The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 01-07-98 Meeting Agenda�O AGENDA ' FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia JANUARY 7, 1998 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Minutes of November 19, 1997 ........................................ A 2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................. B 3) Committee Reports ................................................. C 4) Citizen Comments .................................................. D PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #019-97 of Denise McClearen for a cottage occupation to operate a dog grooming business. This property is located at 4784 Front Royal Pike and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 94A-1-11-4 thru 9 in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Mr.Ruddy)....................................................... E 6) Conditional Use Permit #020-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Co. to erect a 125 -foot commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by the Estate of Charles K. Poole. This property is known as the Bowling Green Ridge Site, is located approximately 0.25 miles east on Route 688 from the intersection with Route 50, and is identified with Property Identification Number 28-A-165 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (Mr. Ruddy) ....................................................... F 7) Conditional Use Permit #021-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Co. to erect a 100 -foot commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by Norman and Pansy Anderson. This property is known as the Little Timber Ridge Site, is located on Route 610 approximately 0.38 miles south of the intersection of Routes 50 and 610, and is identified with Property Identification Number 27-A-8 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Mr. Ruddy)........................................................... G 2 8) Conditional Use Permit #022-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Co. to erect a 350 -foot commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by Thomas and Nina Guthridge. This property is known as the Hunting Ridge Site, is located on Turtle Drive approximately 0.5 miles past the intersection with Route 616, and is identified with Property Identification Number 51-A-67 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Mr. Ruddy) ....................................................... H 9) Conditional Use Permit #023-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Co. to erect a 300 -foot commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by Linwood and Elizabeth Ritter. This property is known as the Sherando Site, is located approximately 3/4 mile south of the intersection of Routes 277 and 636, and is identified with Property Identification Number 86-A-209 in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Mr. Ruddy) ....................................................... I 10) Conditional Use Permit #024-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Co. to erect a 200 -foot commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by Wayne and Julie Smith. This land is known as the Parkins Mills site, is located off Route 642, approximately 3/10 mile past the intersection of Squire Lane and Knight Drive, and is identified with Property Identification Number 76-A-98 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Ruddy) ....................................................... J DISCUSSION ITEM 11) Discussion Regarding the 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... K 12) Other �- l- �tDYI 4 �C1L✓``J MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on November 19, 1997, PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Planner Il; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 1997 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the minutes of October 15, 1997 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 11/13/97 Mtg. Mr. Wyatt reported that the DRRS continued their discussion on flex -tech industrial development and it is anticipated that this discussion will continue at the next committee meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 118 -z - Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPB) - 11/10/97 Mtg. Mr. Wyatt reported that the CPPS considered new projects for the Capital Improvements Plan by both the School Board and the Parks & Recreation Department. He said that they also considered a final proposal for an amendment to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Economic Development Commission (EDC) Mr. Romine reported that the principal work item has been budget development for the various existing and proposed programs. Sanitation Authority (SA) -10/28/97 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the SA is proposing an increase in the connection fees for developments. She said that the lots under construction are at an all-time high. Mrs. Copenhaver also reported that the Church of the Nazarene is going to build on the west side of Middle Road adjacent to Westridge subdivision. She said that the SA granted permission for them to buy their water and sewer from the City because the property adjoins the City line and the County does not have a facility available for them. Winchester City Planning Commission -11/18/97 Mtg. Mr. Ours reported that the Winchester City Planning Commission worked on rezoning two tracts of land for Winchester Medical Center: the R & T Tract, which was revised and some different uses were opened up than what were previously approved in 1995; and the Fruit Hill Tract, with a change of proffers. He said that the Medical Center is proposing to develop residential and long-term care facilities in the rear portion, where the Shenandoah University building is located. Mr. Ours said that the other issue discussed was the site plan for the new Lowe's building, which was also approved. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 119 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Update of the 1998-1999 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan Action - Recommended Approval Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, presented the 1998-1999 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan to the Commission. Mr. Wyatt reviewed the top four major road improvement projects: 1) the improvements to Middle Road between Barley Lane and Marlboro Road; 2) the improvements to Greenwood Road from Senseny Road to Valley Mill Road; 3) Jones Road (Rt. 62 1) from Cedar Creek Grade to the entrance to Stonebrook; and 4) Aylor Road which would connect from Rt. 277 heading north to tie into new Tasker Road. Mr. Wyatt said that the Transportation Committee did not receive any requests for new improvements and none were added. Mr. Wyatt continued by reviewing the Hard Surface Improvement Project Rating System Policy which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 7, 1997. He said that the top four new hard surface road improvement projects were: 1) Middle Fork Road (Rt. 695); 2) Pack Horse Road (Rt. 692); 3) Veterans Road (Rt. 625); and 4) Klines Mill Road (Rt. 633). He said that 11 new projects were added to the Incidental Construction Projects list. Mr. Wyatt stated that the Transportation Committee held a public hearing on November 3, 1997 several citizens from Rt. 695 provided letters and a petition; there were also several other citizens who addressed the committee. Mr. Wyatt said that the Committee felt the plan as presented by the staff was appropriate and recommended unanimous approval. Chairman DeHaven next called for public comment and the following people came forward to speak: Mrs. Barbara Burroughs, resident of the Opequon District on Klines Mill Road, requested that the Commission recommend approval of the plan as presented to the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Bernice Montgomery, resident of the Gainesboro District on Middle Fork Road (Rt. 695), requested that the Planning Commission reconfirm the Transportation Committee's decision to maintain Route 695's position as the number one priority project on the New Hardsurface Road Improvement Plan. Mrs. Montgomery also requested that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the top four projects on the plan before the new rating system becomes effective. Mr. Hans Nydam, resident of the Gainesboro District on Pack Horse Road (Rt. 692), also asked the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Hardsurface Road Improvement Plan as submitted by the Transportation Committee. Members of the Commission commended the staff for their work on a difficult and sensitive issue. It was stated that the staff had done considerable work through the previous year on this project and had produced a rating system that is fair and provides decision -makers with good rationale and reasoning for ranking new roads on the plan. rredenck County Planning Commission Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 120 -4- Gainesboro District Commissioner, Mr. Miller, thanked the citizens of Gainesboro District for coming to the meeting and showing their support for Routes 695 and 692 on the road improvement plan. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 1998-1999 Frederick County Road Improvement Plan as presented by the staff and Transportation Committee. PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #007-97 for Westminster Canterbury by Greenway Engineering to develop a 48 -unit assisted living facility and 18 cottage/duplex units in two phases. This property consists of 46.35 acres, located on Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Rt. 1318), off of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 North), and is identified with P.I.N. 53 -A -63A, 53 -A -63B, 53 -A -52B, and 53-4-3-J in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Romine and Mr. Stone stated that they would abstain from discussion and vote on this master plan, due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, gave the background information and review agency comments. The project history given by Mr. Ruddy included the following: the Board of Supervisors rezoned the property on which the Westminster -Canterbury facility is located on August 24, 1983 (Rez. #005-83); ensuing development of the property was prior to the County's current master development plan (MDP) requirements; subsequent cottage/duplex development on the property in 1991 and 1994 necessitated the approval of MDPs #005-91 and #008-94, and the rezoning of 2.9 acres of B2 zoned land to RP (Rez. #005-91). Mr. Ruddy stated that the assisted living residential facility is an extension of the existing facility of which there are 200 existing units with an additional 192 previously -approved, but undeveloped units. He explained that the cottage/duplex development is in addition to the 26 existing cottages and access is to be provided through private driveways that connect the existing Westminster -Canterbury Drive. Mr. Ruddy said that no significant concerns were raised by the staff upon review of the proposed MDP. He said that the gross density is below the maximum permitted gross density and the amount of open space surpasses the minimum requirement. He added that the acreage of disturbed environmental features is also significantly lower than the amount permitted. Mr. Ruddy said that the staff was recommending approval of the plan as the overall concept of the plan was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ruddy presented a letter of support received by the Planning Department and addressed to the Frederick County Planning Commission, dated November 19, 1997, from Mr. Michael L. Bryan, Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 121 -5 - Members of the Commission inquired if the buffering requirements had been met. Mr. Ruddy replied that the applicant has indeed provided sufficient buffering in the areas required; however, there are some additional areas where they have also provided buffering and it may not be necessary at those areas. They have essentially provided more buffering than what is required. Chairman DeHaven next called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Dr. Mark Wilson, resident of the Gainesboro District and adjoining property owner, said that he was a member of the Board of Directors of the Tudor Square Homeowners Association, serving as Treasurer. Mr. Wilson said that he was authorized to speak for the entire Board of Directors that they are in favor of the proposed MDP of Westminster -Canterbury of Winchester. Mr. Jack Brady, area resident, said that his concern was regarding a previously agreed -to 250 yard buffer zone, which was going to be cut drastically by this new three-story, high-rise building. He suggested that the building be built away from the existing neighborhood, and on the other side where Westminster - Canterbury has the available acreage. Ms. Beatrice Fincham, resident at 931 Autumn View Lane, which is the south side of Rt. 522 at Sunnyside, stated that the back of her property neighbors Westminster -Canterbury. Ms. Fincham was concerned how the applicant proposed to control run-off. She said that her property was in the low land and was subject to flooding; she said that Sunnyside has been overwhelmed by recent developments, including Sheetz, the school, and the ditch at 522 simply can not take any more run-off. Mr. DeHaven stated that a detailed stormwater management plan will be required at the site plan stage of development and that information on stormwater management will be available at that point. Mr. Tom Lloyd, resident at 613 Old Fort Road in Winchester, stated that he was disappointed that Westminster -Canterbury was not able to produce a plan that complied with all the representations that were made in the 1980s. Mr. Lloyd requested that the Commission consider the protection of the woodlands/ environment element of the plan as it relates to the adjacent development and require the replacement of woodlands that are being eliminated. He said the existing woodlands, located where the building projects to the west, mitigate the impact of the existing three-story building from residences to the north. He requested that as those woodlands are removed to accommodate this particular building, the Commission require additional landscaping on the western side of the property, particularly where it abuts the Old Fort Road cul-de-sac and the eastern side of Old Fort Road. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, the designers of the project, said that the County's engineer, Mr. Edward Strawsnyder, briefed him on the drainage issues in the area and he is well aware of the situation. Mr. Smith said that stormwater is a detailed site plan issue and will be addressed during the site plan stage. Regarding buffering along Old Fort Road and the surrounding area, he said that they are very sensitive to that issue and will do the best job possible by either meeting or exceeding the requirements. Gainesboro Commissioner, Wayne Miller, said that he was also concerned about the drainage in this area. He recalled that when the patio homes were built in Tudor Square, a stormwater management facility was installed, but didn't work very well. He said that some of the residents in the Sunnyside division below there experienced excessive amounts of water runoff. Mr. Miller said that Mr. Smith needed to understand that and Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 122 M be very sensitive to the drainage issue, being careful not to create more problem than has already existed there. Members of the Commission inquired about the aforementioned 250' buffer and staff noted that the distance buffer mentioned was an agreement between the City of Winchester and Westminster -Canterbury. The Planning Commission had concerns about the drainage situation in the Sunnyside area and stressed to the applicant the need to be careful about the water run-off situation. However, Commission members felt the overall concept of the master plan was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and were in favor of the proposal as long as all the reviewing agency comments were complied with. Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the Commission voted unanimously to include the letter from Michael L. Bryan as part of the official record and file. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve MDP #007-97 of Westminster -Canterbury to develop a 48 -unit assisted living facility and 18 cottages/duplex units in two phases with the stipulation that all review agency comments are adequately addressed prior to final approval of the plan. (Note: Mr. Romine and Mr. Stone abstained from vote.) DISCUSSION 1998 FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, stated that Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) has completed work on the 1998 update of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff desired an opportunity to discuss the revisions with the Planning Commission before it was scheduled for public hearing. Mr. Wyatt said that the amendments pertain to table and text amendments to six out of the ten chapters, which are a result of work between the CPPS and various departments and agencies. He said that the primary update is the inclusion of the Rt. 37 West Land Use Plan, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 7, 1997; and staff has improved the quality of mapping within the plan, utilizing the new graphic technology; all the maps have been presented within an ArcView format. There were no outstanding issues of concern by the Planning Commission. Members of the Commission commented that the CPPS, along with the staff, had done a remarkable job on the Comprehensive Plan update. The consensus of opinion of the Planning Commission was for the staff to proceed with advertisement for a public meeting on adoption of the plan, as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 123 -7 - Discussion Regarding Corridor Design Standards Status Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, presented the proposed development design standards that were previously submitted to the Commission at their meeting of October 15, 1997. Mr. Wyatt recalled that at the October 15 meeting, the Commission referred the standards back to the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) due to comments received during the meeting from the development and design community. