Joint Study Commission Meets To Hear Testimony On Cellular Tower Siting
By Chet Parsons, Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
On December 14, 2000, the General Assemblys Joint Study Commission on Technology and Science, Advisory Committee Four The Digital Divide met to discuss one of the hottest topics in the Commonwealth today - the regulation of wireless telecommunications services. A major contributor to this debate is the recent ruling concerning VDOT and the lease of towers to private telecommunications providers.
Mike Edwards, representing the Virginia Municipal League, introduced the local government presentations. Karen Howard from Fairfax County provided background on the court history of the recent VDOT case. In brief, in 1997, monopole towers went up in the VDOT right-of-way. Citizen calls followed, asking about the county approval process for these structures. When it was determined that these structures were on state property, the question arose as to who owned the towers - if the towers are state owned on state property, they are exempt from local review. These towers were leased to telecommunications providers for antenna placement along with VDOT's ITS cameras and associated apparatus. The county sued, citing that telecommunications towers are subject to local review under state law. The circuit court ruled against the county, who appealed, and the state supreme court ruled that construction on state land requires local review. To date, 14 towers are located in the right-of-way. Of those, 11 have been approved, one has been denied but is in appeal with the board of supervisors, and two are pending approval.
Roger Wiley from the Virginia Association of Counties cited Senate Bills 231 and 758 as background to the arguments. Mr. Wiley made a point to express some noticeable trends concerning the issue:
-
There is widespread public interest in wireless communications siting.
-
Citizens are drawn between the desire to have quality service and concern over aesthetic and environmental values. Counties do not oppose wireless towers, which might be contrary to popular belief, because they know that citizens want service.
-
The majority of towers get routinely approved.
-
The issue that is opposed is the action VDOT has taken in selling their immunity to wireless providers.
Three local jurisdictions gave testimony on the local perspective: Rockbridge County, Henrico County, and Albemarle County. Rockbridge County said that retaining the power of land use review and implementing a prompt review process are keys to making tower siting successful. One of the most important needs for permit review is the potential adverse impact of tower siting and construction on historic resources and tourism. Rockbridge County adopted one of the first tower ordinances in 1996. Rockbridge County is opposed to both diminishing local control and increasing state authority.
Henrico County presented facts and data from the Technology Plan portion of their 2010 Land Use Plan. This section specifically addresses wireless communications towers. There are currently 82 towers in Henrico County. Some facts about Henrico County: The county keeps a continuously maintained database of facilities, and they require co-location where possible. Henrico County allows towers by right up to 100 feet in industrial zones and also allows the construction of tower bases in industrial zones for possible future co-location opportunities. Towers are discouraged in residential areas, and are strongly discouraged near churches and cemeteries. The county encourages the use of stealth technology towers, which mask the appearance of antennas and utilize unique placements. Owners of towers are required to screen the bases and are responsible for maintaining the appearance of each location. Henrico County currently has eight towers in their database that are on VDOT property, and made a point to note that VDOT uses many of the Henrico County tower standards in these locations.
Albemarle County approved their first tower site in 1988 and, after the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there were 50 approved sites with three sites denied. Albemarle County has an adopted wireless policy that differs from many, in that visibility is the key issue. Viewsheds on ridgelines and ridgetops are required to be maintained. Impacts on historic resources and agricultural resources are required to be kept at a minimum. Albemarle County encourages co-location and a minimized base design for new tower construction. The county follows tree top facility guidelines, which were introduced by the telecommunications industry. Towers may be constructed no more than 10 feet higher than the tops of surrounding trees - an interesting note is that as the trees grow, so can the tower (without review). The limitation on tower height requires a greater number of towers to make up for service area deficiencies. Another caveat of the wireless policy is that towers are allowed everywhere.
Mike Edwards returned to summarize the local perspective and stressed the strong Virginia history of deferring to local land use review. Mr. Edwards stated that the existing process works when combining the 1996 Telecommunications Act and local control. Based on this statement, he recommended to the committee that no action be taken.
Representatives of the wireless providers and consultants were then given the opportunity to provide testimony and some key points were made. Among those points, a representative from AT&T Wireless suggested more clarity in Sec 15.2-2232 of the VA Code to describe more exact standards to be followed in tower design and placement. An argument was made for VDOT that the location of its towers was and continues to be primarily for ITS purposes. Another consultant stressed the need for increased technical review of proposals - that it would facilitate the exchange of data and add sanity to the situation.
