HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17 CommentsI
N MC CART tiY &AKE RS,,c
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
November 27, 2017
Board of Zoning Appeals of
Frederick County, Virginia Via hand delivery
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Lot 72, Plat 4, Section 23, Shawnee Land Subdivision,
Frederick County PIN 491302 123 72 (the "Property")
Dear Members of the Board:
This firm represents Rockwood 72, LLC ("Rockwood"), the owner of the above -
referenced Property. This letter will serve to summarize the history of our client's attempts to
receive permission from Frederick County to install an amateur radio tower (the "Tower") on the
Property. This letter also will provide you with all documentation in support of our client's
appeal.
I. Rockwood's Status as an Aggrieved Party
For the reasons stated herein, Rockwood is an aggrieved party for the purposes of Section
15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). "In order for a petitioner to be
`aggrieved,' it must affirmatively appear that such person had some direct interest in the subject
matter of the proceeding that he seeks to attack." Virginia Beach Beautification Com 'n v. Board
of Zoning Appeals of City of Virginia Beach, 231 Va. 415, 419, 344 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1986). As
set forth herein, the adverse decision rendered by the County gives Rockwood a direct interest in
this matter and standing to pursue this appeal.
II. Timeline of Relevant Events
By letter dated May 22, 2017, the County advised Rockwood of a complaint it had
received on April 19, 2017, regarding the construction of the Tower. This May 22, 2017 letter
advised Rockwood of inspection requirements from the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
Code which the County believes were applicable to the construction of the Tower and asked
Rockwood to submit any documentation it believed exempted the Tower from said requirements.
A true copy of this May 22, 2017 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Thereafter, on or about May 31, 2017, Beau Correll, Esquire, who represented Rockwood
at that time, met with Mark Fleet, County Building Code Official, and Erin Swisshelm, Esquire,
Assistant County Attorney. During this meeting, Mr. Fleet and/or Ms. Swisshelm, on behalf of
the County, agreed to stay enforcement action and advised Mr. Correll of four items that
Rockwood would need in order to have the Tower approved:
1. Building/electrical permits;
2. Statement of intent from Michael Wolff, President of a local amateur radio group;
[)Ki
302 W. Boscawen St., Winchester, VA 22601 1 T: 540.722.2181 I F: 540.722.2381 j mccarthyakers.com
Offices throughout Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals of Frederick County, Virginia
November 27, 2017
Page 2
3. Opinion from structural engineer on foundation and fall radius; and
4. Engineering design documents.
These four elements were presented to Mr. Correll as mere formalities and that there would be
no problem with getting the proper approval provided these steps were followed. Mr. Fleet
and/or Ms. Swisshelm also advised Mr. Correll that because the Tower is not for commercial
use, a conditional use permit is not required. Mr. Correll is available to testify at the hearing of
this matter to provide the Board with his summary of what transpired at this meeting.
On June 13, 2017, Rockwood contacted Mr. Fleet by e-mail to determine what it would
need to submit for approval of the Tower. By e-mail on June 14, 2017, Mr. Fleet advised that
Rockwood would need "an engineer designed set of plans, a plot of the property showing the
location on the property[,] ... a completed permit application[, and] ... an engineer's evaluation
of the foundation that was put in place." A true copy of this e-mail correspondence is attached
hereto as Exhibit 2.
After receiving word from the County regarding which documents were needed,
Rockwood set about engaging the proper professionals it needed in order to fulfill the County's
requirements. Rockwood was delayed slightly in this process due to the schedule of its chosen
engineer, Blue Ridge Design, Inc. ("BRD"). Rockwood ultimately met with BRD's engineer,
Ned Cleland, on July 14, 2017, to review all documents pertinent to the Tower and the County's
requirements. Rockwood engaged BRD's services and requested that Mr. Cleland contact Mr.
Fleet to advise that BRD would be involved in the Tower project to provide the required
engineering documentation.
By letter dated July 18, 2017, Mr. Fleet advised Rockwood that it had five (5) days to
submit the application for the building permit or else the matter would be turned over to the
County Attorney for legal action. A true copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. In
response, Rockwood contacted Mr. Fleet by e-mail on July 24, 2017, to advise of the delays in
retaining BRD's services and of the status of the work on Rockwood's end. A true copy of this
e-mail correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. In light of the circumstances detailed in
Rockwood's e-mail of July 24, 2017, Mr. Fleet agreed to grant an extension to August 31, 2017.
BRD's engineering work with respect to the Tower and the Property was conducted in
August 2017. BRD submitted its evaluation report to Mr. Fleet on or about August 29, 2017;
thereafter, Mr. Fleet contacted Rockwood to request a building permit application with a
deadline of September 29, 2017. Rockwood, after incorporating BRD's engineering work,
submitted its building permit application (#0000727-2017) on or about September 25, 2017, a
true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
In response to the building permit application, by letter dated October 26, 2017, Mark R.
Cheran, Zoning Administrator, advised Rockwood of two alleged violations of the County
Board of Zoning Appeals of Frederick County, Virginia
November 27, 2017
Page 3
Zoning Ordinance's provisions on setbacks — one for the Tower and one for an accessory
building located on the Property. A true copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
III. Legal Argument and Conclusion
As outlined above, Mr. Fleet, as the County's Building Code Official, made certain
representations to Rockwood and its attorney, Beau Correll, Esquire, regarding the procedure for
obtaining proper approval from the County for the Tower. Chief among these representations
was the statement that only the items enumerated above would be necessary to obtain approval
for the Tower and that these items were mere formalities in light of the fact that the Tower had
already been constructed. At no point during any of the discussions with Mr. Fleet and other
County representatives was the issue of setbacks mentioned. Rockwood and its representatives,
both verbally and in writing, requested the list of items needed for final approval of the Tower.
In response, Mr. Fleet advised of the documents enumerated above and listed in the attached
Exhibit 2, with the representation that these items were all that were needed to gain final
approval of the Tower. Given the representations of its building code official, Mr. Fleet, that the
required items were mere formalities and the lack of discussion regarding setbacks, we believe
that the County is estopped from now arguing that the setback requirements are violations of the
Zoning Ordinance.
While the estoppel argument detailed above is our client's primary basis for arguing that
the adverse decision be overturned on appeal, we also believe that the fact that the Tower is not a
commercial tower and is for amateur use only should count in Rockwood's favor. Rockwood
acknowledges that Section 165-201.03 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not
distinguish between commercial and amateur radio towers (as it appears to for
"telecommunication facilities"). However, this tower is designed to be used by amateur radio
enthusiasts throughout Frederick County and the surrounding areas and not by any commercial
groups. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is an e-mail letter from Michael Wolff, President of the
Blue Avalanche Communication Group and a member of many other local and national amateur
radio organizations, in support of the Tower and what it represents to the area.