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS met with the development and design community on October 23 and after discussion, felt that the majority of the comments made were valid and that flexibility in design was a critical element to the process. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS recommended that the staff outline the comments received for the Commission, redraft language for those comments that were agreed upon, and request that the Commission determine what approach should be taken for the few standards in which a consensus was not reached. Mr. Wyatt then reviewed each of the specific sections identified with the Commission. Mr. Kit Moulden, appearing on behalf of the Top of Virginia Building Association, thanked the Commission and the staff for allowing time for discussions on the ordinance provisions to take place. Mr. Moulden said that at this time, the Top of Virginia Building Association is comfortable with the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission agreed with the revision to Section 165-27E(4)(b) concerning raised islands, and they also agreed with the language in Section 165-27E(4)(d) concerning the pedestrian walkway element. Regarding the setback for parking lots fronting on arterial roadways and major collector roadways, Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS recommended a 30' setback, while the development community felt that a 20' setback would allow flexibility to do enhancements. Members of the Planning Commission felt it would be short-sighted to reduce the requirement from 30' to 20', especially in consideration that these were major collector roads where there was a high potential for expansion and high volumes of traffic. They felt a need to look at this for the future as far as what the County anticipated developments to look like. Other members of the Commission had concern for the small property owner and increased Board of Zoning Appeals activity for exception requests. Two members of the community came forward to speak on this issue: Mr. Richard Hardison, owner of commercial property within the County, expressed concern about how this requirement would work in an area that is already partially developed or on properties with plans that have already been approved. Mr. Hardison said that it would create a "hodge-podge" of development with some sites using the old requirements and some using the new. Mr. James Emmart, with Emmart Oil Company, expressed concerns about how the amendments would effect retail establishments. Mr. Emmart felt the 30' proposed setback would drastically cut the useable size of a retail site and was not desirable considering that retail property today was very expensive. The Planning Commission agreed to allow for a provision to waive the 30' requirement under certain extenuating circumstances. They felt that doing so would offer some flexibility due to extenuating circumstances, but it would also leave a clear indication that the ordinance requirement is 30'. Continuing on through the design standards to the screening requirement between industrially - Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 124 -8 - zoned properties and industrial parks, Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS revised the text by adding the sentence: Industrial zoned properties that are located within an approved master planned industrial park shall be exempt from this requirement, if the adjoining property is also zoned industrial. The Planning Commission felt this revision was appropriate. Regarding tree plantings along the road, the Commission was in favor of the clustering concept with a minimum clustering spacing of 20' and they also preferred to determine the size and number of trees based on one per 30' of parking lot perimeter instead of one per 40'. The Commission agreed with the revision to Section 165-27E(12)(c) to reduce the width of pedestrian walkways from eight feet to six. After discussion on the boulevard entrances, Section 165-29C(1), the Commission still had concerns about this section. Uncertainties remained as to whether a minimum acreage should be established to meet boulevard entrance requirements or whether a trip generation factor should be used. Members felt that site design was involved and the boulevard entrances as proposed might suit some layouts and not others. Commission members felt this particular section needed to be refined and brought back again separately, so as not to delay approval of the design standards as a whole. The Commission had no outstanding concerns with Sections 165-291), Interparcel Connectors, and 165-48.7, Utilities, as presented. Mr. Wyatt stated that with the exception of a couple comments and concerns, he felt the proposed design standards were in pretty good shape. Mr. Wyatt said that revisions would be made as discussed and additional work with the designers will be done on the boulevard issue. Mr. Wyatt asked the Commission if they would prefer staff to bring the design standards back to the Commission for further discussion or public hearing. The consensus of the Commission was that the staff should advertise the design standards for the next available date for public hearing. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 125 BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed December 19, 1997) Application newly ewl submitted. m' fled. REZONING: C. L. Robinson Ice & Cold Storage Corp. (REZ #005-97) Back Creek 26.895 ac. from RA to RP for 54 S.F. residential dwellings Location: W side of Merrimans Lane (Rt. 621) at Winc./Western R.R. crossing & E of Rt. 37. A rox. 1,100' south of Breckenridge Lane. Submitted: 11/12/97 PC Review: 12/03/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 01/14/98 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Autumn Wind Apartments (MDP #008-97) Gainesboro 92 Garden Apts. on 9.24 ac. (RP) Location: No. Frederick Pk. (Rt. 522N); 1/4 mi. north of Winchester City Limits, behind Adelphia Cable Office Submitted: 11/24/97 PC Review: 12/17/97 - tabled for 30 days to 01/21/98 BOS Review: 02/11/98 - tentatively scheduled Admin. A roved: Pending Westminster -Canterbury (MDP #007-97) Gainesboro 48 -unit assisted living facility & 18 cottages in 2 phases; 46.35 ac. (3 ac. revised) (RP) Location: Westminster -Canterbury Drive; off of Rt. 522 North Submitted • 10/24/97 PC Review: 11/19/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 12/10/97 - approved Admin. Approved: 12/12/97 Westridge III (MDP #006-97) Back Creek 19 S.F. Detached Urban Residential Lots on 9.81 ac. (RP) Location: Adjacent to the Westridge Subd. (Sec. I & II) w/ access from West View Lane via Middle Road Rt. 628 in the City. Submitted: 09/22/97 PC Review: 10/15/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 11/12/97 - approved Admin. Approved, Pending completion of review agency comments. Woodbrook Village (MDP #004-97) Back Creek 82 s.f. cluster & 81 multi-plex. units on 1 42.50 acres (RP) Location: South side of Opeguon Church Lane at Kernstown Submitted: 05/09/97 PC Review: 09/03/97 - rec. approval upon resolution of transportation issues. BOS Review: 09/24/97 -approved Adminstrativel A roved: 12/10/97 SUBDIVISIONS: Location: East of I-81, just off Rt. 50/17 on Independence Drive. Submitted: 11/21/97 MDP #003-97 Original MDP (#012-87) approved by BOS 11/23/87; Revision (#003-97) Admin. Approved 04/30/97 Subd. Admin. Anvroved: 12/12/97 2 Woodbrook Village (SUB#016-97)Back Creek 81 multi- lex lots on 19.56 ac. (RP) Location: So. side of O uon Church Lane (Rt. 706) Submitted: 12/02/97 MDP #00497: MDP approved by BOS 09/24/97; Admin, approved 12/10/97 Subd. Admin. Approved: —Pending Wythe Ave. Ext. (SUB #015-97) No MDP Opequon 4 S.F. lots on 1.4065 ac. (RP) Location: End of existingWythe Ave. in Stephens City Submitted: 11/20/97 PC Review: not yet scheduled - waiting for review agency comments BOS Review: not yet schedulded A roved• rPending Chapel Hill Subdivision (SUB #01497) hawnee 34 S.F. Det. Urban Lots on 14.4214 acres (RP) [East Location: side of Rt. 522, 0.15 mi. south of Lon croft Rd. (Rt. 785) Submitted: 10/30/97 MDP #006-96: Approved by BOS 08/14/96; Admin. Approved on 09/17/96 Subd. Admin. Approved: L Pending Dr. Raymond L. Fish (SUB #012-97) Stonewall Subdivision of one lot (1.4962 ac.) (B2) 1 off a 16.00 ac.arent tract (B2 & B3) Location: Hopewell Rd. & new proposed street, Clearbrook Ln; 160' NW of existing Winchester & Western 60' right-of-way Submitted: 10/09/97 MDP #005-95: Approved by BOS on 01/24/96; Admin. Approved on 07/15/96 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pendin Briarwood Estates (SUB #011-97) Stonewall Subdivision of 9.79 acres for 20 S.F. Det. Traditional Lots (RP) Location: East side of Greenwood Rd. (Rt. 656) Submitted: 09/26/97 (Replaces Subdiv. #001-94) MDP #005-93 Approved by BOS on 12/8/93 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Star Fort, Sect. II (SUB #010-97) Stonewall Subdivision of 11.6182 ac. for 26 s.f. detached traditional lots Location: U.S. Rt. 522 and VA Rt. 832 Submitted: 09/16/97 MDP #004-94 Approved by BOS 09/14/94; Admin. Approved 04/10/95 Subd. Admin. Approved- Pending Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall Indust. Pk. (SUB #007-97) Gainesboro Subdivision of a 2.6584 ac. lot (Ml) Location: McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); approx. 1,000' from Tyson Dr. intersection Submitted: 07/28/97 MDP #006-93 Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97) Stonewall 75 s.f. zero lot line lots on 20.278 ac. (RP) Location: So. west comer of Baker Ln. (Rt. 1200) & Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322) Submitted: 05/16/97 MDP #001-97 Approved by BOS 04/09/97; Admin. Approved 06/30/97 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Lenoir City Co. of Virginia (SUB #003-97) Gainesboro 1 M1 Lot (2.000 acres) Location: Stonewall Industrial Pk.; McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861), approx. 700' west of the McGhee Rd. and Tyson Dr. intersection. Submitted: 05/15/97 MDP #006-93: Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93 Admin. Approved: Pending Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB) Back Creek 2 M1 Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres) Location: Southeast side of Development Lane Submitted: 09/08/95 MDP #003-87: Approved by BOS 07/08/87; Admin. Approved 06/08/88 Pending Admin. A2proval Awaiting signed plats. RT&T Partnership (SUB) Back Creek 1 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2) Location: Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.) Submitted: 05/17/95 MDP #003-91 Approved by BOS 07/10/91; Admin. Approved 09/03/91 Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication Abrams Point, Phase I (SUB) Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots (RP) Location: South side of Rt. 659 Submitted: 05/02/90 PC Review: 06/05!90 - recommended approval BOS Review: 06/13/90 - approved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and si ed plat Harry Stimpson (SUB) -� Opeguon Two B2 Lots Location: Town Run Lane Submitted: 09/23/94 PC Review: 10/19/94 - recommended approval BOS Review: 10/26/94 - approved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting signed plat. SITE PLANS: Carlyle & Anderson Tractor Sales & Service (SP #048-97) Stonewall Truck office & repair; & tractor sales & service; 20'X20' addit.; 1.0659 ac. disturber) on 3.2647 ac. site (M2) Location: 1603 Berryville Pike Submitted: 12/02/97 Approved: Pendia Middletown Elementary School Addition (SP #047-97) Opequon 2+ disturbed ac. on a 15.0 ac. site (RA) Location: 190 Mustang Lane Submitted: 11/18/97 Approved: Lending Armel Elementary School Addition (SP #046-97) ]- Opequon 6+ disturbed ac. on a 14.99site (�) Location: 2239 Front Royal Pike Submitted • 11/18/97 Approved: Pending Pegasus Bus. Cutr., Phase II (SP #045-97) Shawnee 17,920 s.f. office bldg.; 2.0 ac. disturbed on a 4.18 ac. site (B2) Location: 401 Pegasus Court, Pegasus Business Center Submitted: 11/10/97 A roved • Win Special Made (SP #043-97) Shawnee 71,210 s.f. office/warehouse on 3.5 ac. of a 3.6046 ac. parcel (Ml) Location: Lot 4; Eastgate Commerce Center Submitted: 11/04/97 Approved: pending Fertig Cabinet Co. (SP #042-97) Stonewall Heating & A/C Sales in existing bldgs. on 5 acres (B2) Location: 706 Baker Lane Submitted • 11/05/97 Approved: pending Negley Mini -Storage, Phase II (SP #041-97) Stonewall Office/ Mini -Storage on 3.57 ac. (B3) Location: 127 Mercedes Court Submitted: 11/03/97 Approved: Pending Westview Business Center, Lot 5; Charles Ricketts (SP #039-97) Shawnee District 20,600 s.f. warehouse for industrial/ commercial use (MI); 3.5 ac. of a 3.7220 ac. site Located: Drive, Westview Business Center, Lot 5 Submitted: —Independence 10/23/97 Approved: Pending Fulton Property (Minor SP #036-97) Opequon 3,500 sq.ft. office space addition; 0.50 1 ac. developed on 14.626 ac. site (M2) Location: 1114 Fairfax Pike, Stephens City Submitted: 10/16/97 Approved: 12/15/97 Trex Outdoor Storage (SP #035-97) Back Creek Outdoor Storage; 173,416 S.F. (M2) Location: 158 Capitol Lane Submitted: 10-01-97 Approved: Pending Valley Cycle Center (SP #033-97) Shawnee 16,000 s.f. bldg. for retail sales; 2 ac. disturbed on a 2.0579 ac. site (B2) Location: Westview Business Center; Lot A; Approx. 2 miles east of I-81 on Rt. 50 at Independence Drive Submitted: 09/23/97 Approved: Pending Dr. Fairman Veterinary Office (SP #029-97) Stonewall 4,272 sq ft Veterinary Office on 1.4962 1 ac. parcel (B2) Location: 1092 Hopewell Road Submitted: 07/25/97 Approved: Pending Mobil-Wendys Rt. 50W Conven. Center (SP #026-97) Back Creek Gas-Conven. Cntr.; 3,783 sq ft floor area; 1.072 ac. site disturbed (RA) Location: Rt. 50 West Submitted: 07/23/97 IL Approved: II Pending II Seo Property (SP #025-97) Shawnee Video Store in existing bldg.; 2.04 ac. (Bl) Location: Front Royal Pike Submitted: 07/23/97 Approved: Pending Ellis Self -Storage (SP #0124-97)onewall awnee 3 additional self -storage bldgs; 9.211 ac. parcel disturbed; (Ml) Location: ersection of Routes 761 & 664 Submitted:03/97 12/97 Approved. din Agape Christian Fellowship Church Sanctuary (SP #005-97) awnee Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA) Location: [East side of Rt. 642; a rox. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/I-81 Interch .Submitted: Submitted: 12/97 A roved• din Shenandoah Bldg. Supply (SP #056-96) Gainesboro Warehouse on 5 acres (M1) Location: 195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park) Submitted: 12/ 16/96 Approved: Pendin Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube Service (SP #030-96) Opequon Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive - l Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2) Location: 152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store) Submitted: 07/03/96 Approved: Pending AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP #022-96) Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. 11. area of a 1 0.916 acre parcel (RA) Location: 3548 North Frederick Pike Submitted: 05/08/96 Approved: Pending American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 1 acre site (132) Location: 1730 Berryville Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Pending D.K. Erectors & Maintenance, Inc. (SP #051-95) Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on a 10 - 1 acre site (M2) Location: 4530 Northwestern Pike Submitted: 12/28/95 Approved: Pending Wheatlands Wastewater Facility (SP #047-89) Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (R5) Location: So. West of Double Toll ate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: Being held at applicant's request.11 10 Flex Tech (SP #057-90) Stonewall Ml Use on 11 Ac. (M1) Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. 110/25/90 Submitted: Note: LBeira held ata licant's repest. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 11 Thomas A. & Kim L. Hazard (CUP #018-97) Opequon Cott. Occup. for mfg. & assembly of magic props & furniture in an existing barn (w/ addition) (RA) Location: 949 Canterburg Road, Stephens City Submitted: 11/07/97 PC Review: 12/03/97 - recommended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/14/98 12 Elizabeth Robinson (CUP #017-97) Back Creek Cottage Occupation/Crafts, Cooking, Decorating Instruction (RA) Location: 4468 Middle Rd.; 4 mi. W of Middle Rd. & Valley Ave. intersection Submitted: 10/10/97 PC Review: 11/05/97 - recommended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 12/10/97 - approved w/ conditions Joyce M. Brinklow (CUP #016-97) Back Creek Cottage Occupation - Bargain Retail Store in existing bldg. (RA) Location: 8421 Valley Pike, Middletown Submitted: 09/22/97 PC Review: 11/05/97 - recommended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 12/10/97 - approved w/ conditions T. P. & Susan Goodman (CUP #010-97) Stonewall Social Center, Outdoor Recreation Center, Catered Functions, Tours, Meetings, Etc. (RA) Location: 534 Redbud Road Submitted: 06/09/97 PC Review: 09/03/97 - recommended approval with conditions BOS Review:10/07/97 tabled until 11/12/97; 11/12/97 - temporary approval until 12/31/97, subject to renewal and/or dis sition on 01/14/98 BZA VARIANCES: John E. & Ada E. Bentley Shawnee 12' rear yd. & 6' side yd. for addition (VAR #016-97) of 2 bedrooms & a 2 -car garage to existing dwelling Location: 118 Meadowview Ct.; Greenwood Heights - Lot 40 Submitted: 10/29/97 BZA Review: 12/16/97 - denied the amended request for a 2' side yd. var. & approved the amended request for a 10' rear yd. setbk. var. 13 PC REVIEW: 01/07/98 BOS REVIEW: 01/28/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #019-97 DENISE McCLEAREN Cottage Occupation Dog Grooming Business LOCATION: This property is located at 4784 Front Royal Pike, MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PR PERTY ID NUMBER: 94A-1-11-4 thru 9 PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT E: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING E: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential, Vacant, and Agricultural PROP SED E: Cottage Occupation - Dog Grooming Business REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections. Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and section 304, Use Group B (Business) of the BOCA National Building Code. Other codes that apply are CABO A117.1-92, Accessible and Useable Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan of the area to be utilized at the time building permit and change of use applications are obtained. Fire Marshal: No comment. Denise McClearen CUP #019-97 Page 2 December 30, 1997 Health Department: The Health Department conducted a walk -over of the existing sewage disposal drain field on 11/24/97. No evidence of any malfunction was evident. The Health Department has no objection to the proposed use of the property. We request that a hair filter go onto the drain line to keep out dog hair. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comment. Planning and Zoning: Within the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, cottage occupations are permitted with the issuance of a conditional use permit. The dog grooming business proposed by the applicant meets the requirements of a cottage occupation and, therefore, would be a permitted use with an approved conditional use permit. Mrs. McClearen has stated that she wishes to conduct the business in her home and that only members of the family residing on the premises would be involved. This clearly fits the definition of a cottage occupation in the Zoning Ordinance. In fact, the Zoning Ordinance allows those with a cottage occupation to conduct the business within the principal residential building or an accessory building or structure. Staff believes that establishing this cottage occupation would not have a negative impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. The adjoining property, the Wishing Well Gift Shop, has been an established business for many years. When considering the scale of the proposed dog grooming business, the proposal will clearly be incidental to the existing residence. The present configuration of the driveway and turnaround area may be adequate for the proposed business. Staff will work with the applicant to confirm the adequacy of available parking based on the anticipated number of customers. Staff has identified a Zoning Ordinance violation that should be resolved prior to the business's operation. The primary structure (the residence, location of proposed business) is located on three separate lots. This violates the setback requirements for primary structures; structures are not permitted to cross property lines. In order to resolve this violation, a lot consolidation will be necessary to eliminate the property line boundaries for lots 6, 7, and S. As for a sign indicating the existence of the cottage occupation business, the Zoning Ordinance permits cottage occupation signs that do not exceed four square feet in area. This sign would also be required to be placed on the same lot as the business. Therefore, the cottage occupation sign could not be placed along Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). Denise McClearen CUP #019-97 Page 3 December 30, 1997 Staff Recommendation for January 7, 1998• Staff recommends that this application be approved with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments be complied with at all times. 2. A lot consolidation of lots 6, 7, and 8 shall be conducted to bring the property into compliance with Zoning Ordinance setback requirements. 3. A parking area shall be provided to accommodate customer's vehicles. 4. No dogs will be permitted to stay at the property for overnight. S. A sign permit is required prior to erecting a cottage occupation sign. O:\AGENDAS\COMNfENTS\MCCLEARN.CUP Zoning Legend CUP #019-97 0 RA Denise McClearen R -S PIN: 94A-1-11-4 thru 9 Frederick County Planning & Development 12-23-97 Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the -X— owner other) NAME: �e.l�.�e. I� 1 CJ1f_'!&N ADDRESS: TELEPHONE 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) c rr�i LE'S 4 F pi No SAu2. LA -)J- k7 _ � S0 7 Q1 4. The property has a road frontage of /5-0 feet and a depth of feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by :Jfl(K j t)PniS,j'`1�C i �(VA2yas evidenced by deed from C1�cdiN f ��oAy H�C�tc� %N�s recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. G % on page 1 (0 H , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. y'q 000 ! LLDQQ D Magisterial District 0 qU D Current Zoning Q� 7. Adjoining Property: USE North East / South West rJ 63/1AL ZONING riq 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) �' Ar c DC owgL rfl 1�t r6, 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Alg,41 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue' on back if necessary.) . These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME�l.��1 /CPN—rV)f11e_,P —ADDRESS ll / � U nIMI �{(/� PROPERTY ID# q /s �.W6 /0 CUh/-k- /'�OSf, (�Fi- as PROPERTY IDI NAME PROPERTY ID# q�00/0 Z63 6)6 /0 NAME Wl-1 ^`n PROPERTY ID# 9,V4 mz� /O/ c7m �0 0 NAME ��Le,u, �rP1� fan1, E (�essie PROPERTY ID#' ) 0 NAME FcMl C,%CL*Vk _ , C. ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS �/ /!A�►f /La C P (e 3 Y ADDRESS 5-65K- Uej OAtL PC- -, Vllz z663 ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# q� A- I -Io - NAME Io -NAME _ 1� 0..w - ,T2 no q ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# J 1+A - I - Ci - 5 NAME A Jx ,v , ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# q4,4 I. T wWn1Ur X&TA (e &A A . rw, C�,avw Edci i e C , Sr. 1¢6 Jwn, Y-APt W J9 -v) Vg zu63- iqz7 P0. Bel� 3102 Ufa >4tea� �C� 4P 12. Additional comments, if any: 5 &A4 ---L use I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address i, Owners' Telephone No.y-as- TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR• USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: A/ / T " / /�' A A / /Y/ I / VL_/\Tl/Y V N 3430' E ---- RS 10.2 cA Z rr / STLIRY a 33s' 73 9 a, 173 BR/CK & fRAME RESIDENCE o 17+ COL£RED vi +: 35.3' 'D re.Y BASEMENT I I P CH ENTRY rl / v e r FRAME T ' 1 I 4 o GARAGE 'ISO. FT. I 1 I a I NtzL a 3*7' �1 OR 0 ASPHALT T 0.2 c., 1 __J—�--�1 -- Rs -- Rs Lt .300.00' (UN/MPRO,=t'£D) S 34 JO 90 W x 0141 WMES�'^ QI RVENUE 343000 £ 150.001 „ LP. F. U.P. p 4' x I G4_v..7C 2 x a I Vi x ASPHALT N' I DRI LEWA Y / i TRA ,T 2 l ;� I j 1r' 1 40 938 FT.- l (n I 1 N nn 1 }vi I 1 1 v 41 PA LED ACCESS , ' ROAD 1 — _ --- -- LDH MON. P.F. S .35178 B W LDH MCw.150.19 'j: F ON L/NE 1.0 ON LINE STA TE HWY RT. 522 N. HOUSF LOCATION SURVEY THIS IS TO CERnEY THAT ON OCTOBER 27, 1997 AN / MADE AN ACCURA7E SURLEY OF THE PREMISES SHOHN HEREON, AND THAT THERE ARE NO LOTS 4 — 9 — BLOCK 11 MENTS OR ENCROACHATENTS N E ON THE EA B LOTS 6 — 8 — BLOCK 9 GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SHOW HEREOV, LOTS 6 — 8 N BLOCK 2 NOTES RIDGEWA Y HEIGHTS 1. TAX ASSESSMENT MAP N0. 94A-1-11-4 THROUGH 9 GWEoucN ATS7R/CT 2 CURRENT INSTRUMENT /N CHAIN LIF 777LE /5 FRED&WCK COUNTY, NRGIN/A DEED BOOK 78 PACE 95 THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED WTHOUT THE F.EIJET;T CF A 71LE RFereT Ori �• iCit.urY 21 1997 SCALE: 1 = 601 4NO OOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY. ' 0141VER. HUTCH/NGS PURCHASER: McCLEAREN W.O. j 97454OEDWARDW. FLCCIO N07E - Zc?NE.• C COMMUN/TY NO• 510063 PANEL: 0200 B DA TE:• 7717-78ARCHrrECTSExm- ENGINEERS PLANNERS p, J�C�CY1/�A'PC'C SURVEYORS & 1'i.],(ZjC( .lt'11 G.7 54-17-3(A),964 3078 SHAWNEE DRIVE P.O. BOX 2033 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (540)667-1103 PC REVIEW: 01/07/98 BOS REVIEW: 01/28/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ##020-97 , \441 SHENANDOAH MOBILE CO. lc� Commercial Telecommunications Facility %� Bowling Green Ridge Site LOCATION: This property is located approximately 0.25 miles east on Route 688 from the intersection with Route 50. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 28-A-165 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential, agricultural, and timbering. PROPOSED USE: 125 -foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objections to a conditional use permit being issued for this property. An entrance serving the property will need to be installed to current VDOT PEA Standards to allow for safe egress and ingress. The owner/developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of necessary permits to cover access to the property and upgrading of the entrance. Inspections Department: Structure shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, Use Group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996. Please submit Virginia A/E sealed plans at the time of permit application. Fire Marshal: Post temporary street address signage during construction. CUP #020-97, Bowling Green Ridge Site Page 2 December 30, 1997 Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposed facilities. Winchester Regional Airport: See attached letter from Douglas P. Strand, Executive Director, dated December 16, 1997. Planning and Zoning: Ordinance Background: Frederick County adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in April 1997 that allows commercial telecommunication facilities with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This amendment specified that telecommunication facility CUP's could be approved provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted. Additional performance standards are also applicable to the CUP review. Ordinance Conformance: The proposed facility will be constructed on property located east of Route 688, on the Poole property. The Zoning Ordinance requires that towers of 125 feet in height (as is proposed) be placed a minimum of 140 feet from adjoining property lines of properties used for residential purposes, and 150 feet from any road right-of-way. The proposed tower location will comply with the setback requirements for the proposed telecommunication facility. The applicant has provided a map depicting the site selection search area. Eight comparable FCC license holders operating within this search area have been identified; none have constructed telecommunication facilities and begun providing services. In the interest of protecting the county's viewshed, it is encouraged that all telecommunication facilities are constructed in a manner that is conducive for co -locating with other comparable service providers. CUP's should not be granted until attempts to co -locate have been exhausted. The applicant has identified other comparable FCC license holders in the area that will be seeking telecommunication facilities in the near future and without allowing for co -location, the County may encounter a significant increase in telecommunication facilities in the viewshed. As there are no comparable facilities in existence within the search area, it is acceptable that this facility could be permitted with the understanding that other comparable service providers be allowed to co -locate on the tower. In order to alleviate the future abandonment of telecommunication facilities, the ordinance requires that procedures for guaranteeing the removal of such towers be established during the CUP process. The applicant has researched possible methods to guarantee the facility's CUP #020-97, Bowling Green Ridge Site Page 3 December 30, 1997 removal. The applicant proposes that the County not require a monetary guarantee, but accept Shentel's (Shenandoah Mobile Company) business practice as a guarantee. The applicant, Shentel, states "It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose." The Zoning Ordinance requires that a guarantee be provided for removal of facilities; therefore, this needs to be resolved prior to this application's review before the Board of Supervisors. The structure will be a 125 -foot monopole -type tower initially equipped for operation of a wireless communication services system. Should the tower be required to be lighted, it will be provided with a dual lighting system which provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use. The Zoning Ordinance requires that these lights be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties. At this time, the proposed accessory structures are not visible from adjoining properties, roads or other right-of-ways. Therefore, landscaping and screening of any accessory structures will not be required, neither will the shielding of the lighting. It is staff's opinion that a shared entrance onto Route 688 should be utilized. This will eliminate the additional entrance onto Route 688 that is within close proximity to the existing entrance. Request for Construction -Type Waiver: As stated in the letter dated December 16, 1997, the applicant is proposing to construct a monopole -type tower at this location. Therefore, the waiver is not required. Staff Recommendation for January 7, 1998: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable rates. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of tower abandonment. 4. A minor site plan is approved by the County. 5. A shared entrance onto Route 688 is to be utilized. This will eliminate the additional entrance onto Route 688 that is within close proximity to the existing entrance. O_\AGENDAS\COMMENTS\BO WLNGRN.CUP WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA / December 16. 1997 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office Box 280 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (703) 662-2422 Re: Request for Conditional Use Permit Comments Installation of Commercial Telecommunications Facilities TWR167 - Smith Property TWR78 - Guthridge Property TWR79 - Anderson Property TWR84 - Poole Property TWR180 - Ritter Property Dear Mr. Greisz: Based on review of the above referenced projects by our engineering firm, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority does not anticipate that the above towers will penetrate FAR Part 77 Surfaces that will impact operations at Winchester Regional Airport. Final comment on these request will be contingent on receiving favorable responses from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation on the FAA Form 7460-1 submittals. I would like to request that a copy of each response from FAA be forwarded to this office as soon as you receive it. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office (540) 662-5786. I appreciate your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, 0� Douglas P. Strand Executive Director CUP #020-97 PIN: 28—A-165 Shenandoah Mobile Co. Bowling Green Ridge Site 46 TWRC084 Bowling Green kidge Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting - - BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA /' i p --#-02o- q *7 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner x -(other) NAME: Shenandoah Mobile Company ADDRESS: Post Office Box 280 - 212 Piccadilly St., Edinburg, VA 22824 TELEPHONE (540) 984-3003 - Leonard L Greisz, Project Manager 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Estate of Charles Kenneth Poole - Nancy L. Poole, Administratrix CFA 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) From intersection nf Route-, 37 and 50, proceed west on Rt 50 to its intersection with Route 688, Proceed east on Rt 688 approximately 0 25 miles to a gravel road on right. Follow gravel road approximately 0 13 miles to tower site 4. The property has a road frontage of 372.66 feet and a depth of ± 1,500 feet and consists of 121.96 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Charles Kenneth Poole as evidenced by deed from Charles Martin Poole, et ux, recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 380 on page 579 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 28-A-165 Magisterial District Gainesboro Magisterial District Current Zoning Rural Area 7. Adjoining Property: USE North Residential East South West Agricultural Agricultural Timbering ZONING RA TWRC084 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) commercial telecommunications facilities V, 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: A 125 foot self supporting steel tower and a 8' x 10' concrete equipment pad. 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and in front of (also across street from) the property where requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER. NAME Edward W. Dove Address P. 0. Box 423 Cross Junction, VA 22625 Property ID# 9R -n_1 170 Kenneth Poole Address 6273 Northwestern Pike Gore, VA 22637 Property ID# 28-A-130 i Raymond H. & E. Jean Mayhew Address 366 Singhass Road f Winchester, VA 22602 4 Property ID# 28-A--131 Raymond H. Mayhew Address 366 Singhass Road n chester$ VA 22602 Property ID# - - Gary R. & Sheila J. Hunt Address 6115 Northwestern Pike Gore, VA 22637 Property ID# 28-A-133 Address 6001 Northwestern Pike Roger R. & Susan K. Newlin Property ID# 28-A-134 TWRC084 NAME Denny G. & Barbara L. Address 5783 Nor western Pi e Gore, VA 22637 Mayhew Property ID# 28-A-1 64A Estelle M. Sudduth Address 14919 Owlnest Road Nokesville, VA 22123 f Property ID# 28-A-1 34A Elwood & Karen Sisk Address 6059 Northwestern Pike Gore, VA 22637 Property ID# 28-A-1 34B Address 6016 Northwestern Pike Isaac Lee Luttrell Gore VA 22637 Property ID# 28-A-157 Address 5215 Font Avenue Kurt P. W. & Bertha Ellicott City, Maryland 21043 Spiess, Sr. Property ID# 28-A-158 Address 4592 North Frederick Pike Charles Franklin Adams — Winchester., VA 22603 Property ID# 28-A-161 C Address 422 Stoney Hill Road Theodore Joseph & Bonnie Winchester VA 22603 Property ID# 28 -A -161B C. F. Adamas, Sr. Address 4592 North Frederick Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property ID# 28 -A -161A Henry C. Iva Ruth Address 1908 Sou Loudoun ee Buettner, Jr. Winchester Property ID# 28-A-161 Melvin L. &Virginia D. Address —Winchester., —:::�l 387 Stoney Hill Road yA 22(;n-4 Fenn Property ID# 28-A-162 Valley Mortgage & Address 609 Cedar Creek Grade, Suite A Winchester., Investment Property ID# 28-A-163 Charles Franklin Adams Address 4592 North Frederick Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property ID# 28-A-164 TWRC084 NAME Kenneth C. Poole, Sr. Address 6273 Northwestern Pike Gore VA 22637 (Estate of) Property ID# 28-A-1 65A I Address 214 Stoney Hill Road Kenneth C. Poole, Sr. I" Winr-hPgf-ar_ va ")')tin' Property ID# 28-A-1 65B Address 1175 Lauck Drive + Charlotte Butte McKee Winchester VA 22603 4 c/o Steven Butler Property ID# 28-A-170 David T. Parry Address 5526 Broad Branch Road, N.W. Property ID# 28-A-166 Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# TWRC084 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. See attached site plan. TWRC084 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY Signature of Applicant _By: Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager ESTATE OF CHARLES IM\INEI'H POOLE Signature of Owner By. -19a, ft. � � & Nancy Lf Poole, Administratrix CTA Owners' Mailing Address 6273 Northwestern Pike, Gore, VA 22637 Owners' Telephone No. (540 ) 877-1538 Shenandoah Mobile Company (540) 984-3003 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.* - USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: 2. 4, 5 6 7 --- SFE CHART FOR TOWER IIEIGHT ION 9N --9N--7N--6N 5N4N \ 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' , m F- DOWNLOAD PER LEG m UPLIFT PER LEG H 0 _ Z TO ll ➢➢ 0. N TOWER ASSEMBLY NUMBER TOWER HEIGHT (FEET) TOP SECTION BASE SECTION ALLOWABLE PROJECTED AREA (SO. FT.) IN ACCORDANCE WLIH LOCAL AND NATIONAL COOFS. BASE REACTIONS 9. A -BOLTS FACE PART NO. 12 REO'D SPREAD TOWER TOP 30 FEET BELOW TOP TOTAL DOWNLOAD UPLIFT SHEAR (POUNDS) (POUNDS) POUNDS OTM FOOT POUNDS _ R F ROUNDS OR FLATS 0000_ ROUNDS OR FLATS SSO40D70 40 2W 3WN SB3 1' IO 16.7 FOR TAPERFU TOP DETAILS SEE DRAWING SK6/0407, 10.0 20.0 ALL TOWERS PROVIDED WITH (P/N ITT) TAPERED TOP 12.0 13. 14,300 13,500 970 22,000 SSO50D70 50 IWB 3WN SB3 I' 10 5.0 9.0 18.3 1[.0 19,200 8,400 970 29,700 SS060D70 60 2W 4N S84 2' 2 15.0 9.0 18.3 11.0 23,000 21,900 1,110 42,100 55070D70 70 IWB 4N SB4 2' 2 3.3 B.0 16.7 0.0 27,300 26,100 1,130 50,000 SS080D70 80 2W 5N SB5 2' 6 13.3 _8.0 16.7 _ 10.0 31,500 30,100 1,320 66,500 SS09OD70 90 IWB 5N SB5 2' 6 1.7 7.0 15.0 9.0 35,200 33,600 1,330 74,200 SSI00_D70 SSIIAD70 - SS12OD70 55130D70 00 - 0 2W W8 6N 6N 5/8X42AB 5/8X42AB - 4' 6 4' 6 -- 1/4 I/4 - - I.7 0.0 -1 0 10.0 9.2 -- _ 7.0___ b.0 - - _ 6.0 5 15.0 14.1 - 4.2 S.5___ 13.3 2.5 - 9.O_ D.5 8.5_ B.O B.0 7.5 - 26,0000 24,10_0 1,850_ 97,90_0_ 28,200 26,20_0_ 1,870 106,300 120 2W 7N 5/8X42AB_ 6' 63/4 7N 5/8X42AB 6' 6 _3/4 - 26,_300 24,000 2,510 141,700 30 4VB 28,300 25,900 2,540 152,600 SS140D70 55150D70 140 150 2W WB BN 5/8X42AB 8' 6 3/4 8N 5/8X42AB 8' 6 3/4 9.2 8.3 5.5 5.0 29,200 26,300 3,310 30,800 27,800 3,340 204,100 215,300 SS16OD70 160 2W 9N 5/8X42AB 10' 6 3/4- 8.3 5.0 12.5 7.5 33,300 29,900 4,230 286,400 SS170D70 170 WB 9N S/8X42AB 10 '6 3/4 7.5 4.5 2.5 7.5 --- I._5 I.O 34,900 3ff 4,280 301,000 SSIROD70 ----_ SS190D7fI 180 -. _.-------- 190 2W ]WB ION 3/4X48AB 12' 7 1/4 --�--- ION 3/4X4OAB i2' 7 1/4 7.5 -- -- 6 7 4 -- ..-- 4.0 2.'.I - - - t1,/ 38,500 3 5,350 ---- - - 39 700 3 5 380 * ANCHOR BOLTS OR BASE PART NO. G E N E R A L N 0 T E S TOWER DESIGNS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED B. ALL ANTENNA INSTALLATIONS MUST BE GROUNDED NATIONAL STAt-1DARD ANSI/EIA-222-E-1991 (NO ICE). IN ACCORDANCE WLIH LOCAL AND NATIONAL COOFS. EQUIVALENT FIAT -PLATE ANTENNA AREAS, BASED 9. FOR SECTION ASSEMBLY DETAILS AND I'AI7t NUMhl RS ON EIA RS -222-C, MUST NOT EXCEED THE AREAS SLE DRAWING E690800, SHOWN FOR FLAT MEMBER ANTENNAS. TOWER DESIGN'S ASSUME AI-t-OWAI31-E PROJECTED 10. FOR ADD I T 1 DNAI- HRAC I NG, GI tOtlT 1 IJG AND BRA I NAC, UI [ A I Li, SGL DRAWING `.K AREAS ARE SYMMETRICALLY PLACED ON THE TOWER. . DESIGNS ASSUME ONE 7/8 LINE TO TOP AND TWO 11. FOR TAPERFU TOP DETAILS SEE DRAWING SK6/0407, 7/8 LINES TO 30 FEET BELOW TOP, ONE PER FACE, 12. ALL TOWERS PROVIDED WITH (P/N ITT) TAPERED TOP DO NOT INSTALL OR DISMANTLE TOWERS WITHIN 13. FOR STEP BOLT DETAILS SEE DRAWING 8651264. FALLING DISTANCE OF ELECTRICAL AND/OR TELEPHONE LINES. 14, FOR FOUNDATION DETAILS SEE DRAWING D&70480. TOWER ERECTION AND DISMANTLING MUST BE BY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL. INSTALL WARNING PLATE (P/N ACWS) IN A HIGHLY VISIBLE LOCATION. 395,700; 407 O'O" may. N..A R.r+.+.., Dt ♦Dot• AR- B ♦Cwa B AAF THIS fJR4WTND ISE THE PROPERTY fA�' RfJJYJ. IT f5 Atli 1 T O T T ' T IN Bd- RE!'l!(Yk.Y.T *RIT EN TRACED !N Mf LYE CR L iNi. l! -l/ ll1.l IN PAT(T WI INIX/7 D(Yt WRf7TETJ CEWSENT. BY D.I. Tteu.+ o.. Wnu 9 -z -e7 40' TO /90' kAgDEL SSV TOWERS GPW 9-30-87 70 "PH WILDSPEEDS ANSI/EIA-22 Aa v. t -+;y. r RAA/ 9-30-87 ( // AD ICE) APV. S.l.s+ AE 2 -f2 -BB f FILE+ Ll4AW7AGAO.+ ''B-w)R-g7 P�� T�7k084 Notice 'roposed Construction or Alteratio Aeronautical Study Number U.3. Department of Transporlaficn Failure To Provide Nrf Requested Information May Delay Processing Of Your Notice Federal Aviation Administration 1. Nature of Pro osal 2. Complete Description of Structure A. Type S. Class C. work Schedule Dates Please describe the proposed construction or alteration. 7 New Construction Permanent Beginning 2/1198 A, For proposals involving transmitting stations, include Alteration ❑ Temporary (Duration months) End __5J1 98 effective radiated power (ERP) and assigned frequency. If J not known, give frequency band and maximum ERP. * It Alteration, provide previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number, if available : B. For proposals involving overhead wire, transmission lines, etc., include the size and the configuration of the wires and 3A. Name, address, and telephone number of individual, company corporation, etc, proposing the construction or alteration. (Number, Street, City, State, and Zip Code) their supporting structures. Shenandoah Mobile Company C. For buildings, include site orientation, dimensions, and Post Office 459 construction materials, Edinburg, Virginia 22824 D. Optional— Describe the type of obstruction marking and ( 540 ) 984-3003 lighting system desired. The FAA will consider this in their Area Code Telephone Number study. 3B. Name, address and telephone number of proponent's representative, if different than 3A. above. Mbit 4 Leonard L. Greisz c/o Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 ( 540 ) 984-3003 Area Code Telephone Number 4. Location Of Structure 5. Hei ht and Elevation (to nearestfoot) A. Coordinates ( if k ownj dths of seconds, B.' Nearest City or Town and State C. Nearest public or military airport, heliport, flightpark, or seaplane base A. Elevation of ground above mean sea level. Latitude o rr 39 15 59.84 Winchester, VA OKV Winchester Exhibit 1 898 Longitude 0 „ (1). Distance to 46 (1). Distance from structure to nearest B. Height of structure including all 78 18 04.61 point of nearest runway appurtenances and lighting above 9 Miles 10.398 nm ground or water. 150 4D. Source for item 4A data. (2). Direction to 46 (2). Direction from structure to airport C. Overall height above mean sea level USGS 7.5' Other L]Survey ❑ Lh Ouad Chart Specify 125 Degrees 135.34 Degrees -1048 aE. Description of site location with respect to highways, street, airports, prominent terrain, features, Other existingstructures etc. Please attach a U.S. Geological SurveyMa orequivalent)showingthe construction ❑ NAD 27 ❑x NAD 83 [1 Specify site. If available, attach a copy of a documented site survey with the p e surveyor's certification. Notice is required by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 77) pursuant to Section 1101 of the Federal Avtaticn Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app. § 1501). Persons who knowingly and willfully violate the Notice requirements of Part 77 are subject to a civil penalty of S1,000 per day until the notice is received, pursuant to Section 901(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1471(a)) as well as the fine (criminal penalty) of not more than $500 for the first offense and not more than $2,000 for subsequent offensas, pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1472(a)). I HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, I agree to obstruction mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking & lighting standards as necessary. Date Typed or Printed Name and Title of Person Filing NoticeI Signature 12/10/97 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager, PCS FOR FAA USE ONLY FAA will either return this form orissue a separate acknowledgement. Tit@ PCOpOSI Supplemental Notice of Construction, FAA Form 7460 2 s regwred any Ume the protect isbandoned, or Does not require a nonce to FAA At least 48 hours tiefore the start of construction Is not deritifled as an obstruction'under an standard of FAR Part 77, ` Y A ❑Within five days after the construction reaches Its greatest height.~ Subpart Q irid would nal be a hazard to air navtgatlon r W This determination expires on = unless: (a) extended reused oFtermmated by the issusln office, Is Idenllfied as an obstruction under the standards of FAR, Part 77 -r% 9 Subpart C; but would ndt be a hazard to air navigation. ; ..R, ,„. (b) the construction is,siubfect to thellcensind authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application r y , for a construction,pe�mlf Is made'to the FCC on or before the above expiration date'In such cases fhe determination expires on the date rescrlbed,b the FCC for com lehon of construction br an the date the FCC denies thea hcation ,_ ❑ Should be obslrucliori ❑ marked ❑ lighted per FAA i P 4, -'P Y r P . ` . PP ,r + i t, - NOTE, -Request for extension of the effective peaod of this determination ust be postmarked or delivered to the issuingoffice ;,Advisory Circufar 70/7460 1 Chapters at least i5 days nor to the e1i Irahon date f + ❑ Ohstrucdon markmg'and lighting are not necessary 41� If thg s...... e_is.:s`u�jeat to -the licensinn authority bt the SCC, a'copv of this deferminajion wit[ be sent to'tha i� r '= �.:�f � -'”, k _ } a �.,L�+c :-Y.'-..i �+, wy„ •+..�r,,�; �^.'�.,fi>"w y�o..�:t,..�=. �', .°.i.•e- .. Issued in Signature CAA Bunn 7d9n_1 ,� . _ - NOTE: NOT DRAWN-'-'() SCALE TWRO84 - Bowling Green Ridge Shenandoah Mobile Company OVER-ALL HEIGHT: 1,048 ft. AMSL 150 ft. y / \ GROUND ELEVATION: 898 ft. ANISL Exhibit 1 Bowling Green Ridge, VA VERTICAL PLAN SKETCH OF PROPOSED ANTENNA AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY + `��11--1� I �l � i � � �': � -r�� ;'�i /�� 1 i __ � i-,�) � r- ,foo-- "��•• , ��-f_ � 5A O'` IJ MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SITE TWR084 - Bowlin ( g Green Ridge J, Exhibit 2 4 MST 3henandoah Mobile Company 12/97 /\ r.--•` �� / (/ � - =1/ I � , // � t � � 11 / �.� ,♦ ��'` f\ ��1 1 / / /1/ i 1 `\', r� l; - �� /1 '� 152 �+ 111 _� ��I(�r�;��' , l �.1,,, � �(��I+ -f �;4� I ( �rf• 61 '\�'- �`l'( l o-� +:-�� I 6Y�� , , � �„��Lr� �;� �1 �Q��1:_�_� l_�.J�� jam✓ ��1 )� � 1� f '� ��_� Tool SCALE 1:24 000 BB4 1 2 0 1 MILE - - - �I - 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 1000 FEET 1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER+� G, CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET ll' NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 J. it o Jr o0_ \� \ lilt � rli�, ,r � • �> o. ry '` (• � � Ir! �O5� �I I l�� /r' / i � ! 1�, l- / 6R Ir �)r,/ of R c 0.0 l o r, /i a l �� II• 6M70o _G'i . I /,r 1 � - /i�7 ;^0 - \ � /� � I i 1 �(� , �I�' -. rri �1.11i �i0 l I f -II`r �@I 1 � �I, ,� 1' .. (� .r '.• �, ''f�l�1{ �.��I��AI lr l/l'�•.:� r� '�� I� r I,+ It + ��v O "� r I n �I-�II +� �� r - �I� +r � � �.•r.�r _ - I I ! �� I // i '�I 1 ,' '� �_ r I � 9l8 '1, I � it // �.� - i•; i ' i � '.'fl 11�� , i �' I ., lir � r r� l �.•. / �`� III f . r � I, + •; It �� I _x(11 ! 'I I'�II(!r: ,. ,i, ru) II I �� _r �r •1 /1 E„ . =_ I 2� 771 �T 2-7 IR MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SITE B0 7V ni, �4 �4 TWR084 - Bowlinc, Green Ridce 'Vi Shenandoah Mobile Company 12/97 V r rAf AG bit 3 AL�� A — WI C' LI 7 L 1E jo" 0 r_c,ic rin=,, 1; AY fz 4 284 A- Z 1520:/ 1771 d m_�_ey_'R17S6_ p", CTT—A 7 7 AR h 122 F A 9'2 -0) RG VoAta5,AXA (1� �52= Bridqh 112.1C, Qt%BURG j All T� %J iwdt M rs I M 1y 300050 R co 'T_� ZT 3 'il4sSTER r9 r u r)A 7 ee Pur elve 1 72.7 5o -l- s ,�•_ � �. #' : ��,v, 111 Illi /�+ �14a .'_ .� (3 n U � �"'7 63 Zre 3 :> q. 71z, 0w, cc &7Tt 2•100 17 2390 &7 .I souryrivAl 17 _k- 44.1 lza 59 Y, �g (362,) 'R 30 arkho TIZ7- —1, ` 56-4 219(2 1,7) --A G -Y Uyc 1171 pEN Plains - 1) Y JN -302, UCI &A 22 122' 261r _ 0 fil v [,Hs�LRCA -I E6i bo? �- N' kiarea (291, ' sye jr285 cc Hien_ J g77 ax. I. 4 V 236 J Ile (2 1 x. (216) 40 A 'c AVIS �P 1012 70 i I I 0 NAUTICAL 20 j, urrenlCn 0 STATUTE MILES r 10 20 10 0 KILOMETERS 110 20 2 22 V11 70 HCR�E (PF EATHE- r2 12CO 10, ( 1 �220) F2, �A R 0) \_� (26 V2) Res P", 975 L 2, 7 2 1\4-'3,5 - 21 midlam v T 1.85 r kCULPEPER t lk �2 Ej -4 0 6 71 TWR084 - Bowling Green Ridge Exhibit 4 Shenandoah Mobile Company Item 2.A (FAA Form 7460-1.): The structure will be a 150 foot three -sided self-supporting hot -dipped galvanized steel tower initially equipped for operation of a wireless communications services system operating in the frequency band of 825 - 845 or 865 - 895 at a max ERP of 100 watts. See Exhibit 1 for pertinent structure and topographic measurements. Item 2.1) (FAA Form 7460-1): Because the height of this structure is under 200 feet, we do not plan to mark it. If the FAA requires that it must be marked, we would prefer to use a dual lighting system with red lights for night time and medium intensity flashing white lights for day time and twilight use. I 11-oo" Su. ....---'-"-`-WSHENTEL SHENANDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS P.O.Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0459 (540) 984-4141 December 16, 1997 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy: Please find attached additional information which Shenandoah Mobile Company is submitting in support of the five conditional use permit applications recently filed by Shenandoah Mobile Company and pending with Frederick County. Listed below by site number are descriptions of the type of installation we propose to install at each location: (1) TWR078 Hunting Ridge (Self Supporting Lattice -type) — We propose to build a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons: A. This site is outside the Urban Development Zone; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary; C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. (2) TWR079 Little Timber Ride (Monopole) — A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. Z(3) TWR084 Bowling Green Ridge (Monopole) -- A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. (4) TWR167 Parkins Mills (Self Supporting Lattice -type) - We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site because: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; SHENANDOAH TELEPHONE COMPANY • SHENTEL SERVICE COMPANY • SHENANDOAH CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY SHENANDOAH LONG DISTANCE COMPANY SHENANDOAH VALLEY LEASING COMPANY SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY SHENANDOAH NETWORK COMPANY WE MUST SERVE WELL TO PROSPER • WE MUST PROSPER TO SERVE WELL Mr. Michael T. Ruddy December 16, 1997 Page 2 C. The proposed design is consistent with another structure viewable from the same area; and D. Monopoles of this size are not cost advantageous. (5) TWR1S0 Sherando (Self Supporting Lattice -type) -We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons.- A. easons: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary; C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. We appreciate your continued assistance and cooperation as we proceed through the conditional use permit process. Sincerely yours, Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager (PCS) Shenandoah Mobile Company LLG/Ish Enclosures ATTACFIMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR '< COMMERCIAL TELEC.OMMUNCATIONS FACILITIES Submitted by Shenandoah Mobile Company Tower No. TVWR084 Bowling Green Ridge Property Owned by Estate of Charles Kenneth Poole, Sr. �9�+`� In accordance with Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Section 165.48.6, Subsections A (1) through A (4), the following information is attached: (1) Attachment 1 — A topographic map depicting the search area. (2) Attachment 2 — Identification of other service providers or commercial telecommunications facilities within the proposed service area. (3) Attachment 3 — Compliance with ANSUIEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation. (4) Attachment 4 - Statement of procedure for tower and equipment removal. Cio I r 677I�_` \ r //-'I .I J `-' 'n I Ir -- ILS -- BM, �640 a�k I 'i � 11671 . . r. Ir' II III A �_..`.. If qj 24 em`. �' r / .52 - _ - � ;%1682 � 2 /q �/;, � _• � � �, I �� ; r, r I i� I� �I. `�// �` l /, // r 40 ,1 �I I 1 6 ��` 0�-�'- � - `� _ r "+�.' it I i ��'� 11 / `° j�I��l ��/��%iyF. _ __ ! , ._ • � /,%, - - y ,' T ATTACHMENT 2 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR084 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The comparable FCC license holders operating in the search area of the prospective site are... Cellular A -- Cellular One B -- Shenandoah Cellular PCS A -- American Personal Communications (Sprint Spectrum) B -- AT&T Wireless PCS C -- CFW Communications (Virginia PCS Alliance) D & E -- Shenandoah Mobile Company F -- Devon Mobile Communications There are no commercial telecommunications facilities within the search area of the prospective site. OET BULLETIN 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 The first edition of this bulletin was issued as OST Bulletin No. 65 in October 1985. This is a revised version of that original bulletin. NOTE. Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement by the Federal Communications Commission or by the authors. ,)I 2.1091 and 2.1093 (for portable and mobile devices). This requirement applies to some, but not necessarily all, transmitters, facilities or operations that are authorized under the following parts of our rules: 5, 15, 21 (Subpart K), 22 (Subpart E), 22 (Subpart H), 24, 25, 26, 27, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I, and L), 80 (ship earth stations), 90 (paging operations and Specialized Mobile Radio), 97 and 101 (Subpart L). Within a specific service category, conditions are listed in Table 2 of Appendix A to determine which transmitters will be subject to routine evaluation. These conditions are generally based on one or more of the following variables: (1) operating power, (2) location, (3) height above ground of the antenna and characteristics of the antenna or mode of transmission. In the case of Part 15 devices, only devices that transmit on millimeter wave frequencies and unlicensed Personal Communications Service (PCS) devices are covered, as noted in rule parts 2.1091 and 2.1093 (see section on mobile and portable devices of Appendix A). Transmitters and facilities not included in the specified categories are excluded from routine evaluation for RF exposure. We believe that such transmitting facilities generally pose little or no risk for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. However, as noted above, in exceptional cases the Commission may, on its own merit or as the result of a petition, require environmental evaluation of transmitters or facilities even though they are otherwise excluded from routine evaluation. Also, at multiple -transmitter sites applications for non -excluded transmitters should consider significant contributions of other co -located transmitters (see discussion of multiple -transmitter evaluation in Section 2). If a transmitter operates using relatively high power, and there is a possibility that workers or the public could have access to the transmitter site, such as at a rooftop site, then routine evaluation is justified. In Table 2 of Appendix A, an attempt was made to identify situations in the various services where such conditions could prevail. In general, at rooftop transmitting sites evaluation will be required if power levels are above the values indicated in Table 2 of Appendix A. These power levels were chosen based on generally "worst-case" assumptions where the most stringent uncontrolled/general population MPE limit might be exceeded within several meters of transmitting antennas at these power levels. In the case of paging antennas, the likelihood that duty factors, although high, would not normally be expected to be 100% was also considered. Of course, if procedures are in place at a site to limit accessibility or otherwise control exposure so that the safety guidelines are met, then the site is in compliance and no further environmental processing is necessary under our rules. Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground - level exposures in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposures from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for 14 broadband PCS.13 These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically "worst case" site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands of times below the new WE limits. In view of the expected proliferation of these towers in the future and possible use of multiple channels and power levels at these installations, and to ensure that tower installations are properly evaluated when appropriate, we have instituted these new requirements for this limited category of tower -mounted antennas in these services. For consistency we have instituted similar requirements for several other services that could use relatively high power levels with antennas mounted on towers lower than 10 meters above ground. Paging systems operated under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 of our rules previously have been categorically exempted from routine RF evaluation requirements. However, the potential exists that the new, more restrictive limits may be exceeded in accessible areas by relatively high-powered paging transmitters with rooftop antennas." These transmitters may operate with high duty factors in densely populated urban environments. The record and our own data indicate the need for ensuring appropriate evaluation of such facilities, especially at multiple transmitter sites. Accordingly, paging stations authorized under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure if an antenna is located on a rooftop and if its ERP exceeds 1000 watts. Mobile and Portable Devices As noted in Appendix A, mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services (PCS), the General Wireless Communications Service, the Wireless Communication Service, the Satellite Communications services, the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) and Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized, respectively, under Part 22 (Subpart H), Part 24, Part 25, Part 26, Part 27, Part 80, and Part 90 of the FCC's Rules are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. Unlicensed PCS, NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. All other mobile, portable, and unlicensed transmitting devices are normally categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure (see Section 2 and Appendix A for further details). 13 For broadband PCS, 2000 W is used as a threshold, instead of 1000 W, since at these operating frequencies the exposure criteria are less restrictive by about a factor of two. 14 For example, under Part 90, paging operations in the 929-930 MHz band may operate with poorer levels as high as 3500 W ERP. 15 ATTACHMENT s#' 3 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR084 Conditional Use Application COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNCIATIONS COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED ANSUIEEE STANDARDS FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD LEVELS AND RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION As set forth in OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997, entitled Evaluating Compliance_ivith FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency 1,1ectromagnetic Fields, states on Page 14: "Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground -level exposure in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposure from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for broadband PCS. These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically `worst case' site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands times below the new MP.E limits." (Emphasis added.) (A copy of excerpt from OEI'Bulletin 65 is being submitted with this package.) The antenna installation planned under this Conditional Use Permit will be at a height in excess of twenty (20) meters. Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Duman Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 ATTACHMENT / -i Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR084 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL REMOVAL OF ABANDONED COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The Conditional Use Permit application process (ordinance) in Frederick County for Commercial Telecommunications Facilities requires that the applicant provide "information delineating procedures for guaranteeing the removal of the commercial telecommunications facility within one year of abandonment of operation." Having worked with the Planning Commission in the development of the ordinance it is our understanding that the intent of this section (§ 165-48.6. A. (4)) is threefold, (i) "not" to burden the applicant with a requirement to post a bond, (ii) not to leave the landowner "holding the bag" with an abandoned site, unless, or course, that was the agreement with the landowner, and (iii) to ensure the tower itself is removed, not necessarily the foundation. In the spirit of complying with this requirement, Shentel considered several possibilities, including the purchase of a removal bond, entering into an irrevocable letter of credit to ensure removal, and the establishment of a self-funded sinking fund. Each possibility was rejected either because of cost, or because it restricted the use of critical working capital. Shentel is a locally established, successfully operating telecommunications company that has been doing business in the Shenandoah Valley continuously since 1902. It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose. Shentel stands behind that practice. Most recently Shentel decommissioned a cable TV tower in Shenandoah County and arranged to remove it along with our equipment. The landowner, however, asked us to leave the tower in place so he could use it for amateur radio purposes. We readily complied with his request, removing all of our equipment and cabling from the structure and the surrounding grounds, turning the site over to the landowner as requested. All of our site lease agreements contain a provision allowing us to remove our communications tower and all related equipment upon the termination of the rental period. ILI= FROM NIERSMDN OF INVOMDE 81 AND ROUTE 37 AT EXIT 310: PROCEED NORTH ON ROUTE 37 API1101111MiELT 5.3 NILES TO THE INTERSECTION OF ROTA 37 AND ROUTE 50. PROCEED WEA 6N ROUTE 5o APPom WUELY 6a M1LFS TO INTERSECTION ROUTE 50 AND ROUTE 666. P23M EAST ON ROUTE 666 FOR APPRMUMATCLY 025 MILES TO A GRNMEL ACCESS ROAD OW THE RIGH. FOLLOW GRWIEL ACCESS ROAD FOR APPRO)ONA ELT 0.13 M IES TO TOWER SITE MMJM 1. THE PROP01IMI LFAY AREA AND ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY qURR£NRY DESIGNATED AS FREDWCI( COUNTY TO PARCEL 26-A 165 AND CUWMY OWNED BY THE HEIRS OF CW&ES KENNETH POOLE. SR 2. SITE PLAN E PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY Oft* t CCLEIWL PAL EL/ E 32156 1 TIG PROPEaT 6 SALM TO ALL R57MCT06. EASElEM OR NLNTS OF im OF RECORD PRIOR TO DC DATE OF DG PIAT. 4. THE IMVUUSEED RATIO OF PRE U40N FOR DG SURVEY ETAZEOS 1:10000. 5. 010T10N6 ARE BASED ON IWACS STATION STEPIf1K- ELEV.. ?a I.W. KOO 29 L BENCH MARE 6 A ROD NM A CAP. ELEV.. 6N.12'. NOVO 29 7. CaSFIC PWERTY COIGNS APPROiNMTELY 122 ACRES. L 20" DATE CHRM ZNNNO`. (URAL AREA WL PRONMD LU- SELF-SUPPORNG COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WM NEDNN KTD9N MTE DAY LA]R AND RFD NIGHT LIGHT (E REQUIRED BY DE FAA) PR01OSED TOWER HEIGH: 150 REDIIIED SETEPM FOU - 175 FROM ROAD RICHT-OF-Wff SDE - 215' FOR - 215 9. OWER GORES KENNETH POOLE. SR (1f NS OF) 6W NORTHWEST PINE GME VNGWM 22537 I0. APPLIbNk SHEiNANNDOAi MOBLE COMPANY T24 SOUTH NAN STREET W.0. 8M 459 EDNBAG M 22924-0459 (SEG) 964-4141 It. POWER CWLVr. ALLfGOK POWER P. 0. SM 3200 1THGESTFR. A 22604 (600) 654-1717 12. TELER# 00~. BELL ATLANTIC 29M K FARVEi PAM DRIVE FALLS CIRRDi M 22046 (5q 954-6262 11 ALG SITE HIN E M NOT LIE WITA HILA DES7GNAED 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE. 14. IND 27 WIOES FOR PROPOSED TUNER, LATITUDE 39'155L46' LONGITUDE 76'16.160' 15. APPRDIL TOER LYSE ELEV.. NU FT. 1L THIS FIAT OTRFSEWM THE %S KY OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND ACCESS EASEWD15 DG S 04EY AWS CONDUCTED BY ANDERSON t ASSOCLOES ON 5 SEPT. 1997 AAD DOES NOT REPRESENT A COOPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE POOLE PFAYUM 17. IRON BOOS SET AT ALL LEASE AREA CORMS UNLESS OTER76E NOTED. OWNER'S CERIECJLTE: THE LUBE ATEA AND EASOCNIS, AS APPEAR ON NLG PLAY. ARE WON DE FREE WSW AND N ACCORWNCE WITH THE OESNES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS PROPRIETORS OR TRUSTEES. NAK.Y L POOLE ADMINISTRATIVE CIA OF THE MAa OF CHApES KENNETH POOLE, SA, DUE DECEASED NANCY L POOLE BENEFICIARY OF TK ESTATE OF DMFS KENNETH POOLE, SR. DUE OECZASED OWLfS NENERE POOLE, JL, BENEFICART OF THE ESTATE OF CIVALES KENNETH PODLF- SR_ DATE DECEASED PAIJ QF VF40NA TO WF LA NOTARY PUNK N AND FOR THE SOUS AND COUNTY ACRESAO DO EEREBY CERLITY DMT DIARIES IONETH POOLE. X WHOSE NNE 6 SIGNED TO THE FOREGOING WITTING, BFAMIG DATE OF . 19 _ HIS PEASOWA APPEARED BEFORE WE AND ADODWEDGED THE SNE. OMEN LOW t NIAID AND SEM ON TNG _ DAY OF NOTARY RHL WY CONSM14 ERNES C1I971113.2124 I GCP VIROTAA TO WF L A NOTARY PIRUC N AND FOR THE SLOE AND COUNTY AFORESAD 00 HEREBY CERTIFY DMT NANCY L POOLE. NOSE MAW 6 STGED TO THE FOECO IC WRITING, BEARING DME OF . 19_ NAS POWALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ADODWLOGEO THE SAME. GKN IN" WY LAND AND SEM ON DHS _ DAY OF . 19 _ 19 _ I NOTARY MY C0N690N E1PRES POPLAR FID KE -- SR L IWA ZONED RI TOWBAR pREC71U4 p6TANCE Lt S 3540'56" E 42.29' L2 S 13'50'26' E 132.25 L3 S 3540 56 E 101.07 L4 S 60'4} 06 E 189.61 13 S 01' 1206 E 12036 L6 S 3540 58 E 70.00 L7 S 56'1902 N 70.00 L8 R 3540'56 W 70.00' L9 N 56' I.E 70.00' 1 1 . LEASE AREA 49W So. FT. OR 0.112 AC. 150" roWER / i/ ROD FNO � t s Sci 1 4D PROPOSED 25' EGRESS AND NCIRM ESN( \� \ A ROD FND . E OVA- IPAROELL 28--1 1 f. SR Da 360 PG. 5A ZONED RA $ET61 _--__ POKER POLE gf H� H 746 Pr- 1243 12 ZONED RA POTOMAC E060M COMPANY EASEMENT FOR POWER LW,*E D.B. 441 PC, 764 Gomm we, . O sm ow Z' RA.t7' PONER PDLL "'LL -0 (ROUTE 40' A• OH 407 PG --T 02S 10 ROO FAD NUMBER DELTA CHORD BRG. TA'�GENT RAOIUS ARC CHORD CI 1750'32" S 2545'42- E 6.75 50.00 17.32 17.23 C2 19'50'32 S 2545'42' E 8.75 I5 51 173217.23 C3 2702'08" S 4712'07' E 18.03 75.00 3539 35.06 C4 59'3100' S 30'57'36 E 42.88 175.00 177.91 74.45 NDC - T1C Fcxaom D NASO+DHS WOK Lwm N TEC AIDE NDNM PREPm O er 9R iw ! cou3m, nL nt 13aAJDusLEASETOCE.6EOE 523 Pr, 2 POTOAMC EDRON COSAMY EASE" TOW AESM ML SERWE COFWIECOON. EASEP&W DOES NOT AFFECT UMJECt LFAA OS -1 PG 735 ]J AND P TTOhu TELCP V 000P EASEL EOR PMM nXILAR3, OVA' IMAM ETC ALONG THE NORTH SOC OF ROUTE M M& NU PG N7. EASEE OTT GOES AM AFFECT AftEk 4.) NNORFH �NiGom roNOt COC'AtII EJLSPTOR FDR POLI W CSTANISWM FOR WORK W.0 DONE FOR WCOO NG OF ROUTE 50 TO FOUR LAN ES: D.6 266 PO. 767. EASELOn DOES NW AFFECT SUSHECT LEASE ARIA 5J AIDRTWJM �" "" CD~EASOrtM FOR ELECTRO[ sEAVJa 70 MNk Da7W 7PD, 5TH. EAS`bCW ODESOT AF pa A9JCCf LEASE AREA MO L) RTMEMJ v1RGWAA POMM CONFMNY EASDA IT FOR CDNSDUCDN(' OPEWOMG. ANO MANDUMI6 AN ELECMC UW-' Di 247 PG 71L EASENEW DOES NOT AFFECT STXLXa LEASE AIWA 7J NDRHCIRR V"CO" POR" CM~ C15DIEW FOR ALSO(1FDAL PON" SEAVIDE: DA 206 PG 12 EASENDIT DOES NOT AFFECT SO6ECT LEASE AREA DESIGNER ANDERSON k ASSOCIATES 7722 MAIN STREET MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 100 50 O 100 200 300 SCALE IN FEET M--' "SO" ` ngwo i % w DATELE : ILS y N7 ,9�� a7 DOCUMENT N0. PORTION of Poop P c,�a�EseoRo c u,� asT�cT ,�-o02 AND s�E�. , w OBD: TO BE ED BY ��N� SHEET ASSOCIATES. IncInc. SEs TIP-cwW. m CHE°t CXED � SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY�WR84-BOWLING GREEN RIDGE) COUNTY. OF 2 I= M I=. f>Ir�e"Np( COL111t 1A 008 MM CIiH11 NDC* 1. m .osrs 4040 cs...wrz w 1aFNp. u^srorc un.c M[ tK a rasrs z seat � r� M n rosin FLO>V i wlrwo� 11E r1Lrzx r,.ea¢ ro nc Mac rn.cc 4040 rxroo n ..m nK mv+oc r-•2tJD - mim FROM NIEUSECIVN OF WI )MATE 81 AND RGRE 37 AT CUT 310: PROCEED NORTH ON ROUTE 37 APPROUM7Rr U PIES TO THE MTOMECTION OF ROUTE 37 AND ROTE 3-a PROCEED WEST ON ROUTE 50 APPRO I M1ElT U YIPS TO INTERSECTION ROUTE 50 AND ROUTE 668 PROCEED EAST ON ROUTE 668 FOR APPRO=WELT 025 MILES TO A ORWEL ACCESS ROAD ON THE RCHO. FOLLOW 04TAI ACCESS ROM FOR APP=MWELT 0.13 MILES TO MER STC 1. 1HE PROPOSED LEASE AREA NO ACCESS AND UTILITIES DASD DIT ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY DESGNATM AS FREDERICK COUNTY TAX NAM 26-A 165 AND OIAADMY 0I7AD BY THE HDIS OF CHIR6ES KEMMETH POOLE SR 2. SITE PLAN MS PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A 7117£ REPORT PREPARED BY WM t COLD(^ PLG FLEA 32456 1 THIS PROPWT IS SUBECT TO ALL RESTRHCTICW. EASFIOM OR RGHFS OF MY OF REDaRO PRIOR TO THE DOE OF THIS PUT. 4. THE LAMDAUSIED R4TD OF PRECISION FOR THIS SURVEY DICOM 1:10000. S QEWJ W6 ARE BASED ON USC&CS STATION 'S7U40C EIEV.. 761$, 1C+q 29 & BENCH IMAK 6 A R OO " A CAP. M.. 824.12'. FOA 29 7. Dt61NG PROPERTY CONIANS APPgO7WELY 122 AFROS & ZOIC DATA: CURRENT ZO NC: R1RML AREA RA PROPOSED MUSE: SELF-SFPORT/C CONWIIDATIOW6 TONER NTH MEDIAN NTmTY WHITE Do' LIGHT AND ROD WIGHT LI,1T (F REOUREO BY THE FAA) PROPOSED 10" HC(HT: 150' RECURRED SE1914M FRONT - 175' FROM ROAD R04 -10F -W SIDE - 215• REAR - 215' 4 M4M CHARLES KENNETH POOLE SR (HERS OF) 6273 MORTFHWEST PIF GORE, 9RG1M 22637 ID. APPLCMIT: SHDIANDOAN MOBILE COIFANY 124 SOUTH WN STREET PA BOC 459 EDW&RC M 21824-0459 (540) 964-4141 11. PMUL COI~. ALLEC ENY POIEA P. 0. BOX 3200 VINCHESTER(No 654 33 7 i2. TELEPHONE CU~. BOLL ATLANTIC 2960 K FARMEF PNM ORAE FALLS CHAL'L, WI 22046 (540) 954-6282 13, THIS SITE ODES MUT LIE WREN A HUD. ":,ATEO100 wjR FL000 ZONE. 4. IAD 27 WILLIES FOR PROPOSED TOWER: LATITUDE 39'155446" LOM(. RROE 7St8'05.60' 11 APPROX TOWER Boa ELEV.. 6960 FT. 16. THIS PLAT REPREM(IS THE SUINEY OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA NO ASESS EASEM DITi THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES ON S SEPT. 1997 AND DOES MDT REPRESENT A OW -1 ETE BOU WIRY SLURYEY OF THE POOLE PROPOITY. 17. Rd RODS SET AT ALL LEASE AREA COMERS UNLESS OTHERWISE M0111 DINER'S COTFIZATE: THE UAB AREA AND EASELEMTS. AS APPEAR ON THIS PUO. ARE WIN THE FREE CONSENT AND N ACCORMMCE WRIT THE DESIRES O THE UNDERSIGIED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS OR T L67M MACY L POOLE AOMNSTWNE CIA OF THE EWE OF CHARLES KENNETH POOLE. SL. DUE DECEASED PROJECT SITE 13 2 3 4 12 5 1 11 10 9 6 8 7 o fot[ rao w HVIC[rltl wro couvtl RHE ocwrm sow DESIGNER ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 7722 MN STREET MIDDLETOWN. VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 i "�+� � [xmiso. a rwewc un Mac uro me *acHoa -.'•`�_• - III rtml r.emc 7 I =III 1) CHARLES K. POOLE, JR. 4) CHARLES FRMXUN ADAMS GARY R RLHUNT TAX PARCEL 28-A-1658 TAX PARCEL 28 -A -161C SHE" J. HUNT D.B. 746 PC, 1243 D.& 599 PG. 635 TAX PARCEL 28-A-133 ZONED RA ZONED RA D.B. 672 PG. 236 USE: RESIDENTIAL USE: RESDEHTIAL ZONED 82 USE: 41 2) KENNETH C. POOLE. SR S) BERTHA SPE55 KURT P. W. SPIE$$, SR 8) RAYMOND H. MAYHEW TAX PARCEL 28-A-1654 D.B. 779 PG, 699 TAX PARCEL 28-A-158 JEAN E MAYHEM' ZONED RA O.B. 625 PG, 401 TAX PARCEL 28-A-132 USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED RA 0.8. ISM PG 824/5 CHORD USE: AGRICULTURAL ZONED RA 3) CHARLES FRANKLIN ADAMS CHORD BRC, TAPOU14T RADIUS ARC USE: AGRICULTURAL TAX PARCEL 28-A-164 6) ISAAC LEE LUTTRELL C1 19-50'32' D.B. 551 PG. 873 DIANE L LUTTRELL 9) RAYMOND H. MAYHEW ZONED RA TAX PARCEL 28-A-157 JEAN E MAYHEW USE: RESIDENTIAL D.B. 825 PG, 1013 TAX PARCEL 28-A-131 S 23-45'42 E Q75 50.00 17.