Overall, the local government contingent provided a very thorough and convincing argument for local review. As a result, a resolution was proposed to establish a seminar/symposium for all interested parties, including local government, wireless providers, and concerned citizens to discuss best practices for placement of wireless communications towers.
Questions about the committee should be directed to Michael Goldstein, Director of the Joint Commission, at 804/786-3591 or [email protected].
(Top of Page)
National Study Shows Sprawl Driving Up Household Transportation Costs
By Trip Pollard and Bruce Appleyard
A new national study on household transportation expenditures finds that Americans spend more on transportation than on health care, education or food, and that sprawl development is driving up transportation costs. The study, Driven to Spend, was written by the Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Center for Neighborhood Technology. It uses data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) to explore the portion of household expenditures devoted to transportation (see Figure A).
In addition, the Southern Environmental Law Center researched the CES data for southern households and found that they characteristically spend higher than the national average on transportation. The typical southern household spends an average of 20 cents out of every dollar on transportation, second only to housing expenditures (31 cents out of every dollar). The national average household expenditure on transportation, in contrast, is 18 cents out of every dollar. This means that southern households spend, on average, $6,612 per year on transportation ($6,301 of which goes toward automobiles) - more than is spent on health care and food combined. It should be noted that these figures do not include tax dollars spent on transportation.
In addition to assessing the drain of transportation expenditures on family budgets, the Driven to Spend report compares these costs to the degree of sprawl in 28 large metropolitan areas across the country. It concludes that households in areas with the most sprawl spend an average of $1,300 more on transportation than households in areas with less sprawl.
This is not surprising, since sprawl development increases distances between home, work, school, and other activities, too often making other travel options impractical. This leaves families with little choice but to own one or more motor vehicles, and to drive frequently, increasing transportation costs. In Virginia, the number of miles driven increased by 60% between 1980 and 1990, even though the population increased only 16%.
The study also shows that in many areas, heavy government investments in road infrastructure may actually be contributing to the increase in personal transportation expenses. Of the metro areas examined in the report, the places with the highest household transportation costs also invested heavily in expanding their highway networks, while the opposite is true in the least-expensive areas. Households in places with a better balance of roads and public transit tend to have lower transportation costs.
In short, this study provides further evidence of the need for a more balanced transportation program and smarter growth policies in Virginia. The full report is available at www.transact.org.
Trip Pollard is the leader of the Southern Environmental Law Center's Land and Community Project and Bruce Appleyard is a transportation and land use planner with SELC.
(Top of Page)
PIONEERS IN VIRGINIA PLANNING: Feature: Jack Stodghill, AIP/AICP
By John Dahlgren, Newsbrief Staff
Jack Stodghill, is a well-known figure in Virginia planning and was the first president of what we know today as VAPA. He has been active in planning in Virginia for almost 40 years and is currently a principal of PMA, Inc., a consulting firm in Newport News, which he founded 25 years ago.
Jack began his career in Georgia after a stint in the US Army following World War II. He graduated from the University of Georgia with a Bachelors degree in Landscape Architecture and went to work for the City of Athens, GA. Wanting a better opportunity, Jack procured a job with Harland Bartholomew Associates, a nationally-known planning firm. His first job with HBA was in Miami Beach and, subsequently, he spent much of his time working in Florida, while being based in the companys Atlanta office.
In 1961 Jack accepted the position as Planning Director for the City of Newport News, a position he was to hold for the next 14 years. As Planning Director, Jack was able to leave his mark on the city. Of the several projects that stand out, the development of Newport News City Park, the largest municipal park east of the Mississippi River, remains as one of Jacks brightest accomplishments. The park was developed around a municipal reservoir (these were the days before CBLAD and the EPA) and has been a source of pride for the city since its inception. Jack was also instrumental in creating the Oyster Point Business Park out of a surplus federal military installation. The city is now building an office building there, having recognized that Oyster Point has become a de facto downtown.