On behalf of our client, thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward
to addressing these matters at an upcoming hearing of the Board.
MSA/aph
Enclosures as stated
cc: Client
Very truly yours,
Matthew S. Akers
EXHIBIT 1
Certified
May 22, 2017
Rockwood 72, LLC
2979 Valley Avenue
Winchester, Va. 22601
Re: Shawneeland lot 72, Tax map number 49802-123-72
Dear Property Owner,
COTINTV of FRYMPRICIZ
Inspections Department
Mark A. Fleet, Building Official
540-665-5650
Fax 540-678-0682
On April 19, 2017 our office received a complaint that a radio tower had been constructed without the
proper permits or Inspections. Upon arrival it was noted by our code enforcement inspectors that a tower
had been constructed.
Virginia'Uniform.Statewide-BuildingCode, Section 108.1 When applications are required. Application for a
permit'shall b6made°to the building official and'a permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of
any ofthe following,'activities, •except that applications for -emergency construction, alterations or equipment
replacement shall be submitted by the end of the first working day that follows the day such work
commences. In addition, the buiidirig official may authorize work to commence pending the receipt of an
application or the issuance of a permit
1. Construction or demolition of a building or structure. Installations or alterations involving (i) the
removal or addition of any wall, partition or portion thereof, (ii) any structural component, (ill) the repair or
replacement of any required component of a fire or smoke rated assembly, (iv) the alteration of any required
means of egress system, (v) water supply and distribution system, sanitary drainage system or vent
system, (vi) electric wiring, (vii) fire protection system, mechanical systems or fuel supply systems or (viii) any
equipment regulated by the USBC.
2. For change of occupancy, application for a permit shall be made when a new certificate of occupancy
is required under Section 103.3.
3. Movement of a lot line that increases the hazard to or decreases the level of safety of an,existing
building or structure in comparison to the building code under which such building or structure was
constructed.
4. Removal or disturbing of any asbestos containing materials during the construction or demolition of
a building or structure, including additions.
UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE, SECTION 113 INSPECTIONS
113.3: Minimum inspections: The following minimum inspections shall be conducted by the building'officlal
when applicable to1he construction or permit:
Page 1 of 2
1. Inspection of footing excavations and reinforcement material for concrete footings prior to the
placement of concrete.
2. Inspection of foundation systems during phases of construction necessary to assure compliance with
this code.
3. Inspection of preparatory work prior to placement of concrete.
4. Inspections of structural members and fasteners prior to concealment.
5. Inspection of electrical, mechanical and plumbing materials, equipment and systems prior to
concealment.
6. Inspection of energy conservation material prior to concealment.
7. final inspection.
If you feel your this tower is exempt under The Virginia Uniform Statewide building code section 102.3
exemptions, please submit documentation to verify the tower meets the exemption within ten (10) days
frem,thel receipt of -this letteror appiyrferthe•proper permits and schedule the proper -inspections. Please,be
aware that the above is subject to appeal under Section 119 of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Fleet
Building Code Official
CC: Mark Cheran; Gary Lofton
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 2
Andrew P. Hill
From:
David Williamson<dwilliamson@CustomComputersVA.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:16 PM
To:
Andrew P. Hill
Subject:
FW: Tower
From: Mark Fleet [mailto:mfleet6Ifcva.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:04 PM
To: David Williamson
Subject: Tower
Mr. Williamson,
You will need an engineer designed set of plans, a plot of the property showing the location on the property as well as a
completed permit application. Since the project was started before any permits were issued you will also need an
engineer's evaluation of the foundation that was put in place with no footing inspection.
Mark A. Fleet
Building Code Official
Frederick County, Va.
107 N. Kent St.
Winchester, Va. 22601
(540)665-5650
EXHIBIT 3
Certified
Second Notice
July 18, 2017
Rockwood 72, LLC
2979 Valley Avenue
Winchester, Va. 22601
Re: Shawneeland lot 72, Tax map number 491302-123-72
Dear Property Owner,
Cnr'NTY ofLFnELEn�CK
Inspections Department
Mark A. Fleet; Building Officia!
540-665-5650
Fax 540-678-0682
On April 19, 2017 our office received a complaint that a radio tower had been constructed without the
proper permits or inspections. Upon arrival it was noted by our code enforcement inspectors that a tower
had been constructed.
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, Section 108.1 When applications are required. Application for a
permit shall be made to the building official and a permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of
any of the following activities, except that applications for emergency construction, alterations or equipment
replacement shall be submitted by the end of the first working day that follows the day such work
commences. In addition, the building official may authorize work to commence pending the receipt of an
application or the issuance of a permit.
1. Construction or demolition of a building or structure. Installations or alterations involving (i) the
removal or addition of any wall, partition or portion thereof, (ii) any structural component, (iii) the repair or
replacement of any required component of a fire or smoke rated assembly, (iv) the alteration of any required
means of egress system, (v) water supply and distribution system, sanitary drainage system or vent
system, (vi) electric wiring, (vii) fire protection system, mechanical systems or fuel supply systems or (viii) any
equipment regulated by the USBC.
2. For change of occupancy, application for a permit shall be made when a new certificate of occupancy
is required under Section 103.3.
3. Movement of a lot line that increases the hazard to or decreases the level of safety of an existing
building or structure in comparison to the building code under which such building or structure was
constructed.
4. Removal or disturbing of any asbestos containing materials during the construction or demolition of
a building or structure, including additions.
UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE, SECTION 113 INSPECTIONS
Page 1 of 2
113.3 Minimum inspections. The following minimum inspections shall be conducted by the building official
when applicable to the construction or permit:
1. Inspection of footing excavations and reinforcement material for concrete footings prior to the
placement of concrete.
2. inspection of foundation systems during phases of construction necessary to assure compliance with
this code.
3. inspection of preparatory work prior to placement of concrete.
4. Inspections of structural members and fasteners prior to concealment.
5. Inspection of electrical, mechanical and plumbing materials, equipment and systems prior to
concealment.
6. Inspection of energy conservation material prior to concealment.
7. Final inspection.
This office hereby directs you to apply for the proper permits within five (5) days upon receipt of this letter.
Failure to comply will result in this matter being forwarded to the County Attorney for appropriate legal
action.
