Day: 6 Feb 2017

Proposed 199 ft Monopole Tower along Grace Drive at River Hill

1 Comment

From: Barb Pivec [mailto:bpivec]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:41 PM
To: Barb Pivec <bpivec>
Subject: Fwd: WR Grace – Proposed 199 ft Monopole Tower

RE: WR Grace – Proposed 199 ft Monopole Tower

Dear, Email Recipient the maps did not go through the 1st time resending

Over the last several years Verizon (VZ) has recognized a deficiency in its existing coverage along Route 32 and the River Hill Community Area. In order to manage this deficiency, a design was released to add a communication installation to its local network in that area.

The first step was to evaluate any opportunities to use existing infrastructure in the area, including the water tower on the WR Grace Business Campus where other carriers have wireless installations. Inquiries and studies were performed on the water tower, and it was determined that it was not possible to utilize this existing infrastructure due to structural capacity concerns. At that time and through ongoing evaluations it was also determined that future communications upgrades, by existing carriers on the water tower, to maximize the service in the area, may be limited on this structure as well. There is strong indication that sometime in the future the property owners may remove the Water Tower.

With no other options to collocate on an existing structure in the area, a proposal is being set forth to construct a new 199’ monopole tower next to the water tower. Once constructed Verizon would locate on the structure and the existing carriers on the water tower, T-Mobile, AT&T and Sprint, would then move over as well.

Our company Calvert Crossland has a long term relationship with Verizon and has a pending agreement with WR Grace and Verizon to develop this necessary infrastructure. To learn more about Calvert Crossland please visit our website at www.calvertcrossland.com

The proposed communication facility will be located within the WR Grace Campus, right next to the water tower. The approximately 1,500 sq ft of disturbance to construct the tower is surrounded by buildings on three sides and a mature forest. This is an unmanned commutation facility that is intended to serve as a replacement for the existing water tower, currently being used as infrastructure for wireless carriers.

Please accept this letter as formal written Notice; in compliance with Sec. 16.128 for of Howard County, Maryland Code of Ordinances.

Please join us for a Pre-submission Community Meeting – February 16th, 2016.

The Meeting Room at River Hill

6330 Trotter Road

Clarksville, Maryland 21093.
6:00PM to 8:00PM

Informational Contacts and Project Detail

· Barb Pivec – Calvert Crossland, LLC bpivec 443-994-7505

· https://www.howardcountymd.gov/Departments/Planning-and-zoning >Quick Links – Resubmission Meetings >Search Sign Code – N09

· For Development Process in formation go to: https://www.howardcountymd.gov/Departments/Planning-and-Zoning/Land-Development/Development-Process-and-Procedures

· Type of initial plan to be submitted: Site Development Plan (SDP) with or without redline changes

· Project Request: unmanned telecommunications tower

· Parcel Zoning Classification: Planned Employment Center (PEC)

· Parcel Use: Industrial

· Residential Units: 0

· Parcel Acres: 54.8 Acre +-

· Development Impact: approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of disturbance

· Council District: 4

· Property ID Number: 05-351251

· Tax Map: 35 Grid: 22 Parcel: 145

· Property Address: Grace Tech Park, 7500 Grace Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21044

Please find below a location map of the property presented as a web link, attachment or enclosure.

Industry and project representatives will be in attendance to discuss the details of the project and to be available for questions. A sign-in sheet will be available at the meeting for Meeting Minutes and for further notifications. If any community association, person, or organization registered with the county is unable to attend and would like to receive an emailed version of the Minutes to the aforementioned meeting please contact Barb Pivec at bpivec

Sincerely,

Barb Pivec – Partner

Calvert Crossland, LLC

https://www.google.com/maps/place/7500+Grace+Dr,+Columbia,+MD+21044/@39.1903192,-76.9053447,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b7ded084bb72b9:0x311bafb4f880f985!8m2!3d39.1903151!4d-76.903156?hl=en&authuser

Regards,

Barb Pivec – Partner

Calvert Crossland, LLC

904 S Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231

410-827-4132 – Office 443-994-7505 – Wireless

bpivec

River Hill Board working session with SHA 2017-2-6

Our guests:

  • Cornelius Barmer, PE Assistant Division Chief (Office of Highway Development)
  • John Concannon, Assistant District Engineer (District 7 Traffic)
  • Teri Soos, PE Assistant District Engineer (District 7 Project Development)
  • Kenneth Polcak, Highway Noise Team Leader (Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering)
  • George Miller, Transportation Manager (District 7 Traffic)

Talking points

1) Ken Polcak: Highway noise team leader.

