seeing a master plan (including long-range coverage goals) from T Mobile rather than merely addressing each tower proposal on a piece meal basis over the next few years
We have heard several complaints regarding how the variance signs were posted at the extremes of the property boundaries
We also heard comments that certain church management personnel did not accurately answer question regarding this project
Members from threes subdivision attended the ECCA general membership meeting to voice their opposition and concern (Shady Hill, East Hampton and Princeton Lakes)
Why not locate the tower closer to the church? Church should benefit fully from the full aesthetics of the project
(September) Recommend denial:
In no uncertain terms, this is institutional use adjacent to residential neighborhoods without any traditional step down zoning
Applicant should present a comprehensive plan that shows 3 month to 5 year expansion of coverage, so that overall impact on the community can be assessed and the need for alternative locations evaluated more appropriately
As the churches begin to profit from these leases … who will line up next for the opportunity to participate in this passive income generator
We would like to remind the board that SLUP-9 (May ’05) was withdrawn by the applicant as a result of strong opposition from Princeton Lakes and other members of the community. Many of the points raised above were surfaced then.
It wasn’t good zoning then, and it’s not appropriate now.
Planning Commission (August, unofficial): CONTINUED until the September 2, 2008 Planning Commission hearing..
Planning Commission (September, unofficial): APPROVED with stipulations
Board of Commissioners Action (unofficial): Denied.