Respectfully,
Mark A. Fleet
Building Code Official
CC: Mark Cheran; Gary Lofton
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 4
Andrew P. Hill
From: David Williamson<dwilliamson@CustomComputersVA.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:16 PM
To: Andrew P. Hill
Subject: FW: Re: Tax Map 49802-123-72
Attachments: 0158_170724134937_001.pdf
Importance: High
From: David Williamson
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM
To: mfleetCaafcva.us
Cc: beau correllfirm.com; Cleland, Ned
Subject: Re: Tax Map 491302-123-72
Importance: High
Mr. Fleet et al,
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 18, 2017. As was stated in your previous email to me on June 14, 2017, "You will
need an engineer designed set of plans, a plot of the property showing the location on the property as well as a
completed permit application. Since the project was started before any permits were issued you will also need an
engineer's evaluation of the foundation that was put in place with no footing inspection."
On June 27, 2017 1 sent an email to Betty Cleland with Blue Ridge Design, a local structural engineering firm that I have
used for other previous projects. The purpose of my email was to engage their firm for the purposes highlighted above
from your email correspondence. On July 4, 2017 1 received a reply from Mrs. Cleland, informing me that due to staff
vacations and her husband, Ned Cleland, being out of the country for another project, it would be a little while before
someone would be available to meet with, and potentially assist on this project. I replied to her email on July 5, 2017
and thanked her for the reply and asked her what the next step would be and told her I felt most comfortable engaging
their firm since I knew the quality of work produced. On July 6, 2017 1 received a reply back from her with the following
information:
From: Cleland, Betty rmailto:bfclelandiabrd-inc com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 11:48 AM
To: David Williamson
Subject: RE: Structural analysis
David,
I just spoke with Ned and il you ;runt him to do this, he will try to get to it this month. Since I do not check nny email c
drnedC@brd-inc.com
He will address this asap.
Betty
I then sent an email directly to Ned Cleland on July 13, 2017, requesting a meeting at his earliest available time. He
replied back to me on July 14, 2017 with the following information:
------ Original message --------
Froze: "Cleland, Ned" <dxned er:brd-inc_com>
Date: 2017.07214 7:09 Ansi (GNr-OS:00)
To: David Williamson <dwillam sort6KUstomComtautersVA corr>
Subject: RE: Structural. analysis
Daxid.
I am traveling to a project this morning; and I expect to be back in the office by 2:30_ so we could meet atter th
On Monday, I have an opening after 3:30. 1 can schedule for anv time on Tuesday.
Ivied M. Cleland, Ph -D-, P.E.
Blue Ridge Design_ Inc.
Glearock House
3 West Piccadilly St; are Floor
NVinchester_ VA 22601
540-723-0900 office
I then replied back to Mr. Cleland on July 14, 2017 stating that I would come to his office later that same afternoon. I
then arrived at his office around 413M on Friday, July 14, 2017, for our in-person meeting. I brought the following to that
meeting to provide to him:
1. A copy of notices sent from Frederick County.
2. A copy of the complete FOIA request on this complaint.
3. A copy of the email from you, Mark Fleet, stating what was required to proceed.
4. A copy of a confidential email I received from my attorney, Beau Correll, summarizing his meeting with you and
your attorney on May 31, 2017.
5. Information pertaining to the concrete footing and application process for installation of the tower.
At that time I also asked Mr. Cleland to send a notification to your office that I had engaged him and his firm for the
purposes of completing the required structural analysis information that was to be a prerequisite to me being able to
apply for a building permit.
So, one week later, Friday July 21, 2017, 1 receive the certified letter from your office, attached to this email, stating I
had 5 days to apply for a building permit or your office was turning the matter over to the County Attorney for legal
action. As I have clearly outlined above, I have done everything in my power to move this in the direction requested by
your office on May 31, 2017. If you wish for me to come apply for a building permit before the required structural
analysis work has been completed, I will come down to your office and file the application, however, I will not have the
structural analysis data to accompany it.
Mr. Fleet, how would you like me to proceed at this point?
Mr. Cleland, would you please send an official notification to Mr. Fleet's office, if you have not already done so,
informing his office that I have already engaged your firm to work on this project?
Mr. Correll, if you feel I have missed anything pertinent to this matter, please feel free to contact me offline to discuss
and advise as needed.
Thank you all for your time and attention to this matter.
Regards,
David Williamson
Rockwood 72, LLC
2979 Valley Avenue
Winchester, VA 22601-2631
EXHIBIT 5
(revised 8/30/17)
DATE:
PERMIT #
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
(please complete the DeckApplication Pcrinit if applying for a deck only)
Owner's are allowed to act as their own contractor provided DPOR Title 54 Owner Contractor
Definition is met.
*Contractor's Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
*NOTE: If you have never obtained permits in Frederick County please attach a copy of your state contractor's license.
Any jobs over $25,000 will also need a Frederick County Business License unless you are building in the Town of
Middletown or the Town of Stephens City. You would then need that town's business license. All businesses in
Frederick County are required to have a Frederick County Business Licenses regardless of the job value.
LOCATION OF OBSITE
Subdivision: _ �� y� � � Lot Number—
Street Address:
Tax Map Identifica�slte:
mber of the Property: .,� ..
Directions to the jo—'
SETBACKS Please indicate the actual distance measured from the structure to the property lines)
Front, -.1") Rear 0 L431 Lett _ A�_t Right
X
E OF PIERIWiil T PLYING FOR:
Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing
TE Ander I l" etl0M of 1003'rr;ation Actplans can be secured upon request.
PERMIT FOR:
I hereby agree to cornI with all
Ordinance as ttcinnt�cllh�� xhp t n�
Applicant (,vigna,
(print)
Sign
of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the Zoning
Applicant is: Contractor _ Owner Agent*
*Agents, please note that a signed authori ation from the owner or contractor must enattached rchitect
*Agent Name (print) *Agent Contact Number
*Agent Address (print)
Natpe and daytime telephone number
�r gUcstiOns on the permit application and/or construction documents.
