Tower OK violated comp plan

By Robert Legge
Guest Columnist
Published: June 12, 2008

Every five years, each jurisdiction in the commonwealth is required by Virginia Code to write what is called a comprehensive plan that “shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory.” In Madison, the most recent 2006 version was developed by the planning commission along with the input and assistance of members of the community, of which I was one.

The document can be general in nature and although it is adopted by the planning commission and the board of supervisors, neither is legally bound
to strictly adhere to its recommendations. However, many local governing bodies do consistently refer to the comp plan when dealing with ordinances,
zoning requests, etc. In fact when denying a request the motion to deny must cite a valid reason for doing so that very well may include a reference
to a conflicting statement in the comp plan.

That didn’t happen last Wednesday when both the PC and the BOS approved 199-foot cell towers despite unequivocal language in the comp plan that should have precluded such approval. On page 80, the section under “Communications and Energy Utilities” says “Assure that actions of .....communications companies are consistent and supportive of the county’s comprehensive plan.” To achieve that assurance, the planners included as “objective No. 2”: “To minimize the intrusion of utility facilities on the scenic qualities of Madison County.”

Then in what is called a “major strategy” to achieve that objective, the PC and the BOS agreed that we should “encourage towers and antennas to be designed to blend into the surrounding environment.” There are many other references that would appear to preclude the approval of towers that mar scenic vistas.

In fact, the opening vision statement of the comp plan says, “We visualize our community as consisting of places of beauty — vistas of rural farms, orchards, historic places and unspoiled scenic beauty” and that utilities should “support the needs, goals, and values of the county without compromising its natural resources or rural, aesthetic character.”

Any casual perusal of this guiding document would have ruled out the approval of these giant tower applications.

So how could this happen?

Some people believe that cell phones are a virtual necessity in modern life, even in areas as rural as Madison. While most calls are for mundane purposes some are a matter of life and death.  In fact a medical emergency was cited as one reason for approval.  We have to give up some rural scenery
for the convenience and safety of cell service. Right?

Wrong. Albemarle County has similar writing in its comp plan about how cell towers should blend into the environment. But they have developed a
specific cell tower policy that requires that poles blend into the environment. Madison should consider a similar policy.

Sometimes that requires more poles to give the same amount of service area but it has worked out quite well.

At the meeting on Wednesday night, the applicant said his company had been working with the county on their application using the giant towers and that it wouldn’t be “fair” to make them change to more numerous shorter towers that would blend into the environment as called for in the comp plan.

Most members of the PC and the BOS agreed with that. I think it is also important to be fair to current and future citizens who may want unspoiled
vistas.  It should be noted that while this tower application had been discussed in open workshops, last Wednesday was the first time the public
could comment on it when it was on the agenda.

Fortunately, one giant cell tower application was tabled by the applicant last Wednesday after it was turned down by the PC.  This tower would
overwhelm one of the prettiest vistas of the mountains from U.S. 29. And would also be clearly viewed from the beautiful and historic Hebron Valley.

It is hoped all parties, with the encouragement of members of the public, can agree on a plan that will provide the needed cell coverage yet still protect
our scenic vistas as called for in our comp plan.

While it is easy to criticize public officials, I’d rather see this incident used more as a call for the public to become engaged.  But based on the this tower approval in clear contravention of the spirit and letter of the comp plan, one could only conclude that most members of the two boards are not as familiar with the comp plan as they should be. I would urge them to take the comp plan off the shelf, read it often, discuss it with colleagues and citizens, and refer to it publicly at every opportunity, especially when formulating policy.

Make copies available electronically and at the public library and schools. Print and distribute a brochure that outlines the basic vision of the plan.  Make it a living document. Perhaps every couple of years a progress report on how well it has been followed would be helpful.

Citizens must play their part too. They need to reprimand public officials if they are straying from the document, or thank them for adhering to it. Either way, public officials will then know the people are watching and will be more likely to use it as intended as a guide in determining future
policy.

(Guest columnist Robert Legge, who runs a dried-flower business, lives with his wife and their two children in Etlan. Contact him via e-mail at .)