}2 ZONED RA 0.& 776 PG. 827 USE: AGRICULTURAL ZONED RA �A USE: AGRICULTURAL C3 27'02'08 S 47'7202 E 18.03 75.00 3539 RW IAD I S 5J3936- ■ 3714!' STATE or VIRGINIA L4fu 7 WIT OMLCS: 1 FAX AW C11 -A]R lm 0LL 779 pr, 699 2OWD At USE: RESIDENTIAL APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ONING ADMINISTRAT R I'I UTIUTY, n PROPOSED IECZ AREA DATE / \L7 t900 so. FT. OR SF 0. 12 ACRES 8' //• J I 1 150 TOWER NUMBER I DIRECTION DISTANCE / Ll S 33'40'58" E 42.213' L2 IS 13-50-26" E 132.25 A• CHAR IINt L3 IS 33-40'58" E t01.0 - FENCE "47TH L4 is 60.43'06• E 789.67 1472 ; 0 WIRE LS S 07.1206 E 7 20.36 L6 S 33.40 SB E 70.00 1 L7 S 561902 W 70.00 lD N 33.40 58 W 70.00 l9 N 56' 1902 E 70.00 nomm d ' ILD SILT FENCE SEE DETAIL }I / S J61tar jr r• VOLm t ` 7 10) KENNETH POOLE `�- TAX PARCEL 28-A-130 ` D.D. 825 PC. 1015 ` MY ZONED RA \ 1� FWr USE: AGRICULTURAL PROIVSEO n• LYGIES.S `.`•, ` ` 11) EDWARD W. DOVE ICREXS AND TAX PARCEL 28-A-129 D.B. 871 PG. 1593 FROpuSEp IY amber ROM `�\`, ZONED RA USE: AGRICULTURAL `,•\`. I 1 12) DANO T. PARRY TAX P/1RCQ 28-A-766 �,•\ D.B. 597 PG. 534 ZONED RA USE: RESIDENTIAL 13) CHARLOTTE B. MCKEE C/O STEPHEN BUTLER k TAX PARCEL 28-A-170 6�0 O.B. 761 PG. 1512 1 ZONED RA USE: AGRICULTURAL --j -r - � ebo g50Sz N i i A j Fa 379 �� I ' I Bao ZZ USE: .-"-NT"ALAACAMT 640 a ;-' 14rAMM 28-A-/� R Y� At '�" --------------SQB1Pi1-------------------� - USE. RESIDENTIAL . 7J1EITnE c � c /J c/ r r c - i -&74CR ML(dIL .ROU RUN .L.l� t!i! CW �' fLEK '84.17• FORM 7iDLiCCMW4r7 To bee �; 1 1 ---- - 4--- Far P01" ftr ACD IUD 57mr wL Raw (ld7UlF 6p) ASFRNLT TRIMLY L POOL 8OCFCIARY OF THE iN0 A'. LLH 407 i1'„ TI) ESTE OF CWLES KENNETH POOLE SR- DUE DECEASED eti - CWAUS IEMETH POOLE JR- BENEFICIARY OF THE ESTATE OF CHIMLES IBNETH POOLE, SR. DATE CHORD NUMBER DELTA CHORD BRC, TAPOU14T RADIUS ARC DECEASED C1 19-50'32' S 2S45'42'* E 575 50.00 17.32 17.23 C2 19'50'32' S 23-45'42 E Q75 50.00 17.}2 17.23 qxlH �A C3 27'02'08 S 47'7202 E 18.03 75.00 3539 35.06 STATE or VIRGINIA L4fu 7 WIT C4 5731 oo S 30.5736 E 42.88 75.00 77.91 74.45 T WIT: A NOTA PUSUC N AND FOR THE STATE AND COWTY A- THAT L A NOTARY PLHUC N AND FOR THE STATE AND COLON AFORESAID 00 PURDY CLTTIWY THAT NANCY L POOLE. WHOSE WAVE 15 SIp4D TO THE � � AFORESAO 00 IEREB'! CDMFY CHARLES KUBETH POOEL JR HOSE WANE 6 FORECOING WRITING, BEARING DUE BO . 19_ HAS PERSONALLY e 9[7[0 10 THE FORELOING WRITING BEM IC DUE OF . 19_ APPEARED BEFORE WE NO ADDgREDGED THE SNE N. HAS PERSONALLY MPEARED BEFORE WE AND ApDDNEEOCED DE SAE 0" LACER MY NANO AID SELL ON THIS _ DAY OF . 19 _ OAEN UDER W FANO AND SEAL ON THIS _ DAY Oi . 19 _NOTARY PLBIJC COLWMIS E1 5 NOTARY PI.BLC MY COII$$gN EIPIRES 50 25 0 50 100 150 C2 1 97.1111,3.1�843p1TEP SCALE 1" - 50' �j ANDERSON AND EFIQkmm Q*w bwo PI sur"yoFs °iN"0a0. MQ SCALE : AS SHOWN? 9"ND„ 97 ��9/�� /�� /� �p�\�� A PORTION Vr POOLE PROPERTY 6 C,1HAlNESBORO IIAADISiERIAL DISTRICT DO325-cUufNT NO. teaET d�Q� w V DESIGNED: BY FREDERICK COUNTY/ VIWNIA 2 a� 2 ASSOCIl1TES. 1110. Pkxw ' DRAWN D � SH MOBILE COMP��TWR8 4 GREEN RIDGE) PC REVIEW: 01/07/98 BOS REVIEW: 01/28/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #021-97 SHENANDOAH MOBILE CO. Commercial Telecommunications Facility Little Timber Ridge Site LOCATION: This property is located on Route 610 approximately 0.38 miles south of the intersection of Routes 50 and 610. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 27-A-8 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential, agricultural, and orchard. PROPOSED USE: 100 -foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections Department: Building and towers shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, Use Group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996. Note: Five-foot minimum distance to property line without fire rating requirements on structures. Please submit Virginia A/E sealed plans at the time of permit application. Fire Marshal: Post temporary street address signage during construction. Shenandoah Mobile Co. CUP #021-97 Little Timber Ridge Site Page 2 December 30, 1997 Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposed facilities. Winchester Regional Airport: See attached letter from Douglas P. Strand, Executive Director, dated December 16, 1997. Planning and Zoning: Ordinance Background: Frederick County adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in April 1997 that allows commercial telecommunication facilities with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This amendment specified that telecommunication facility CUP's could be approved provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted. Additional performance standards are also applicable to the CUP review. Ordinance Conformance: The proposed facility will be constructed on property located to the east of Route 610, adjacent to the electrical substation owned by the Potomac Edison Company. The Zoning Ordinance requires that towers of 100 feet in height (as is proposed) be placed a minimum of 125 feet from any road right-of-way, and 115 -feet from adjoining properties used for purposes other than agriculture or orchard. The applicant has proposed two alternative tower locations on this site. Option 2 complies with the setback requirements for a tower of the size proposed. Option 1, the applicants preferred option, locates the tower directly adjacent to the adjoining Potomac Edison Company property. As per Section 165-48.6(B)1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance if it can be demonstrated that the location is of equal or lesser impact. When considering the use of the adjacent property, an electrical substation, it is staff's opinion that the location of the tower in Option 1 would be a more desirable location than that in Option 1 where it would be located more towards the center of an open field. The applicant has provided a map depicting the site selection search area. Eight comparable FCC license holders operating within this search area have been identified; none have constructed telecommunication facilities and begun providing services. In the interest of protecting the county's viewshed, it is encouraged that all telecommunication facilities be constructed in a manner that are conducive for co -locating with other comparable service providers. CUP's should not be granted until attempts to co -locate have been exhausted. The applicant has identified other comparable FCC license holders in the area that will be seeking telecommunication facilities in the near future and, without allowing for co -location, the County may encounter a significant increase in telecommunication facilities in the Shenandoah Mobile Co. CUP #021-97 Little Timber Ridge Site Page 3 December 30, 1997 viewshed. As there are no comparable facilities in existence within the search area, it is acceptable that this facility could be permitted with the understanding that other comparable service providers be allowed to co -locate on the tower. In order to alleviate the future abandonment of telecommunication facilities, the ordinance requires that procedures for guaranteeing the removal of such towers be established during the CUP process. The applicant has researched possible methods to guarantee the facility's removal. The applicant proposes that the County not require a monetary guarantee, but accept Shentel's (Shenandoah Mobile Company) business practice as a guarantee. The applicant, Shentel, states "It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose." The Zoning Ordinance requires that a guarantee be provided for removal of facilities; therefore, this needs to be resolved prior to this application's review before the Board of Supervisors. The structure will be a 100 -foot monopole -type tower initially equipped for operation of a wireless communications services system. Should the tower be required to be lighted, it will be provided with a dual lighting system which provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use. The Zoning Ordinance requires that these lights be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties. In addition, the proposed accessory structures may be visible from the adjoining Route 610 road right-of-way. Therefore, landscaping and screening of any accessory structures will be required. Request for Construction -Type Waiver: The applicant is proposing to construct a monopole -type tower at this location. Therefore, the waiver is not required. Staff Recommendation for January 7, 11998: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable rates. 3. An acceptable guarantee be established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of tower abandonment. 4. A minor site plan be approved by the County. Screening any proposed accessory structures from the adjoining road right-of-way, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, is provided. 0:\AGE NDAS\CO M M ENTS\TM BRI DGE.CUP SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA / December 16, 1997 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (703) 662-2422 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office Box 280 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Re: Request for Conditional Use Permit Comments Installation of Commercial Telecommunications Facilities TWR167 - Smith Property TWR78 - Guthridge Property TWR79 - Anderson Property TWR84 - Poole Property TWR180 - Ritter Property Dear Mr. Greisz: Based on review of the above referenced projects by our engineering firm, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority does not anticipate that the above towers will penetrate FAR Part 77 Surfaces that will impact operations at Winchester Regional Airport. Final comment on these request will be contingent on receiving favorable responses from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation on the FAA Form 7460-1 submittals. I would like to request that a copy of each response from FAA be forwarded to this office as soon as you receive it. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office (540) 662-5786. I appreciate your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, 0� Douglas P. Strand Executive Director CUP #021 PIN: 27—A--8 Shenandoah Mobile Co. Little Timber Ridge Site nIRC079 Little Timber Ridge Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COU" TY, VIRGINIA C'G�� #0�.�-97 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner x other) NAME: Shenandoah Mobile Company ADDRESS: Post Office Box 280, 212 Piccadilly St., Edinburg, VA 22824 TELEPHONE ( 540 ) 984-3003 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Norman Robert Anderson and Pansy M. Anderson, husband and wife 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) From intersection of Roues 37 and 50, proceed west on Rt. 50 approximately 12.1 miles to intersection of Rts. 50 and 610. Proceed south on Rt. 610 for approximately 0.38 miles to tower site on left. 4. The property has a road frontage of 570.36 feet and a depth of 220q_ qS feet and consists of 39.074 acres. (Please be exact) Anderson 5. The property is owned by Norman Robert Anderson and Pansy M as evidenced by deed from Ti',Plvn A_ Mr-raulPv, ef aiS., recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 417 on page 700 as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 27-A-8 Magisterial District Back Creek Magisterial District Current Zoning Rural Area 7. Adjoining Property: USE North Resi en ial East South West Agri cll Lural Orchard Residential ZONING RA •i• TWRC079 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) Commercial telecommunications facilities. 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: One hundred foot (100') monopole and an eight foot (8') by ten foot (10') concrete equipment pad 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and in front of (also across street from) the property where requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME Joan P. &Hugh Luebehusen Address 3706 Conduct Road Mloncial Heights., VA 23834 Property ID# 27-A-5 Eunice M. Slonaker Address 188 Parishville Road Gore VA 22637 Property ID# 27-A-6 Donald Lee Slonaker Address 192 Parishville Road Gore, VA 22637 Property ID# 27 -A -6A Paula M. Slonaker c/o Paula Finlayson Address 3517 Virginia Drive Virginia Beach VA 23452 property ID# 27 -A -6B David A. & Deborah Hahn Address 103 West Bond Street Winchest-pr, VA 22601 Property ID# - 27-A-7 Allen Eugene Hahn Address Address 8199 Northwestern Pike Gore,7 Property ID# 27 -A -7B ,' 9W < TWRC079 NAME Wesley C. and Loretta A. Malcolm Address 113 Doe Trail 0 Property ID# 27 -A -7C Norman Robert Anderson Address 339 Parishville Road Gore, VA 22637 Property ID# 27 -A -8A Dale &Regina T. Swain, Jr Address 440 Parishville Road Gore VA 22637 Property ID# 27-A-9 National Fruit Products, Inc. Address P. O. Box 2040 Winchester, VA 22604 Property ID# 27-A-11 Eathel M. Pugh Address 230 Pugh Lane Gore VA 22637 Property ID# 27-A-53 Dennis V. & Elizabeth J. Bolduc Address 516 Deer Creek Road Winchester,. VA 29602 Property ID# P Y 26-2-1-52 Whitham Orchards, Inc. Address 446 Merriman's Lane Winchester, VA 22601 Property ID# 27-A-10 Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# TWRC079 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner X Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. MOBILE COMPANY 339 Parishville Road Gore, Virginia 22637 Shenandoah Mobile Co. TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR• USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: (540) 984-3003 TOP MOUNTED ROTATABLE PLATFORM 145' TYPI MONOPOLE KOC Lxtension 152' - — 150' Feedline Exit Port Hole CE 6'0 DISHES MONOPOI F (,FCTInN f)F4ZrPIDTInAI PUADT CONFIGURATION do SECTION ELEVATION PIPE MATERIAL SIZE 130'— - d I - A 10' - 145 18" O.D. x (FUTURE) 2790 2 - 8 a 30" O.D. x .375" WALL 5124 3 - C 120'--- p 42" O.D. x .375" WALL 7194 (OPTIONAL) 0' - 30' 54" O.D. x .375" WALL 110' I U z 0 N m � 0 z M J Q 0 70' M U TYPI MONOPOLE KOC Lxtension 152' - — 150' Feedline Exit Port Hole CE 6'0 DISHES MONOPOI F (,FCTInN f)F4ZrPIDTInAI PUADT CONFIGURATION do SECTION ELEVATION PIPE MATERIAL SIZE TYP. WEIGHT (LBS) PER SECTION I - A 10' - 145 18" O.D. x .375" WALL 2790 2 - 8 0' - 110' 30" O.D. x .375" WALL 5124 3 - C 30' - 70' 42" O.D. x .375" WALL 7194 4 - 0 0' - 30' 54" O.D. x .375" WALL 7270 ANTENNA INFr)PWATInKI ANTENNA TYPE ELEVATION (12) ALP 9212 PANELS W/ROTATABLE PLATFORM ® 150' (12) ALP 9212 PANELS W/SECTOR MOUNT PLATFOR ® 130- (2) MICROWAVE DISHES OPTIONAL ® 120' Hand Holes Main Feedline Port Holes 10.50 k. s <8r --p � 1056.49 ft -kips 20"0 Manway 33.37 kips 4 BASE REACTIONS GENERAL NOTES: 1.) All Splice Bolts Per A325. 2.) All Pipe Material Is (FY Z 42 ksi). All Plate Material Is ASTM A36 (FY Z 36 ksi). 3.) Standard Grounding Is Required. 4.) Climbing Ladder Is Provided. 5.) Some Detoil Is Omitted For Clarity Of Illustration. 6.) Using Spread Wrench: "Snug Tight" Nuts At Each Location With Full Effort. Then Turn An Additional 1/2 Turn To Achieve Proof Load. (!?) x_1/3"O x _72 " A449 Anchor Bolts Are Req'd. With _9 " Of Threod On Each End. This Structure Is Designed To Meet ANSI/EIA-222-F 1996 Std. For A Bosic Wind Speed Of 75 MPH With 1/2'. MARKING NOTES: 1.) Bose Section Is To Be Stomped @ The Base Plate. All Other Sections Are To Be Stamped At The Top. 2.) Section Labeling System Information Is Given In The Detailed Information Chart. The Labeling System Is To Be Used For Proper Identification Of All Sections And To Ensure Proper Installation. S A M P L E 0 Campiaw CENTRAL T®VII]ER .1®IN'r VENTURE co T� n5 SCIRADERAVF EVANSVIIZ MIANA 47712 - 912-452-177A REws[orrs -1-_9TITLE: do FABRICA11ON OVERVIEW -xxx-xxxxx �r4 ►- Aeronautical Study Number �0 79 Notice of -oposed Construction or Alteration U.S. Department of Transportation Failure To Provide Ait .. quested Information May Dela Processing Of Your r. ,rice Federal Aviation Administration y y . Nature of Pr000sai Type B. Class C. Work Schedule Dates New construction Permanent Beginning X2//,1 /, JAlteration * Temporary (Duration mon6 / 1 /ths) End _ If Alteration, provide previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number, if available : A. Name, address, and telephone number of individual, company corporation, etc. proposing the construction or alteration, (Number, Street, City, State, and Zip Code) Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 ( 540 i 984-3003 Area Code Telephone Number 3. Name, address and telephone number of proponent's representative, if different than 3A. above. 2. Complete Description of Structure Please describe the proposed construction or alteration. A. For proposals involving transmitting stations, include effective radiated power (ERP) and assigned frequency. If not known, give frequency band and maximum ERP. B. For proposals involving overhead wire, transmission lines, etc., include the size and the configuration of the wires and their supporting structures. C. For buildings, include site orientation, dimensions, and construction materials. D. Optional— Describe the type of obstruction marking and lighting system desired. The FAA will consider this in their study, Leonard L. Greisz c/o Shenandoah Mobile Company Exhibit 4 Post Office Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 ( 540 ) 984-3003 Area Code Telephone Number Location Of Structure 5. Height and Elevation (tonearestfoot) Coordinates (to k nd j dths of seconds, B. Nearest City or Town C. Nearest public or military airport, A. Elevation of ground above mean atitude 0 rr and State eli rt, fli h ark, r seaplane base 00 p�Viric�ies�er p sea level. 11,277 39 16 32.87 Winchester, VA Regional Exhibit 1 Drlgitude 0 r n (1). Distance to 4B (1). Distance from structure to nearest B. Height of structure including all 78 21 56.08 point of nearest runway appurtenances and lighting above D. Source for item 4A data. 12 Miles 13.006 nm ground or water. 