Permit Application
Page Two
BUILDING INFORMATION NEEDED FOR PERMITS
WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM ��
❑Public Water/Sewer System ❑Private Well/Septic ' '
MECHANICS LIEN AGENT: yes i10 (if yes, please complete below)
Mechanics Lien Agent:. t I M
Address:
Phone Number
JOB VALUE: _4>r��,,
❑New One & Two Family Dwelling ❑New Mobile/Manufacturer Home
❑New Modular/Industrialized Home ❑Residential Remodeling []Residential Addition
❑ sidential Demo ion requires a letter from the utility providers (gas/electric) confirming the electric/gas has been removed)
Master Plan Nuns (if applicable)
Building Size (Dimens' ns)
Total Square Footage of • ing Space
First Floor Second Floor Bonus Room
Total Square Footage of Base
Unfinished Square Footage Finished Square Footage
Number of Stories
Number of Bedrooms Number of Bathrooms
Total Number of Rooms
Garage ❑Detached []Attached Size of Gard
Deck 1 — Length Width Total Square Footage
Deck 2 — Length Width _ Total Square Footag+r
Porch — Length Width _ Total Square Footage
Masonry Chimney/Fireplaces
MOBILE HO S
Make _ Model
Year erial Number
Length _ _ Width Number of Bedrooms
Number of Bathrooms Type of Heat
COMMERCIAL.., JOB VALUE:
❑New ❑Addition ❑Remod ting
❑Demolition (requires a letter from the utili y providers (gas/electric) confirming the electric/gas has been removed. Additionally,
Demolition/Additions/Remodeling permits on buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1985 requires Asbestos affidavit)
Total Square Footage of Building
Building Size
Number of Stories
Number of Bathrooms
Total Number of Rooms
Use Group
Occupant Load
Upon request, Technical Review Committee meetings for projects with site plans and pre -permit
evaluations of existing structures prior to renovations, additions and change of use are available
Permit Application
Page Three
�J
SIGNS (please provide the following information for each sign) JOB VALUE TOTAL! 1 "
Type of Sign ❑Wall Sign Size (Dimensions)
Square Footage of Front of Structure (if wall sign)
CJFreestanding* (provide height measured from ground to top of sign) feet
Sign Size (Dimensions)
(*Freestanding signs require a plat/drawing showing the location of the sign and the distance from the
property line/roadway(s)
Marking & Listing Number
LEGTRICAL PERMIT JOB VALUE: `
RESIDENTIAL
Amp Service EXE D New ❑Upgrade ❑Reconnection
For Additions/Remodeling: Numb • of Switche§iy.pL Lights Receptacles
Size of sub -panel if adding one
COMMERCIAL (please list equipment below and provide 2 sets of plans*) JOB VALUE:`
Amp Service Number of Switches Lights Receptacles
(Quantities are required for permit submittal and shall be received prior to review of plans)
Size of sub -panel if adding one
❑Fire Alarm (please provide 4 sets of plans* and equipment specifications)
(Commercial - List all equipment, motors, and wiring — attached sheet if needed)
PLUMBING PERMIT: JOB VALUE: _ 11
❑Residential ❑ Commercial (please provi e 2 sets of the plans* for Commercial applications
(list number of fixtures by each)
Bath Sink/Basins Dishwasher Floor Drains Fountains
Garbage Disposal Grease Traps Laundry Tub Lawn Faucets
Sewer Pump Sewer Service Shower Stall Kitchen Sinks
Sutnp Pumps Whirlpools Tubs Urinals Wash Machine
Toilet/Water Closet Water Heater Water Service Well Pump
Other
MECHANICAL PERMIT JOB VALUE: _
❑RESIDENTIAL ElCOMIVIERCIi� (list number of fixtures & provide 2 sets of plans*)
Heat Pump Gas Furnace A C Unit Gas Piping Gas Range
Gas Logs Gas Water Heater Other
Size of Tanks Under 500 Gal.
Sprinkler System (list type) (please provide 4 sets of plans* and equipment specifications)
(list all equipment giving btu's and tons)
'NOTE: All commercial jobs for building, signs, electrical, plumbing and mechanical will need to submit 2 sets of plans. Please
separate plans by trade. Sprinkler plans and fire suppression systems require 4 sets. Residential building permits for residential
permits will need to submit I set of plans.
LOT 72 PLAT 4SC-C710N 23
-1 AND
BACK CREEK DISTRICT
F0 -X INST, 10-7783, FREDERICK COUNTY, VlkGtNIA
,�
F�h
RECORD: PLAT
!]8r
376., r -T.;.
IfRS N 34-35a,'�;[
E 77.42).'
" POCKA00-D TRAIL -6-&' R.//W.
CURRUT OXAPEP, LLC~
tAZ'
I FF"Me INS -T. FA -42O,i
iAW TITLE' Arpofir FUAff!jjSHBDz
-------------
to
L.S.
N M
'kV'E'V'W-r A'*0 PLANNENG-CO %S - TXfl0
w T4
-V, 1'520 Co"MaACR ViNGINIA 226wf
IL
FURSTENAU;
VAIM JVjVZ 2.7, 21)ra
Uc. Ub. 2727 f."3" Tt)' 09&TTPY THAT ON AME 27.
2916' NMI" I A&LOF AN, ACVIYR;&.TR
Or. 7?ffF PRews'RS .9frowv
AX !Mt`'. ti MERAVONAND MA T TH!P-RP-' AMP M -
ON TMF 0ROUND'DTIMR THAW
SlHoWm pppRgoM
JPF
S 3'4'30'5.7" W 77.4:2'
IRF
IRF
LOT -7 '2$
20.004.], Sly. FT
icl
0
,�
F�h
RECORD: PLAT
!]8r
376., r -T.;.
IfRS N 34-35a,'�;[
E 77.42).'
" POCKA00-D TRAIL -6-&' R.//W.
CURRUT OXAPEP, LLC~
tAZ'
I FF"Me INS -T. FA -42O,i
iAW TITLE' Arpofir FUAff!jjSHBDz
-------------
to
L.S.
N M
'kV'E'V'W-r A'*0 PLANNENG-CO %S - TXfl0
w T4
-V, 1'520 Co"MaACR ViNGINIA 226wf
IL
FURSTENAU;
VAIM JVjVZ 2.7, 21)ra
Uc. Ub. 2727 f."3" Tt)' 09&TTPY THAT ON AME 27.
2916' NMI" I A&LOF AN, ACVIYR;&.TR
Or. 7?ffF PRews'RS .9frowv
AX !Mt`'. ti MERAVONAND MA T TH!P-RP-' AMP M -
ON TMF 0ROUND'DTIMR THAW
SlHoWm pppRgoM
3 West Piccadilly Street,
31' Floor
Winchester, VA 22601
540-723-0900
540-723-0901 fax ' 1 1: ,
Memo
Tim David Williamson, Rockwood II LLC
From Ned Cleland
Date: August 29, 2017
Re: Ham Radio Tower
U NED M.
UC. No. 9940
jONAL
I have made an evaluation of the foundation and anchorage of the latticed tovyier as
placed on Lot 72 on North Mountain. The following is a summary of that evaluation.
I have attached documents and calculations that were used or developed with my
evaluation of the tower base support.
I visited the site to make measurements and to verify conditions and to make
measurements of the foundation and anchorage on Monday, August 28th. Photo 1
shows the foundation view from the northwest comer. The base measures 10'-3u by
11'-10" in plan. I understand that the total thickness is four feet. An e-mail from Craig
Holman dated May 10, 2017, the weight of the tower base was stated to be 66,000
lbs„ which would be equivalent to 3.62 ft. depth, so the base is checked for this
1
range. There are piles of spoil from the excavation that are consistent with the size
of the excavation, and also show that the base is weathered shale with some well -
distributed clay fines. I also verged the field -installed base anchor size (5/e in. dia.)
and locations to permit evaluation of the anchorage to concrete.