2) Cornelius Barmer, Assistant division chief. Managing capital program. 300 inquiry a year

3) John Concannon, (District 7), traffic study, lighting, etc

4) Teri Soos, Assistant District Engineer, construction inspection, etc

5) George Miller, Transportation manager , Howard County, Carrol County, Fredirick County,

Traffic noise

1: Noise complaint online, 24-48 hours’ response, 4 weeks many be needed

How to prioritize ? Case by case.

2) Noise mitigation program, how funding is decided? A rigorous procedure

3) 66 decibel threshold

4) more noisy project are allowed in Maryland than other states

5) Associated capital budget will be needed to trigger a noise mitigation response

6) 32 north expansion will NOT affect 32 south noise by the state high way.

7) retrofit look at other areas if needed

8) predictive model for noise study, future traffic study. 20 years plan.

9) Double the traffic, will increase 2 decibel.

10) SHA tried to find a way to qualify the noise mitigation program. Increased traffic does not qualify for this program.

11) Pre-dayed noise study in the south of 32 may be possible.

12) SHA is not only factor contributing to the noise. 80-20 between SHA and county on Type II project.

13) around 29, type I noise barrier. Some residents were even not sure why their build the wall.

Traffic through the neighborhood

1) traffic control device, collecting data, 13 continuous hour (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday), crashed data ( from police department, 5 years),

Linden Linthicum Lane studied in2015. Not qualifying for a traffic light.  Putting a traffic light may increase accidents (rear-end).

2)  County has done 108 corrida study before. SHA did not consider 108 new commercial constructions (River Hill Garden Center, River Hill xxx).

3) Any comprehensive study on 108 with so many new constructions? 108 design plan is only advisory, no legal effect.

4) County executive send a list of priority of projects for the county to SHA by May each year.  108 project was on the 7,8 of the list.

5) If developer’s development make changes which affect the road, it is both SHA and county’s responsibility.

6) Even SHA say the traffic study is invalid (for example, funeral home along 108 did traffic study during summer. SHA would flag this traffic study), the county can still approve the traffic study.

7) SHA give comments to developer when the developer comes to them. The developer needs to submit the application to the county first.

8) SHA could not say no to a developer in general.

9) Sheppard lane signal. Realign better to garden center. Extra cost will not from SHA. It will be developer only, or developer plus county.

10) SHA stated expansion of 32 may decrease left turn traffic into the Sheppard Lane.  Counter arguments on this point.

11) SHA does not provide continuous lighting along state high way. SHA does provide lighting all traffic signal.

12) Howard County last year asked residents to rate the traffic/road projects. Not sure they will do the same this year. County government is the initializer of road projects proposed to SHA.

 

13) J-Brake on truck ( help to stop the break) is allowed. Modified exhaust in not allowed in Maryland.

 

14) Bike route. SHA is encouraged to have a bike route. Check consistency with the master plan in the area.

 

 

 

Traffic Study by developers

Traffic study provided by developers should not be accepted for land development. It should be the county who provides a much more independent traffic study. The traffic study a developer presents is another form a bribery. From all I have seen, no traffic study has been a factor rejecting a land development project.

Basically State Highway Agency(SHA) has few power to disapprove a project. Even SHA does not approve the traffic study, the county government can still approve the project. This is what they told us face to face at our board meeting.

The county council should propose a law to fix this issue as soon as possible since there are many more developments facing us. ZRA (Zoning regulation amendment) may be the possible solution.