Another project Jack is proud of is the restoration of Hilton Village in Newport News. Designed to accommodate shipyard workers during World War I, Hilton Village was the first federally-planned community in the United States. In 1967, Jack undertook a proposal to revitalize the Village. Initially well received, the project was eventually defeated. However, the Village was zoned as a historic district and later added to the National Register of Historic Places through those efforts. In the 1990s, the City of Newport News again undertook the task of restoring the Village. Jacks son, Jeff Stodghill, who had joined PMA as an architect, took the old plan, updated it, and won approval and funding from the city to implement it. Because of those efforts, Hilton Village today is undergoing a remarkable and proud renaissance.
Jack left the City of Newport News in 1975 to establish a consulting firm, PMA Inc. In the consulting business, Jack has done comprehensive plans for cities and counties (most notably King William County and the City of Danville), school studies (including Southhampton County among others), management studies and payroll studies. He has served as an expert witness on a number of court case, such as the City of Hopewell Annexation case, and has become well-versed in the Chesapeake Bay Act and the ensuing regulations.
He also found time to teach at Christopher Newport University in Newport News and at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. Somewhere in between, Jack acquired a Masters degree in Management of Information Systems from George Washington University.
In addition to a long and distinguished professional career, Jack is truly a pioneer in Virginia planning from a professional development standpoint. During the mid-60s, Jack played a role in the development not only of VAPA, but he also helped establish the first AIP (American Institute of Planners) Chapter in the State. At the time, the local members of the AIP were assigned to the Washington, D.C. Chapter. Considering the growing number of planners in the Virginia at that time, the Virginia members lobbied the national AIP office for permission to establish their own Chapter. Permission was granted and the forerunner of VAPA was formed. The AIP and the ASPO (American Society of Planning Officials) merged in the mid-1970s to form the APA (American Planning Association). Newly elected as head of the AIP Virginia Chapter, Jack found himself President of an organization that had nearly twice as many members as the old one, with no structure or by-laws. He spent his term in office building and strengthening the organization, establishing by-laws and programs, and helping to lay the foundation for the organization VAPA is today.
Jack reflects that he has seen many changes over the years in planning and that one of the most profound changes is the way that planning is treated by the federal government. In the 1960s, states and localities were encouraged to strengthen their planning efforts and were given federal funding to build up their planning departments. By the 1980s, that federal money had dried up, forcing many communities to abandon costly long-term planning goals and come up with creative ways to accomplish needed land use and environmental reforms.
Jack still comes to work every morning and still works late in the evening when the job requires it. He says hell consider retirement someday, but that someday is not now. As a final piece of advice for beginning planners, Jack adds, Dont stop thinking about tomorrow&
John Dahlgren of the Newsbrief staff interviewed a reticent Mr. Stodghill for this inaugural article and contributed this information. Thanks, Jack, for sharing your story with us! John is also an employee of PMA, Inc. and will be completing his Planning degree at VCU in Spring 2001.
(Top of Page)
CAMPUS CORNER: Journal Issue Focuses on Smart Growth
The most recent issue of the Virginia Environmental Law Journal contains seven articles and presentations on growth issues that grew out of a conference entitled "Managing Growth in the Twenty-First Century: Philosophies, Strategies, Institutions." The conference was co-sponsored by the University of Virginia School of Law's Center for Environmental Studies, the Institute for Sustainable Design at the University of Virginia School of Architecture, and the Southern Environmental Law Center.
As the preface to this volume states, it contains "the latest scholarship in the legal and policy arenas regarding the nation's growth management strategies." The articles and pieces included in this volume are:
"Smart Growth: The Promise, Politics, and Potential Pitfalls of Emerging Growth Management Strategies," by Trip Pollard;
Smart Growth and Beyond: Transitioning to a Sustainable Society," by Timothy Beatley and Richard Collins;
"Comment on Beatley and Collins' Smart Growth and Beyond," by Vicki Been;'
"Economics and the Smart Growth Movement," by Gerrit Knaap;
"Dreams and Realities: Coping with Urban Sprawl," by Hank Savitch;
"Growing Smart by Linking Transportation and Urban Development," by Robert Cervero; and
"Florida's Growth Management Learning Curve," by Reid Ewing
Copies of this issue may be purchased by calling (804)924-3683 or by sending an email to [email protected].
(Top of Page)
|
Newsbrief