I have reviewed the drawings and prepared calculations for the tower wind loads.
The first six pages of the attached material are the drawings with layout and
member sizes of the tower sections that were assembled to form your tower. I have
used these to determine the exposed areas for wind loading. The assembly of five
sections of 20 ft. length makes the tower. These segments are labeled 7N, 6N, 5N,
4N, and 3N. The drawings provide the diameter of the three comer pipes and the
angle leg widths or rod diameters for the cross bracing for each of the three tower
faces. The sizes are increased based on ASCE 7 wind resistance factors based on
section shapes and a ratio, E, of net area to gross area and include a factor for the
effects of the resistance of the tower faces at angle with a flat face.
The second six pages are from my evaluation of the location of the tower lot from
the tax maps and from Google Earth. I use the Google Earth location to determine
the topographic elevations to determine the effects of placement downhill from the
North Mountain ridge on the wind loading.
With the longitude and latitude of the site determined, I used the new ASCE 7
Hazards assessment program to determine the design wind speed and ice accretion
for the site. I used a low hazard category for wind speed since this structure is
isolated and has low risk for loss of life or damage to property from failure. Pages
from the Hazard Report are also attached. The ice accretion for this site is 1 in., but
the wind speed associated with the ice event is only 30 mph and so the enlarged
exposure area does not control the wind design loading.
ASCE 7 includes the calculation of a topographic factor for conditions where the
location of the structure may cause higher pressure. I used topographic data derived
from the Google Earth program, and verged with the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool to
determine the ridge and valley distance and elevations on both sides of the ridge. I
verified the offset of the ridge peak from the tower site when I visited the site. The
governing value for the topographic effect was 2.84, increasing the base wind
pressure to 82.6 psf on the effective exposed areas of each tower. segment. This
wind force calculation gives a base shear of 7,892 lbs. and an ultimate base
overturning moment of 211.5 ft. -kips. From this moment calculation and the spacing
of the legs, the calculated potential uplift ultimate force at each leg is 37,200 lbs.
You have provided an e-mail stating that the anchor holes were drilled 18 in. and the
anchors were installed with Epcon C6+ structural epoxy in accordance with the
manufacturer's written instructions. Product data for this material indicates 22.6 kips
per rod with 7'/sin. embedment in 2,000 psi concrete. This indicates that the design
strength of the epoxy bond for four anchors is 67.9 kips, including a strength
reduction factor of 0.75. For anchorage to concrete, the epoxy bond strength may
not be the controlling limit to the base anchorage. The anchorage strength also
depends on the strength of the bolts and the depth of anchorage and strength of the
concrete into which the anchors are set. The approximate strength of the four
anchor rods at each corer base limited by steel (A35 or A307 threaded rods) is 76.5
0 Page 2
kips. For the rods embedded at 7'/ in. for comparison with the epoxy strength
rating, the concrete break-out strength would be 29.5 kips in 3,000 psi concrete.
With 9 in, embedment, the design strength is 37.4 kips, which is greater than the
ultimate load. The lholes were reported to be drilled 18 in. for anchorage. Installation
greater than 9 in. is sufficient.
The base is 10'-3' by 11'-10" in plan. For a total thickness of four feet, the base
weight would be 72,800 lbs. Using the short width of the base for the critical
condition, the resistance to overturning with a 10% reduction in effective base dead
load is 336 ft. -kips, about 1.6 times the ultimate base moment. For the service load
moment, the overturning safety factor is greater than 2.5. The maximum calculated
ultimate bearing pressure under the edge of the footing is 1.95 ksf. The service load
maximum is 1.16 ksf.
For a base weight 66,000 lbs., the minimum resistance to overturning with 10@
dead load reduction is 304 ft. -kips, about 1.44 times the ultimate base moment. For
the service load moment, the overturning safety factor is about 24. The maximum
calculated ultimate bearing pressure under the edge of the footing is 2.13 ksf. The
service load maximum is 1.12 ksf.
The soil pressure calculations give bearing pressures greater than allowed for
unclassified soil, but the weathered shale base in evidence at the side would have a
s'gnificantly higher allowable bearing value.
The moment from the tower base adds stress tot eh base concrete. I understand
that the footing base is reinforced, but I have not seen the size or placement of the
steel. Based on an analysis of the section as plain concrete, the maximum ultimate
stress for the moment is 61 psi, tension and compression. Following the chapter in
ACI 318 for plain concrete, the maximum tension stress is limited to 164 psi for
3,000 psi compression strength concrete and 134 psi for 2,000 psi concrete. The
loading, then, is well within the code limits.
Based on my site inspection, analysis, and evaluation, the concrete footing and field -
installed anchorage to concrete meet the requirements of the building code for
loading imparted by the radio tower.
0 Page 3
Ell
G�
Yi
M
a
Ell
l
iKil:
tC
P
O
{
D
Ik �° I gi i ID E� O0P
ern n n«
Q`2�
P
kkm
Lx i
oo
.fin.
i�SYA�i M
i
�w
e
x
�R
a
1
t£
k
ar�y�y,ggri
aq�fi��&{gkg
skxkx
@8j�j
�.sT3°�
�a
k�y3
¢�k4igllg
tzo
Coq
a
a
II ','sJ!!!!snJ swwrrs a
�M69
�t
b
ti
?x x
T(p TQ
a
-
�
c Y
n
L�.
y<
6u
d
o�
n
ar�y�y,ggri
aq�fi��&{gkg
skxkx
@8j�j
�.sT3°�
�a
k�y3
¢�k4igllg
4a�
�
a
�
ava
E�
15
¢y
6A3
r�
e+',. � F g �, ■�i iii = iY i �
�pbe. f¢..P,ii / ->fi iP 4' sky '� i ,'y? �,• r Jr
_._
Py �+
„�j
lop
�'y, tl1 y,f�4�
1A
F r ♦ �,.' 0 ,
�F 66 wis vWg t �t
",
IlL
C
•
�}.. � �
ifs �.
i
v
�
;
X (4_'
t
�� 3
a
•
:. -h�n' X2..'.3
r
d
t
# P
i � f
MWI
N
a
e el
ASCE
NaRl w sa:. u -rnx 5 r es
No Address At this Location
ASCE 7 Hazards Report
Risk Calaegory: Standard VA?rs;on:
Elevation: 2223 ft 1
AscErsEl 7-16
Lat. 39.1999 Soil' Cia1r's;
Long: -78.35793 B Estimated stimated (see Section
B Est
Elevation R-AfQrence Oata;m-
North American Vertical Datum of 14RR (1.0X\8 RR
T ("
Results:
Wind Speed: 103 Vmph
Data Source: ASCE/SEI 7-16, Fig. 26.5-1A
Date Accessed: Tue Aug 15 2017
Value provided Is 3 -second gust wind speeds at 33 ft above ground for Exposure C Category, based on linear
interpolation between contours. Wind speeds are interpolated in accordance with the 7-16 Standard. Wind speeds
correspond to approximately a 15% probability of exceedance in 50 years (annual exceedance probability =
0.00333, BFRI = 300 years).
Mountainous terrain, gorges, ocean promontories, and special wind regions should be examined for unusual wind
conditions.
A)h IlC?JO.o 01,ne P8991 of 4
Tue Aug 15 2017
ASCE
Miffil(W4 SME r( OF GSE ENGINEERS
Ice
Results:
Ice Thickness: 1.00 in.
Concurrent Temperature: 15 F
Gust Speed: 30 mph
Data Source: Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, Figs. 10-2 through 10-8
Date Accessed: Tue Aug 15 2017
Ice thicknesses on structures in exposed locations at elevations higher than the surrounding terrain and in valleys
and gorges may exceed the mapped values.
Values provided are equivalent radial ice thicknesses due to freezing rain with concurrent 3 -second gust speeds,
for a 500 -year mean recurrence interval, and temperatures concurrent with ice thicknesses due to freezing rain.
Thicknesses for ice accretions caused by other sources shall be obtained from local meteorological studies. ice
thicknesses in exposed locations at elevations higher than the surrounding terrain and in valleys and gorges may
exceed the mapped values.
Snow
Results:
Case Study Required
Elevation:
Data Source:
Date Accessed:
2223.0 ft
ASCE/SEI 7-16, Fig. 7-1.
Tue Aug 15 2017
In "Case Study" areas, site-specific case studies are required to establish ground snow loads. Extreme local
variations in ground snow loads in these areas preclude mapping at this scale.
Ground snow load determination for such sites shall be based on an extreme value statistical analysis of data
available in the vicinity of the site using a value with a 2 percent annual probability of being exceeded (50 -year
mean recurrence interval).
Values provided are ground snow loads. In areas designated "case study required," extreme local variations in
ground snow loads preclude mapping at this scale. Numbers in parentheses represent the upper elevation limits in
feet for the ground snow load values presented. Site-specific case studies are required to establish ground snow
loads at elevations not covered.
hftp. aIgN, ?ha rdtaol online/ Page 3 of 4 Tue Aug 15 2017
,G �, t
t� A'
>tj{
t
.S�•tt
- YF�
K`
St :.
.t
(A A{
41
`i
W ?
1 vt
en
rj sr'
ryNi61 i7 til
:JAM
----------
................
ym �G"
Wnm
-
low
VIj.A
1 vt
en
rj sr'
ryNi61 i7 til
----------
................
ym �G"
Wnm
-
low
David Williamson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
noreply@homedepot.com
Wednesday, September 27, 2017 8:08 AM
David Williamson
Order Status Update
Please keep this email for your records.
Please add HOMOReAol@homedepot.com to your address book. Learn how.
a
Order Status Update
Mnraetnin-
0 FREE SHIPPING* + � FREE IN STORE PICK UP + JR FREE RETURNS"
Order Number: H4618-33115 Order Date: 09/23/2017
Dear DAVID,
Your Order Status Has Changed
We have a status update for one or more items on your order.
Please review your order details and keep this email for your records.
Product Description Qty Fulfillment
Status
S01 EDGELEY RTF MATTE 2.00 1 PROFESSIONAL CABINET
WRITE SOL In production
storeSKU# 1001529201 Ship to Location:
2350 LEGGE BLVD Expected Arrival
WINCHESTER, VA 22601 Date:
(540) 723-0619 11/11/2017
Check your oder history online at any time. Thank you again for visiting hMn depot com.
Sincerely,
The Home Depot WINCHESTER #4618
2350 LEGGE BLVD
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
(540) 723-0619
Z
CLACK TO vIEW YOUR
G -at Top
Viii t
F 7
u9-XJS for
arc e� aj
ur
�p
Save Big with Our
CENTER
Shop Top Online Promotions
on Populw Products for Your
Homo and Gar4an
SAVING CENTER LOCAL AD STORE FINDER THE HOME DEPOT CREDIT CARD MANAGE MY SETTINGS
Please do not reply to this email. To contact us, please call the store at (540) 723-0619.
For all other store -related customer service needs:
In the U.S., call 1 -800 -HOME -DEPOT (8AM to 8PM ET, Monday through Friday, 9AM to 6PM ET,
Saturday and 12 PM to 6 PM ET, Sunday)
View our return policy.
Local store prices may vary from those displayed. Products shown as available are normally stocked
but inventory levels cannot be guaranteed.
NOTE:AII offers may not be available in all areas. Products are currently only available for delivery to
street addresses in the 48 contiguous United States. Select parcel items can ship to Alaska & Hawaii.
We cannot ship to APO/FPO, P.O.Boxes or U.S. Territories. Prices are in U.S. dollars and are subject
to change without notice.
2012 Homer TLC, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy & Security Statement
ron1'i&! rti;tl rind may be 1e4'-:br
J:;. r l Ir; i tl..nf r?Ci r((it {�i r..ry di!;cit Son Cul ryi !y uiSl,ibl i!i07 Or
+r n i irc > c I to o .r U ei d. any opinion C lC :;r,i. ent-lit C. I in thvc t , 1aA errs Suojor'+ to IN: I rms it I
ordientE'ruia(1Gm8n[iCltF( }i@I, 1111,t.)C�U f MI �.,r.0 (A
of lc Sr- iri ;pK'(rolli any ni'iC;iif)-.ICS 6nurS Vilust t j NCinYIS, t;Ljlrl hur-
:Ir ) q .I , ! ,: : n tr•,cri to INS, itta hr ,r-nt an,] sha! ncJI tar' liar ": f(ir direct, indiref,-I r,, r,,,. quc:nUa! nr r J;, ., Jr!
,u;atinr: in t! ds It d::Fnet f.:rnatl !> confidential and may he legeal!v f+riviteghd It is intC 5Ae l sf%ieiy ft -.r thct addr-_s,t>c! Acr.;•.
o. i
:•i -� t! + r ! nu h< inlcndad ra,(;Ipient, any diz Cdo ;u F _ - +=
EXHIBIT 6
- vv.,vt i i. Vi.i 11J.�L L,Ll1\✓j�
1 !
Department of Planning and Development
:ate. 540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
CERTIFIED MAIL
October 26, 2017
Rockwood 72 LLC
Attn: David Williamson
2979 Valley Avenue
Winchester, VA 22601
RE Property Identification Number (PIN): 491302-123-72
Zoning District: R-5 (Residential Recreational Community)
Dear Mr. Williamson:
This letter is in response to Building Permit #0000727-2017 applied for on September 29,
2017, and submitted to this office regarding an amateur radio tower. This tower was
constructed on the above -referenced property without a building permit. The building
permit application stated the building setbacks for this tower to be: front 37 ft., rear 143
ft., right side 23 ft., and left side 49 ft. These setbacks for the 100 -foot tower are in
violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance for the R-5 Zoning District.
Furthermore, the building permit application has included a house location survey that
shows the outbuilding at 10 ft. along Ashwood Trail. This outbuilding is in violation of
the setbacks for the R-5 Zoning District.
In accordance with Section 165-201.03 B. (1). Height limitations; exceptions of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, allows for radio transinission towers within the R-5
Zoning District. Provided that subsection (8) of Section 165-201.03 B. is met: If any of
the above exceptions exceed the height limitation of the proposed zoning district, the
structure shall be required to be set back the normal setback or required buffer distance
plus one foot for every foot over the maximum allowed height of that zoning district. The
minimum setbacks for this structure are: 90ft. front, 90ft. right side, 70ft. left side, and
105 ft. rear. Therefore, this structure constr utes a yr lation of Section 165-201.03 B. (8)
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
In accordance with Section 165-502.04 A. Permitted uses of the R-5 Zoning District
allows for accessory structures (outbuilding) within the district, provided that the
setbacks of the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District are met. The setbacks for
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Rockwood. 72 LLC
Re: PIN 49B02-12-72
October 26, 2017
accessory structures along a right-of-way is 35 feet. Therefore, this accessory structure
constitutes a violation of Section 165-502,04 A. of the Frederick Zoning Ordinance.
This office will allow thirty (30) days from the date of this letter to resolve this violation.
Specifically, the resolution of this violation may be accomplished by removing the two
structures or placing the structures at the correct setbacks and resubmitting a building
permit for review and approval by Frederick County. Failure to comply with the Zoning
Ordinance will result in a criminal complaint being filed against you.
You have the right to appeal this notice of violation within thirty (30) days of the date of
this letter in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. This decision
shall be final and unappealable if it is not appealed within thirty (30) days. Should you
choose to appeal, the appeal must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Board
of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in accordance with Article X, Section 165-1001.02 (A), of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This provision requires the submission of an
application form, a written statement setting forth the decision being appealed, the date of
decision, the grounds for appeal, how the appellant is an aggrieved party, any other
information you may want to submit, and a $300.00 filing fee ($250.00 filing fee and a
$50.00 refundable sign deposit). Once the appeal application is accepted, it will be
scheduled for public hearing and decision before the BZA.
Please contact me regarding any questions that you may have at (540) 665-5651
Sincerely,
r
Mark R. Cheran
Zoning Administrator
MRC/dIw
cc: Mark Fleet, Building Official
EXHIBIT 7
Andrew P. bill
From: David Williamson <customcomputersva@gmail.com>
Semi: Wednesday, november 22, 2017 2:21 PM
To: Andrew P. Hill
Cc: David Williamson
Subject: Fwd: Interest in use of Rockwood Trail Facility for Amateur Radio Repeaters
Attachments: Projected KG4Y coverages from KG4Y Home Site.pdf, Projected KG4Y coverage from
Rockwood Trail Site.pdf
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Wolff <miuel lobos@Yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:22 PM
Subject: Interest in use of Rockwood Trail Facility for Amateur Radio Repeaters
To: David Williamson @customcomputersva@gmail com>
Cc: k4uss@arrl.net
David,
Thank you for reaching out to me and sharing your vision for the use of Winchester Wireless sites at high
elevations in the county for the additional purpose of acting as amateur radio relay station locations. I, as the
owner and operator of an amateur UHF repeater, am excited about the prospect of locating my repeater station
and components at a location so well-suited at providing service coverage across Frederick and Clarke Counties
in Virginia, as well as Jefferson, and a significant portion of Berkeley Counties in West Virginia, which would
allow it to essentially blanket the northern Shenandoah Valley with coverage. I did take the opportunity
yesterday to ride by the site and see the progress that has been made to -date on it. I was quite pleased with what
I saw, and I also collected some GPS data at the location that enabled me to have some inputs into the tools
used to calculate predictable coverage from that location.
Speaking of which, I have included predicted coverage maps generated from on-line tools to show the projected
difference in coverage from the repeater operating at the existing location (at my home in Frederick County east
of Winchester) versus using such a well-suited location as the facility at Rockwood Trail. I can certainly get
into some deeper level of detail and explanation of why the difference, but the key factors are:
1. line -of -site radio wave propagation — the vastly dominant mode of radio wave propagation at the
frequencies that such repeaters typically operate
2. height above average terrain (HAAT) — determines the distance to the radio horizon which is the
theoretical limit of propagation distance for line -of -site propagation mode
Of course, there are other clubs, and other stand-alone VHF and UHF analog FM amateur repeaters situated
along the North Mountain ridge at a variety of locations, and many of them have been there for years. To date, I
have not been able to figure out how to approach any of these site owners and negotiate an agreement to allow
co -location of my repeater. One of the things that differentiates my repeater, making it worthwhile to put in
such a location is that I have equipped it with the necessary pieces to link it to the Internet. This repeater offers
the ability to function in analog FM mode, as well as a newer modulation technique (C4FM) allowing digital
signal transmission, removing much noise with similar coverage characteristics. Further, the digital signaling
protocols allow users of the system to control linkage to other repeaters and talk groups leveraging VOIP over
the Internet. As far as I am aware, none of the repeaters scattered across the North Mountain ridge offer this at
this time. Of course, for this to work, the repeater will require an internet connection available wherever it is
located. The bandwidth needed to operate in this mode is typically less than I Mbps, using UDP packets for
voice and signaling delivery. This repeater is branded as part of Yaesu's System FUSION, and the Internet
Linking product is Yaesu's WIRES -X. I know that there are a number of amateur radio operators in the
Shenandoah Valley that have Yaesu System FUSION capable radios, and would benefit from the experience of
using the system with WIRES -X to link across the world via this repeater. One of the nice things about this
repeater, is it will also work in analog FM mode, which has been the method of operation since the deployment
of amateur radio repeaters started becoming common in the 1960s and 1970s.
I would be remiss if I did not include one of the key purposes that many amateur radio repeaters serve —
emergency communications. As fun as all of these things are for the amateur radio community, many of us
choose to give back and make ourselves available as communication support resources to the various local, state
and federal first responder and incident management entities. There are two widely recognized amateur radio -
related organizations known nationwide for providing volunteer communication service response to disasters —
RACES (Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service), and ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Service). RACES
is spelled -out and defined in the Communications Act of 1934, where ARES is a sub -organization within the
American Radio Relay League (the ARRL — best characterized as a national amateur radio advocacy
organization that has been around for over 100 years now). Some of the amateurs in this area are affiliated with
ARES, but I haven't heard much with regard to RACES in this part of Virginia. Organizationally, I can tell you
that ARES has groups organized with leadership down to the county level, as I happen to know some of the
office holders in this area for that organization. Full disclosure — I am a life member of the American Radio
Relay League, and an ARES volunteer for both Frederick and Clarke Counties. Let me know if you have
questions or wish more details on what any of this means. My intention is to register my repeater as an official
ARES emergency repeater with coverage of Clarke, Frederick, and Jefferson Counties (the map projection
shows coverage from Rockwood Trail over those counties as very good)
Additionally, one of the area amateur radio clubs of which I happen to be a member in good standing (The Blue
Avalanche Communication Group — I happen to be the current president of that club), has a VHF repeater on
the air not too far from the Rockwood Trail location, but it is not in as good of working order as we had hoped
would become the case in its current location. This repeater was designated as an ARES repeater, so we are
hopeful that moving this repeater (also a Yaesu FUSION capable repeater, but currently without WIRES -X),
with it's VHF frequencies, would cover any holes that my UHF repeater might leave for the projected coverage
area. Options are always a good thing, and redundancy of systems typically means improved availability of
services.
I, and the Blue Avalanche Communications Group, are excited at the prospect of using the Rockwood Trail site
to host two repeaters and associated equipment. In order for this to function as intended, here's what we
envision happening —
We would provide the equipment necessary to for the repeaters to operate. at the co -locate with the commercial
interests at the facility, including the repeaters, duplexers, antennae and interconnecting cabling, and would
arrange for the delivery and installation of said equipment. We would need for you:
i. Space on the tower for two side -mounted antennas with sufficient clearance to avoid interference or
hazards
2. Space in the shelter for our equipment (i.e. 19" rack -mount relay rack or 4 -post IT style cabinet)
3. Electric power to run the equipment (standard, common household AC power @ 120 VAC single phase,
total current draw not to exceed 5 Amps)
4. Internet access via an Ethernet connection (10/100/1000 on copper), with bandwidth up to
approximately 1 Mbps
5. Reasonable access control / security to the site to prevent unauthorized / unlicensed persons from
gaining control of amateur radio apparatus (i.e. locked shelter / unauthorized climber prevention on
tower)
6. Reasonable access arrangements for our technical people to get to the equipment for maintenance /
repair activities
Further, if you were to find that co -locating amateur radio services is possible at other locations, we'd be very
interested to explore those possibilities as well. Diversity and redundancy of such facilities can be the difference
between being able to communicate or not with critical stations in the wake of a disaster.
Thank you again for reaching out to us and sharing your vision with me of additional uses of your sites! I am
looking forward to moving forward with you on transforming the vision into reality.
Best Regards and Happy Memorial Day,
Michael Wolff
President — Blue Avalanche Communication Group
Amateur Radio Station KG4Y
:)Iw
11 a-
cl al
10
;...
MM -a
Lz cd C'3
ialr.4lgl,
> 1
O
I
� I
cn
0
N
0
N
1
o
0
ci
•U
by
�
bA
O
N
N
Y
,?�
Q'
v
0
o
+o
O
06
0
�
OAD
a1
c7N
1
�i
M
+ +
Mi
O
:L.
:)Iw
11 a-
cl al
10
;...
MM -a
Lz cd C'3
ialr.4lgl,
> 1
O
I
� I
cn
0
N
0
N
1
ci
•U
by
�
bA
O
C.
N
Y
Q'
v
0
o
:)Iw
11 a-
cl al
10
;...
MM -a
Lz cd C'3
ialr.4lgl,
> 1
O
I
� I
cn
0
N
0
N
1
ci
O
v
0
o
OAD
c�
Cc3
a
O
Q
O
C3
t3
V]
WiIt
O
CA
O
kn
00
fA
cc
OIO
O
kn
N
N
N
O
00�
i
-,
N
N
00
QN
y
x
:)Iw
11 a-
cl al
10
;...
MM -a
Lz cd C'3
ialr.4lgl,
> 1
O
I
� I
cn
0
N
0
N
1
U cl
cl N
V
o °
a.
a �
tin �
C/) O ctj '
C15
ci
v
0
o
OAD
c�
Cc3
U cl
cl N
V
o °
a.
a �
tin �
C/) O ctj '
C15
a
00
CA
211 . vim^ r
�
4
44
J L
J
b'1 3
x
's
z
S �
Na
:h4�
All
wAM
..
_ y J
,
'•�S
�_ �
iJ �4 O. Rd
�
sa
Lev
I'll II
-e
k 4•}
0. e
s A
it
f
4
x
's
z
S �
Na
:h4�
All
wAM
,
.. RIZ+
I'll II
-e
k 4•}
Z. I "
r,
`�Ilc'�',' I <C"
>I�
I �
N
t
j
I
N
�
I
O
0
O
,
;5¢
O
N
(�
N
po
N
p
T3
O
cz
�Y
M
O
U
cd
F-
N
0A
cd
c
O00
°
z3
>
z
o
N
in
th
Oji
00
00
O
O
N
Q
N W
00
Q�
N
✓�'
-t4
!Yi
CL CL
O O
00
N
C"
�
�
M
�
cn
O Ci,
,--• �p
r,
`�Ilc'�',' I <C"
>I�
I �
N
cd
N
.O
+d
"I-
00
�
I
O
0
O
,
;5¢
O
(�
N
po
�
p
T3
O
cz
O
M
O
U
cd
F-
N
0A
cd
c
O00
r,
`�Ilc'�',' I <C"
>I�
I �
N
cd
N
.O
+d
,,=
CCS
�
I
O
0
O
,
;5¢
O
(�
N
po
�
p
T3
O
N
cd
U
cd
cd
0A
cd
c
O00
r
>
N
in
th
Oji
M
-
O
N
N
O
N
Q�
✓�'
N
!Yi
CL CL
O O
00
N
00�t
M
�O
O
O
O Q OM
O O
O p�
p
V
d
O
N�
0000
N
N�to
l0
00
r,
`�Ilc'�',' I <C"
>I�
I �
N
cd
N
.O
+d
,,=
CCS
"C�
O
0
O
,
;5¢
(�
N
po
p
T3
O
N
cd
U
cd
cd
0A
cd
c
r
>
o
in
th
Oji
C,3
O
N
N
O
N
i
!Yi
m
1
,
' S
fl
�
r_