1 00 USGS 7.5' Other ❑ ❑Specify118 (2). Direction to 48 i2). Direction from structure to airport C. Overall height above mean se+�evel Quad Chart Survey Degrees 127,73 Degrees 377 .e the reference datum. NAD 27XO NAD 83Other Specify 4E. Description of site location with respect to highways, street, airports, prominent terrain, features, existing structures, etc. Please attach a U.S. Geological Survey Map (or equivalent) showing the construction site. If available, attach a copy of a documented site survey with the surveyor's certification. ,rice is required by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R, Part 77) pursuant to Section 1101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U,S.C. app. § 1501). Persons who owingly and willfully violate the Notice requirements of Part 77 are subject to a civil penalty of 51,000 per day until the notice is received, pursuant to Section 901(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 58, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1471(a)) as well as the fine (criminal penalty) ofnot more than $500 for the first offense and not more than $2,000 for subsequent offenses, pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1472(a)). HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, 3ree to obstruction mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking & li hting standards as necessary. :e Typed or Printed Name and Title of Person Filing NoticeI Signature 12/10/97 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager, PCS DR FAA USE ONLY FAA will either return this _or issue a separate acknowledgement he PrOpQSaI Supplemental Notice of Cohstruction, FAA Form 7460-2 ss ie'qurredany'time the project Is abandoned or ° Does nof'rer�ulre a notice to FAA ' At least 48 hours before the stat of constri ion Is not Identified as an obstruction under any standard of FAR, Part 77 within lye days .after the construction reaches Its greatest eight. Subpart C and would not be a hazard to ark navigation. X + r T aThis determination expires on unless Is Identlried as n obstruction under the sial daids of FAR,`Part 77 la) extended,' revised o�:terminated by the Issusing office,'s a - «Subpart C, but would not be "a hazard to air navigat on. `:- (b) the construction is Subject to Ihe,pcensing authority of the Federal Communications Commisslpn (FCC) and an application ;�. { F for a construction permit is made to the FCC on or beforeihe above expl�aUori date In such cases �lre determination Should b obstruction marked lighted per FAA expires on the date piescnbedktiy the FICC for completion of construciton, or ori the date he FCC denies the application g p ` .NOTE Request for` extension of the effective perlod of this determination must bd postmarked or delivered toJ ie_16uing oflice `l Advisory Circular 70x/460 ,f Chapters I at least. l5 days of or'io the"eicoiration dale>_ - w>�a+d=GE.*4 _�5: .,..'s� >.r ....!':'iA•t'a s.•. iLJ w. '8�.:Y•rtrr�,.:._- ercwte-„ Aer) � L . a., ..r..-....+`cO coresod-,-"u e, w0{3 l+oY ped in a u Signature I Da A Form 7460-1 fs-a41 Suoersedes Pre-vious Ediiion NSN: 0052-00-012-0007 NOTE: NOT DRAWN Tr -'SCALE TWR079 - Little Timber Ridge Shenandoah Mobile Company OVERALL HEIGHT: 1,377 ft. AMSL Exhibit 1 GROUND ELEVATION: 1,277 ft. AMSL Little Timber Ridge, VA VERTICAL PLAN SKETCH OF PROPOSED ANTENNA AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY it ff MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SITE (� '� Exhibit 2 ,� TWR079 - Little Timber Ridge Shenandoah Mobile Company 12/97 ;', —77 henezer �i' Q�/ J , 199 - AIR AI .n' fr mo- o / J/ �i ' _ J _�'©• ,�. 1' - j, _ ICem _ � \�� / 11 � / )� r , •- I � • , I %\�z . ,j) / ,, , f I I cid / (, t OMNI)I////6 I �972 )I o/, }'_ �, ,- /034• I (� I (( SO _I I //62 0 ( LI 703 /':, ' < r - 20 ' { /- �•- /� —�J 1 „ d.. I t i r /'y \00 // � I . .1 1 Ily i J. '�• — �- - -- - - -I--•]I--- _- -i - ; -- --- /'L\ - BM962.7 i ---- -•- �.--�-/ - G �i I -• - - i---• o - --0 -- - , i _� 610 � - r , � ��•-, •� � / �'/ o� 1. (. c _J/. J � �\ o I�-�� l /�/ l i� c--' II - ' - '> ili 711\` ''-" ro) \�\ ,I II!J ISO -r � )•`t r � ` p''•II! � �� _ \ ,J, JI �,�� — � / %d \ �� \ 1 ( q� _�•_� ill`\\\ r,�� a00 ! i.'- \�/.. ( �� % 1 �_ -1 � /� �` -� �P/ y � i .\ \ G / I_ \ I"I lir � ._- •. �\ J. rf(%� Vv s Gor li eM7o �,re'' 4 Le- SCALEt 1:24000 1 Y L� 0 1 MILE I'i'ffI'_r°, /Ij \\�• it 1000 1( Ijl 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 .5 0 1.KILOMETER j i 1 f CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTI�CAAL� DATUM OF 1929 �1'1}- 07 / // 1 •�I'�-,�_ti -> / `i0a�l.�.j �iy,,ii. �'%/.'/�. �� .' ._� 1 i V Q/-�yrl' '' _ .\ `�{' O 122 �✓/�rf�s o J� ;� 1.` I L •D 1�1,=�, �'�)'--1 ( v •',-3A--�'1�' anee� �Vag1� �273 ( �i Com' pC � t- y.a.a i F[�D �/ t lfi�i, f r?•w) `_ / 318 438.' _ r. V 1526 �� L_r SBUR �_ G: %\l` htA° Lti59 4 JI� ! 1 55 �r -! :• f �� ) " x OMa<..%� 1 _Q �k_/ CII or S arc aP4 j /, or �! '"`� _... ..i ,, 4 � <.1 ;� � _.j.. r - .lr _,.-r y .. :' l'T - - �,: q, t, �` r•nn •.,/i � ! ' MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SITE"� _hibit 32�s4GEn�TC TWR07 - ele rvnbs _ 1017 c0��+`'' `uli`rerrs-�r;.y,, 1i _ d 9 - Little Timber Ridge (23 7) (� iJ=�3 �Yf1 Shenandoah Mobile Company 12/97 f .�C /r '"� `�✓ r `7.j F=.. •�� r S ��, Hedg ler. - _ �� -- I 4 . 78.` M„o ems- ...F ssvi I �rqq. ., 029 +- E ' a �1p See. NOTNlslDlrec '� r } T j r c ( - 1884 jj for Class D e4 hrs 1 1,=,1=� i Boor. r �d-iI: `� T i�(265 rt insou � 1 � C F 4269r SPr,I�'ra Cd a 2615 b8 21721 0-7 i6 _ z� o gxar sF 1 anePhe �sto n 4ct m co �a T �c , T �1 t ri c Fps 1_ �EJryai /` J34MJ rIR7 = f`9 810 1.939 E� R y�r vim: t 1r'(� n, 3'IN$2UP Zo r o ke 520 F s2. _ �. 2 SHEFHcRDt(1R8�� o -r dk ] '. t 71 Romne SRI>ss� F ) CT 124 s-� \. r-2675^ /� Y o ar Z. 70 72z9_\._ 1_2�1R .s' �' S:�G� p (l COc1i GUIJ ,li ER=. 10) r (ferri t YR�4NSoURG e 4drUC a® j. 5C �� A --•:�c 8�) - Ccoon ^�J�C y_ fir - F /112. IKC� 6�1RE _ j"r'e,� / - f"'_•' =-_ - II lF="URG 1 , 4c \/ r GG't s c - �/ r4 ' _1 -*'1+6a rY ore i 4 1, . a �� re,t S�v 1 ��te F ce CEO i f J (3�D)S. l,�; n.l _ lam" \•� r '� `� /J 1e pIs _ Z r ,1/ ✓ 1 -f' his / `F_� / r• �� \ - �• j j ♦�� 2ro0 A''V 4�' _ rn r _a f,��• /i / �,,.. x_ - �� Q -,o -/,- Cid / � � �.: 1.,wl�{� ,� !��- -tih'9 %% � , � Pur Ilville '`_ n�� x p h��> ■ 2$GQ r: L J r-.�t // 4]'\ \/ ,I is, i C.V �yoi / h f 2c ; t u Ont i P r� R r4, _�j J =;Isvi 2F• a �o ' �/1 P/rEbst_o C > LJ -P20- - Pv F✓ c 7 7940 k VS ��_-- //131 ' �" .30 a t F '-9 -` l , / �•ti�rl i, Cl% ��. a - = P !i 1 aoo�- , Q 2Zi�Q`:�� _1r� I j ■(r _� �>=. ,. TS -K 1a4 I i-"--,5 .,fir_. 9� cause ld�eoura '• —/ � / � _ ; -�'r` t �/ rook �o�/ �f t r -� I �"� !'�.�.\ `�� / � O' �� -- 4 � ��60 , - ej` / 4! F,Ja_._ •,`� .rTrC - -+-ee P= V r - D. - _ ' lfl _• A"� t 1 •� - Cr ti� �a 9 z7. Y; i r lr'i rpt Rj `}} ?� z A99+. 7r>5Woccslcck e c: 7� yj °.ORoYa .. y �l(MorTkham HgAciS FiJr 95T =CTeColumbnrFjync��CS`.- yK-�y g} .,FIJ c---il•=S�_6.1,c 3• 388 - 55 / 2g p 1370 R 3. C - LI ! E _- �I f.\ 11 ' Ch 9GtN_�t::��. PIoIY s f V _ U\ i!°v a it BujlL p RC It Mar oif'j �.��' cau se vz., -:y •si �E..�'t �,•'�. ' q I'., o�� [' r -27-5K RNt c •�JJ.- F ` -1810 "` !, it 'J entor YII et 1 y.e.. 12 1-�1335)I.'c 285 J. nie / /.t' ,1_ c y F ' I G,' 1� �: o Clc' D1E (srq e hr� �V28gi / klelleLLG 7 T.+ -,1 _ �.. 4 •s' % .P. r. ' (c r)o7v ?/Y I •4, i• amshcfon,2nE•0��^ 201 �n 20 30 % Ij to o NaurlcaU rnlvU; 110 30. 101 j I I 0 STATUTE MILES I10 20 �� 30 �0 50 160 10 I 1 10 KIVDMETERs 110 120 / 70 _ (P r 3C_ i r •+—� -fix= z -�� 238 a Q� -- sperrytirlle. ° 395 r 7' J122.111 e - .-.1 %■ t" �/f298 LLuray s ._ 1 e2 1 R ri e U r(`l.'(s'jr _ 3cQ 25 s._._.._- 3Ddr� t 8) 1 1200 C r C NO.V4 \-l��j1---YnnnR • _� y'FI- W c- .. 12607- 57�73 • � .. a� L r .,.ti27l � 1300 �y 11.6.3�Ch�;1:,10 CSNy_: \ `u 7 595 L% +<£r• "Vc126"+ `€ 3t `T Woodvll _ L pBURG r - o u 12a .i 4 F ✓ c 7 `�I t CUL°E°EF Rti (D - eton rl �C r� �o ' • •,� � TWR079 - Little Timber Ridge VA Exhibit 4 Shenandoah Mobile Company Item 2.A (FAA Form 7460-I): The structure will be a 100 steel monopole initially equipped for operation of a wireless comrnumcations services system operating in the frequency band of 825 - 845 or 865 - 895 at a max ERP of 100 watts. See Exhibit 1 for pertinent structure and topographic measurements. Item 2.1) (FAA Form 7460-1): Because the height of this structure is less than 200 feet, we do not plan to mark it. If the FAA requires that it must be marked, we would prefer to use a dual lighting system with red lights for night time and medium intensity flashing white lights for day time and twilight use. SHENANDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS P.O. Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0459 (540) 984-4141 December 16, 1997 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy: Please find attached additional information which Shenandoah Mobile Company is submitting in support of the five conditional use permit applications recently filed by Shenandoah Mobile Company and pending with Frederick County. Listed below by site number are descriptions of the type of installation we propose to install at each location: (1) TWR078 Hunting Ridge (Self Supporting Lattice -type) — We propose to build a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons: A. This site is outside the Urban Development Zone; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary; C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. �(2) TWR079 Little Timber Ridge (Monopole) — A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. (3) TWR084 Bowling Green Ridge (Monopole) -- A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. (4) TWR167 Parkins Mills (Self Supporting Lattice -type) - We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site because: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; SHENANDOAH TELEPHONE COMPANY • SHENTEL SERVICE COMPANY • SHENANDOAH CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY SHENANDOAH LONG DISTANCE COMPANY SHENANDOAH VALLEY LEASING COMPANY SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY SHENANDOAH NETWORK COMPANY WE MUST SERVE WELL TO PROSPER • WE MUST PROSPER TO SERVE WELL Mr. Michael T. Ruddy December 16, 1997 Page 2 C. The proposed design is consistent with another structure viewable from the same area; and D. Monopoles of this size are not cost advantageous. (5) TWR180 Sherando (Self Supporting Lattice -type) - We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary; C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. We appreciate your continued assistance and cooperation as we proceed through the conditional use permit process. Sincerely yours, Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager (PCS) Shenandoah Mobile Company LLG/lsh Enclosures ATTACHMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR ,.`�� COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNCATIONS FACILITI -1,15 Submitted by Shenandoah Mobile Company Tower No. TVWR079 C? -„V o�y� Little Timber Ridge Property Owned by Norman Robert Anderson & Pansy M Anderson In accordance with Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Section 165.48.6, Subsections A (1) through A (4), the following information is attached: (1) Attachment 1 — A topographic map depicting the search area. (2) Attachment 2 — Identification of other service providers or commercial telecommunications facilities within the proposed service area. (3) Attachment 3 — Compliance with ANSUIEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation. (4) Attachment 4 - Statement of procedure for tower and equipment removal. Shenandoah Mobile Company a_ v % TWR079� r / Conditional Use Application + 1 enezer t l i _ / AfRFIE��G' -TIMBER r 1 I/ ' . - _ -✓� 1Q5 /J J + 137 i 972 -- - 0,P� b - / �- _ 1162l _ - �• -.'� � '\ice ti��G �ii� _ ,r �,x �� I �A -- � �' �� y. °� � ,/% li - _ %�. /h •mac ��t,� —� �'.��•.._.-�- �v..- y � \�'V�� :_ em I �eMAl �. rr �i i/ o if 704 1 G . • - V - SCG I \ ti\ i �� ATTACHMENT 2 Shenandoah Mobile Company T WR079 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The comparable FCC license holders operating in the search area of the prospective site are... Cellular A -- Cellular One B -- Shenandoah Cellular PCS A -- American Personal Communications (Sprint Spectrum) B -- AT&T Wireless PCS C -- CFW Communications (Virginia PCS Alliance) D & E -- Shenandoah Mobile Company F -- Devon Mobile Communications There are no commercial telecommunications facilities within the search area of the prospective site. ATTACHMENT 4- 3 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR079 Conditional Use Application COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNCIATIONS COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED ANSI/IEEE STANDARDS FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD LEVELS AND RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION As set forth in OEI'Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997, entitled Evaluating Compliance with FVC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, states on Page 14: "Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground -level exposure in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposure from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for broadband PCS. These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically `worst case' site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands times below the new MPE limits." (Emphasis added.) (A copy of excerpt from OET Bulletin 65 is being submitted with this package.) The antenna installation planned under this Conditional Use Permit will be at a height in excess of twenty (20) meters. Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Duman Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 OET BULLETIN 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 The first edition of this bulletin was issued as OST Bulletin No. 65 in October 1985. This is a revised version of that original bulletin. NOTE. Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement by the Federal Communications Commission or by the authors. 2.1091 and 2.1093 (for portable and mobile devices). This requirement applies to some, but not necessarily all, transmitters, facilities or operations that are authorized under the following parts of our rules: 5, 15, 21 (Subpart K), 22 (Subpart E), 22 (Subpart H), 24, 25, 26, 27, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I; and L), 80 (ship earth stations), 90 (paging operations and Specialized Mobile Radio), 97 and 101 (Subpart L). Within a specific service category, conditions are listed in Table 2 of Appendix A to determine which transmitters will be subject to routine evaluation. These conditions are generally based on one or more of the following variables: (1) operating power, (2) location, (3) height above ground of the antenna and characteristics of the antenna or mode of transmission. In the case of Part 15 devices, only devices that transmit on millimeter wave frequencies and unlicensed Personal Communications Service (PCS) devices are covered, as noted in rule parts 2.1091 and 2.1093 (see section on mobile and portable devices of Appendix A). Transmitters and facilities not included in the specified categories are excluded from routine evaluation for RF exposure. We believe that such transmitting facilities generally pose little or no risk for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. However, as noted above, in exceptional cases the Commission may, on its own merit or as the result of a petition, require environmental evaluation of transmitters or facilities even though they are otherwise excluded from routine evaluation. Also, at multiple -transmitter sites applications for non -excluded transmitters should consider significant contributions of other co -located transmitters (see discussion of multiple -transmitter evaluation in Section 2). If a transmitter operates using relatively high power, and there is a possibility that workers or the public could have access to the transmitter site, such as at a rooftop site, then routine evaluation is justified. In Table 2 of Appendix A, an attempt was made to identify situations in the various services where such conditions could prevail. In general, at rooftop transmitting sites evaluation will be required if power levels are above the values indicated in Table 2 of Appendix A. These power levels were chosen based on generally "worst-case" assumptions where the most stringent uncontrolled/general population MPE limit might be exceeded within several meters of transmitting antennas at these power levels. In the case of paging antennas, the likelihood that duty factors, although high, would not normally be expected to be 100% was also considered. Of course, if procedures are in place at a site to limit accessibility or otherwise control exposure so that the safety guidelines are met, then the site is in compliance and no further environmental processing is necessary under our rules. Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground - level exposures in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposures from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for 14 broadband PCS.13 These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically "worst case" site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. A t such power er levels a height of 10 �rneters above ground is not an uru"easot�abie distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands of times below the new MPE limits_ In view of the expected proliferation of these towers in the future and possible use of multiple channels and power levels at these installations, and to ensure that tower installations are properly evaluated when appropriate, we have instituted these new requirements for this limited category of tower -mounted antennas in these services. For consistency we have instituted similar requirements for several other services that could use relatively high power levels with antennas mounted on towers lower than 10 meters above ground. Paging systems operated under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 of our rules previously have been categorically exempted from routine RF evaluation requirements. However, the potential exists that the new, more restrictive limits may be exceeded in accessible areas by relatively high-powered paging transmitters with rooftop antennas.14 These transmitters may operate with high duty factors in densely populated urban environments. The record and our own data indicate the need for ensuring appropriate evaluation of such facilities, especially at multiple transmitter sites. Accordingly, paging stations authorized under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure if an antenna is located on a rooftop and if its ERP exceeds 1000 watts. Mobile and Portable Devices As noted in Appendix A, mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services (PCS), the General Wireless Communications Service, the Wireless Communication Service, the Satellite Communications services, the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) and Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized, respectively, under Part 22 (Subpart H), Part 24, Part 25, Part 26, Part 27, Part 80, and Part 90 of the FCC's Rules are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. Unlicensed PCS, NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. All other mobile, portable, and unlicensed transmitting devices are normally categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure (see Section 2 and Appendix A for further details). " For broadband PCS, 2000 W is used as a threshold, instead of 1000 W, since at these operating frequencies the exposure criteria are less restrictive by about a factor of two. '" For example, under Part 90, paging operations in the 929-930 MHz band may operate with power levels as high as 3500 W ERP. 15 ATTACHMENT X 4 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR079 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL REMOVAL OF ABANDONED COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The Conditional Use Permit application process (ordinance) in Frederick County for Commercial Telecommunications Facilities requires that the applicant provide "information delineating procedures for guaranteeing the removal of the commercial telecommunications facility within one year of abandonment of operation." Having worked with the Planning Commission in the development of the ordinance it is our understanding that the intent of this section (§ 165-48.6. A. (4)) is threefold, (i) "not" to burden the applicant with a requirement to post a bond, (ii) not to leave the landowner "holding the bag" with an abandoned site, unless, or course, that was the agreement with the landowner, and (iii) to ensure the tower itself is removed, not necessarily the foundation. In the spirit of complying with this requirement, Shentel considered several possibilities, including the purchase of a removal bond, entering into an irrevocable letter of credit to ensure removal, and the establishment of a self-funded sinking fund. Each possibility was rejected either because of cost, or because it restricted the use of critical working capital. Shentel is a locally established, successfully operating telecommunications company that has been doing business in the Shenandoah Valley continuously since 1902. It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose. Shentel stands behind that practice. Most recently Shentel decommissioned a cable TV tower in Shenandoah County and arranged to remove it along with our equipment. The landowner, however, asked us to leave the tower in place so he could use it for amateur radio purposes. We readily complied with his request, removing all of our equipment and cabling from the structure and the surrounding grounds, turning the site over to the landowner as requested. All of our site lease agreements contain a provision allowing us to remove our communications tower and all related equipment upon the termination of the rental period. w� pwrwR ""uwR NUI" M (moll -4m w" mw lin M I'.2OD0' FROM THE ERSEcmN OF INTERSTATE 61 AND ROUTE 37 AT Elul 310, PRoaro NORTH ON ROTE 37 APPRDawTELY u Mon TO DE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 37 AND ROUTE 50. PROCEED „ESR ON ROUTE 50 FOR APPROXIMATELY 12-1 MMES To THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 50 AND ROUTE 610. PROCEED SOUTH ON ROUTE 610 FOR APPR01ow111r 036 MILES To 1K TOWER SITE ON THE LEFT. 1�PROP� AREA AND ACCESS AND 07CM EASEMENT ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY DESCARTED AS FREDERICK COUNTY LAIN PARCEL 27-A a AND CURRENTLY OWED BY NORMAL ROBERT ANO PANSY M ANDERSON. 2. SITE PIAN MS PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY BRYAN t COlf1WL PMC FIE/ 32457 1 THIS PROPERTY 6 SUBJECT TO ALL RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS. OR ROITS OF MY OF RECORD PRIM TO THE DATE OF INS PLAT. .. THE UNADJUSTED RATIO OF PRECSON FOR THIS SURVEY DOIE£EOS cIODDO. S ELEV11ON6 ARE BASED ON USC/CS TADON 7STEPHE7S' EILH.. 76135', NOVO 29 & BENCH MARK 6 A RAILROAD SPKE N A POOR POLE, ELEY, .1267.49' 7. DOSS D PROPERTY CML496 APPNDRUAAInT 120.472 ACRES. S 2ON.D DATA: CURRENT ZOfK. RML AREA RA PROPOSED USE SELF-SUPPORTW COMMUNICATIONS TOWER SAM WOW INTENSITY WHITE Off UHT AND RED NOR UHT (F REDIARED OF THE FAA) PADP�D 10" HE1RT: 100' RDU REDSEISIM FROWWT -125• FROM ROAD RK]R-OF-,3WY SIDE - Imo' REAR _ Imo• A OWNER NORMAN ROBERT AND PANSY M ANDERSON 339 PARRSWIL E ROD CORE. VIRGIN 22637 A 10. APPU ANT: SH MOBLE COMPANY IN SOUTH MAN STREET PA BOX 459 EDNMAr. 'A 22624-0459 (540) 954-4141 11. POWER COMPANY: SEE0EW POWER P, 0. BOX 3200 WINCHESTER. M 22804 WO) 554-3317 12. TELEPHONE COMPANY: BELE ATLANTIC 2960 N, FAIRVIEW PARR DRAB FN3S CHURCH. M 22046 (540) 954-6262 1I INS SITE DOES NOT II WITHIN A H -UQ OESCNATED 100 YEAR FLOOD MW - 14. TWO 27 VALUES FOR PION= TOWER /1: LATITUDE 3VI6'11.00" LOMCRILIE 7821'SQ71' 11 MIO 27 MLLES FOR PROPOSED TOWER a LATITUDE 39'16'3251- LOMMM 782117.06' 16, APPIDIL TOWER BASE El"127&0 17_ THIS S PREPRESENTS THE Si7RYEY OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND ACCESS EASEMENTS THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY ANDERSON t ASSOCATES, 777! MAN T, MOOLETOW FA• MS. ON 5 SEPT- 1997 AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE ANDERSON PROPERTY. OWNER'S CEAIFCATE: THE LEASE AEA AND fiISOLNfs AS SHOWN M OPTIONt/ OPnONR O' T16 IDT, 6 WITH THE FREE CON6EKf ALIO N ACCOADAMDE NTH TIE OESNES OF THE UDER9G/1ED OnMERS. PROPRIETORS OR TRSTEM THIS 6 N A IEMENT WRH EATER OPTION i OR OPTION L WDRWW R. ANDERSON DATE-' PANSY W. ANDERSON RTFI Kia gm?fElEEK& To WR, lA MOON,' PL6UC N AND FOR THE SANE AND COL,Ntt AFORESAID OD HERFD'Y CERIFY THAT MOiMW ROBERT ANDERSON WHOSE NAME 6 SIGNED 10 THE FOREGOING WR,ID. BEARFD DATE OF 19_ HAS PE WIA LT APPEARED WORE LE NO ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME OUDH IN" w MAO NO SEAL ON THIS _ DAY OF . 19_ NOTARY PUBLIC w COMMISSION DFIRES CONIC. MON. MIM'." BRASS EAP FND \ \ \ \ \ TAXP�ARCELi7-A-8 pANr S �a \ 0s us PO. zee \ ��r.� \ \ Po.ER POLE \ \ TRANSMISSION TOWER \ \ 1 NORMAN ROBERT ANDERSON 1 MIs' 1 PANSYIt ami-A�-6 \ \TAX \ \ \ \ i`— 1 1 R� 700 \ \ \ \ 1 USE: AGRICULTURAL \ \ 1 PROPOSED LEASi7WEA coNc WITH \ \ o \ 1 wac ETON WRH 1 900 S0. FT. OR 0.112 ACRES Q NON ROOS To BE SET AT APPROPRIATE \ BRASS CAP \ \ Tc \ SSS CAP FNO 1 IAT CORNERS ONCE FIN1L TOWER OPTION 6 CHOSEN S 51-X57" w 1 N 5150iY w \ \ 7o Do \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '�Iy \ \ \ \ \ 300 MONOPOl \ ELL" ■ (TOWER NO. 1) T12 -W oUTILITY BACKBOARD7n me I 19 POWER Q \N ^ z \ I I I I DILRY N P505 ------- \ \ \ \ I I 1 I I 1W MONOPOLE ^I rYlj 1120 (TOWER NO. 2) I M I POWER POLE \ \ \ LXY' \ \ •DFP DALE — \ \ -"'K \ .4� \ lY ASPHN,i TO so \ \ \ \ \ mtq; \ TE7ELEPFLDAE PEO. PURER POLE POWER POLE � N 1 R� \ \ POWER POLE \ \ NORMAN ROBERT ANDERSON \ \ PANSY M. ANDERSON \ \ TAX PARCEL 27-A-8 DR 417 \ \ 700 ZONED: R� \ \ USE: AGR LPLTIIRAL \ TRANSMISSION UE TOWER \ \ \ m OF VIRGINIA gALTH Oy,`' T WR: O L A NOTARY R�JC N AND FOR THE STATE AND ?? p Co—L. AFORESAO 00 L 01EBY CERLFY THAT PNET M ANDERSON WHOSE (g 20121 L L111WI'S 1 > NAME 6 SOWED TO OE FOECOW WRMD, BEARING DATE OF 19_ HAS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAE. MA 23M7 GA" ODER w HAND AND SEAL ON THIS _ DAY OF , 19. NOTARY PUBLIC w COMMISSION EXPIRES MAL >ojOA 79C1 1971112.1246 I ELP/R8C NOTE: PROPERTY OWNER PREFERS OPTION I TO auSIER SITE WITH DOSING POWER SUB -STATION. WIUK -------------------------I- I II C,FSNTAKE & POMAC TO s TELEPHONE CD~ Ar R BURIED C CABLEBLE DD.& FO554 PG 391 — — --POKR ROLE N " E 507.05' NUMBER OWCTON DISTANCE —NORTHERN VIRGINIA POWER COMPANY EASEMENT OF UNSPECFED Wont 08 174 PG 373 U S 40.12'41" E 49.96' L2 N 51,0717" E 13852' L3 S 3833'06' E 56.15 L4 N 51-orir E 114.80' L5 S 3833U E 8431' NUMBER DELTA CHC. BIG. RADIUS ' ARC ' CHORD ' Cl 15T46'31- N6054'03— E 50.00 137,66 98.13 C2 6•06'3D" N 16.34.03- E 50M 6031 56.72 C3 9019'37' S 83'42'54" E SONO 78.83 7091 CA 9019'37" S 63'42'54" E 50.00 7aM 7091 TELEPHONE N kX\ En*"m "L DAspu E As " `SND'°"97 A PORTION OF ANDERSON PROPERTDOCUMENT NO. Y 14,325-004 AND SErwym ',°'VA DES194ED RBC/ELP TO BE ED BY LWICK CREEK In1AGiSTERfAL SHEET ASSOCIATES, Inc. Pkwwwm TH-Clim TIE CHECKED: GCP SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY(PNR79—LrrrLE TIMBER RIDGE) FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA 1 rF 2 NWMIN Pi OPENY I#EflEN161( CO(W 'A ((wUro-u(LE AM wocq T�Tr NAP ' T'-2Oo0' NRW THE NIERSECIOH OF ROUTE 81 AND ROUTE 37 AT EXIT 31a PROCEED Nose, ON ROUTE 37 FOR APPRO,w11ELr 53 MILES TO THE Nm6Ecm, OF PAM 37 AND ROUTE S0. PROCEED WEST ON AWE 50 FOR APPR03MVTELY 12.1 MMES TO THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 50 AND ROUTE 610. PROCEED SOUTH ON ROUTE 610 FOR APPAMO ATELY 0-M MILES TO THE TONER SITE ON THE UST. 1. THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY OLSQMTED AS FREDQ6CK COUNTY TAX PARCEL 27-A 0. AND CURRENR7 OWNED BY NORMAN ROBERT AND PALSY M. ANDERSON. 2. SITE PUN MS PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT PREPARED 6f WIAN Z COLEMAN, PA_C. FAIT 32457 3 THIS PROPERTY 6 SUBJECT TO ALL RESTRICTIONS. EASEMENTS. OR AIWIS OF WWr OF RECORD PRO TO THE WE OF THS PIAT. 4. THE UNADAISTED RATIO OF PRE[6IDN FOR THIS SURVEY EXCEEDS IAODD0. S. ELEWJIOM6 ARE BASED ON USC SDUION NT041W MY.. 761-W. NGVD 29 & BEMDI WPM A RAILROAD SPARE N A PONOR POLE, ELEV .1267.49• 7. EX6 M PROPERTY COW" APPROXIMATELY 120.472 ACRES & ZONING DAnE CURRENT ZGWLc RURAL AREA AA PROPOSED USE: SELF-SUPPORTND COI.WAWfAIONS TOMER WITH MEDIUM NIESITY WHITE LIGHTDAY LIGHT AND RED NIGHT LIGHT (IF RERED BY THE FAA) PROPOSED TDWIR IEIDR: 100• REOUIR D SETBAM FRONT - 12Y FROM ROAD RXRIT-OF-WIv SIDE -165• REAR - Io• A OWNER: NORMAN ROBERT AND PANSY M. ANDERSON 339 PAMSI+ALLE ROAD CORE VIACOM 22637 10. APPLICANT: SHEINDOAN MOBILE COMPANY 124 SOUTH MAN STREET P.O. BOX 459 CNAOAr, M 27624-0459 (54D) 964-4141 11. PON" CD~.. AUEDEM' POWER P. 0. BON 3200 WINCHESTER, MR 22604 (100) 634-3517 12. TELEPHONE COIWWA`. BELL ATLANTIC 2910 H FARVEW PARI( ERRE FALLS CHINQ4 MR 22046 (SAM 954 -SM 13, RS SHE DOES NOT LE WITHIN A HDA OESOW7E0 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE. 14. NAD 27 VALUES MR PROPOSED TOMER IT: LATITUDE 39.16'3300- 15. NAD 27 WILUES FOR PROPOSED TONER LD LATITUDE 7102.5.7,• rx wIR,DE 3v,1r32s,• LOMDTUDE 7ff21'57.W 16_ APPROR TOWER BASE ELEY_ . 12780 FT. HS 1 7. TPLAT REPRESENTS THE SUNNY OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND ACCESS EASEMENT& THIS SURAY WS CONDUCTED BY ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, 770 MAN ST- MMIOLETOWN. W. 22645, ON 5 SEPT, 1997 AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE ANDERSON PROPERTY. COMM CERTIFICATE - THE LEASE AREA AND FASDI M15 AS SON N OPIONI/ WnOH2 OF THS PLOT, 6 WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND N ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNpOWMED OWIERS PROPRIETORS OR TRUSTEES THIS 6 N AGREEMENT WON EITHER OPTION 1 OR OPTION 2. MOM" R. ANDERSON AWL' PANSY M. ANDERSON TAif T 0 vTO or. L A NOTARY PUBLIC N AND FOR THE STATE AND COWRY AEORESAD 00 HEREBY CERTWY THAT IORMIM ROBERT ANDERSON WHOSE WALE 6 S1GED W THE FOREOOND WINTNG. BFARNIC DIE OF 19. HAS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ApDEORLDGED THE SAME GLEN IN" MY HAND AND SEAL ON THS - Off OF . 19- MOTARY PLIC MY COMMISSION ETTPI ES gyviRn QIM TO ENT: L A NOTARY PUBLIC N AND FGR nil STATE AND lX1UNn' AFORESAID 00 FERREBY CERIWY THAT PANSY Y. ANDERSON WHOSE NAME 6 SMGED TO THE FOREGOWD WWITIK BEING DUE OF 19_ WAS PERSONALLY APPEARED SUM ME AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME CNUM UNDER Mr HAND LLD SIAL ON THS _ DRY OF . 19- NDuar PUBLIC MY COMMISSION DwRES R79\79C2 971111-2038 1 ELP/RBC 10 1 )) 9 2 8 e`O �� PROJECT ��j SITE 3 6 5 4 PROPERTY OWNER LIST LISF- RESK)ENTNL D.B. 435 PG. 228 I 1) emu Y. SLONMKER 5) NATIONAL FRUIT PRODUCTS 9) WESLEY C MALCOM TAX PARCEL 27-A-6 TAX PARCEL 27-A-55 TAX PARCEL 27 -A -7C DS 639 PG. 372 D.B /PC -UNKNOWN D.B. 671 PG, 521 USE: RESIDENTIALUSr-ORCHARD USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: RA ZONED: RA ZONED: RA 2) JOAN MM LUEBEHOSEN 6) DALE SWAN JR. 10) DONALD L SLONAKER TAX PARCEL 27-A-5 TAX PARCEL 27-A-9 TAX PARCEL 27 -A -6A DAL 481 PC, 462 D -B. 528 PC, 842 D.B. 448 PC. 701 USE: A(R2ICUUURAL MSE: RESIDENTIAL USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: RA ZONED: RA ZONED: RA 3) EATNEI Y. PUGH 7) WULSNIAL S. RICH TAX PARCEL 27-A-53 TAX PARCEL 17-A-52 11) POTOMAC EDLSON COMPANY D.B. 86 PC, 551 D.B. 406 PO. 106 TAX PARCEL 27 -A -8A �. srr rosrs •.o vNcw..�rzTM .�: rno.o. wsocc c [ a rosrs_ z. snit ...[ rrixaxc ro >rc rocs G FLOI \ USE: AGRICULTURAL LISF- RESK)ENTNL D.B. 435 PG. 228 I ZONED: RA ZONED: RA LSE: CORE SLS -STATION ICON_ MoN WITH a •nom TMc R1FA F.erac ro 11rt «ac .. scKlxt ..v couwcr TMc \ 4) HAT04AL FRUIT PROOUCTS TAX PARCEL 27 -A -I1^, \ � DRQ - S41 \ y,, OSE: ORCHARD \ . ZONED- RA 8) DAVID ANDREW 1LALN ZONED: RA TAX PARCEL 27-A-7 D.B. 671 PC 522 MSE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: RA \1 opo •xo 01t.o rt .no nc nrHa. «c v, co say i MA'C EOMSON c01PAAlr \ TAX PARCEL 17 -A -6A \ OA 435 PC 226 (CORE SUB-sTA1XN) \ \ \ \ \ \\\ IDD* MONOPOLE ,) a \ \ POWER POLL \v I I ns' i 1 I I I 1 I I� 1 ICON_ MoN WITH I BRASS CAP no 0 I % LEASE I 1 1 900 so- ori ITR _-s I i- -d I M F. .� ..� rrto n4 TAE)gl -J t� � II � II R1FA f.Bf.0 FLOC boho� NO EENCE NORMAN ROOM ANDERSON PANSY M. ANDERSON TAX wwCEI. 27-A-6 RUTS D.B. 417 PG 700 gg BweED WITH i -- 2, �oPTON , alXDWO % PENCE WITH bom WIRE OvroM 2 _-_ 12�o \ BAS[ BOANO I I III MONO it I \ I I IA UTtn1• , BACKBOARD \\ 1 1 1 1 \ PROPOSED I inI UN` R" ----- _ ZE- - \ \ 6ALTH 0j \ $ sm l CU611M6 I > \ No 23657 MAL �A �VMQtMAPoc . RAA70AL SPINE N POWER POLE ELEV.. 1267.49' POWER POLL A NOTE PROPERTY OWNER PREFERS OPTION I TO CLUSTER SITE WITH EA6UW0 POWER SUB-SUTIOR All ='IFAN 7-1-0 APPROVED BY THE ZONING DESIGNER ADMINISTRATOR ANDERSON 6 ASSOCIATES 7722 MAIN STREET ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MIDDLETOWN. VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 DATE �2m am 30 15 0 30 60 90 SCALE 1' - 30' - ANDEIM 0/,00 Obdebwg. 'A DATE : t t Nov 97 RE: ""11"'x- OMW11 4 SCALE AS SHOWN 119 NM 97 I A PORTION OF PROPERTY I BACK CREEK NWIrNih76G.MAL. Y6JIRIC r �ASSOCIATESW Inc. s T►s cases. TIN C° D SHENANDQNi IAAOBILE DESGJ CAMPS E�79 LITTLE TIMBER RIDGf� FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA OF ET 2 DIRECTIONDISTANCE 0 S 4012'41" E 4996' L2 N 51*0 11 E 136.52 L3 S % E 56.15 U M 51'0 i E 114.60' UNIMAK ROBERT ANDERSON L5 S 3IT35 E 64.-1 PANSY M. ANDERSON URI PARCEL 77-A-6 MAN" DELTA CID. BRM. RALx RS ARC CHORD OR 417 Pr, 700 Cl I5T46'31- N 60.54.03• C 50.00 137.66 191&13 ZONED: W C2 W106,30r, N 16'34W E 50.00 60.-1 56.72 LSE: AGRICULTURAL C3 90193 S 6T4254- E 50.00 76.63 7091 G 90'19'3 S 6J42'54" E 50.00 76.E 7091 7-1-0 APPROVED BY THE ZONING DESIGNER ADMINISTRATOR ANDERSON 6 ASSOCIATES 7722 MAIN STREET ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MIDDLETOWN. VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 DATE �2m am 30 15 0 30 60 90 SCALE 1' - 30' - ANDEIM 0/,00 Obdebwg. 'A DATE : t t Nov 97 RE: ""11"'x- OMW11 4 SCALE AS SHOWN 119 NM 97 I A PORTION OF PROPERTY I BACK CREEK NWIrNih76G.MAL. Y6JIRIC r �ASSOCIATESW Inc. s T►s cases. TIN C° D SHENANDQNi IAAOBILE DESGJ CAMPS E�79 LITTLE TIMBER RIDGf� FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA OF ET 2 PC REVIEW: 01/07/98 BOS REVIEW. 01/28/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #022-97 SHENANDOAH MOBILE CO. Commercial Telecommunications Facility Hunting Ridge Site LOCATION: This property is located on Turtle Meadow Drive approximately 0.5 miles past the intersection with Route 616. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 51-A-67 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential, agricultural, and vacant PROPOSED USE: 350 -foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections Department: Structure shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, Use Group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996. Please submit Virginia A/E sealed plans at the time of permit application. Fire Marshal: Post temporary street address signage during construction. Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposed facilities. Shenandoah Mobile Co., CUP #022-97 Hunting Ridge Site Page 2 December 30, 1997 Winchester Regional Airport: See attached letter from Douglas P. Strand, Executive Director, dated December 16, 1997. Planning and Zoning: Ordinance Background: Frederick County adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in April 1997 that allows commercial telecommunication facilities with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This amendment specified that telecommunication facility CUPS could be approved provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted. Additional performance standards are also applicable to the CUP review. Ordinance Conformance: The proposed facility will be constructed on property located of Turtle Drive which is west of Route 616, on the Guthridge property. The Zoning Ordinance requires that towers of 350 feet in height (as is proposed) be placed a minimum of 365 feet from adjoining residential or vacant properties, and 375 feet from any road right- of-way. The proposed tower location will comply with the setback requirements for the proposed telecommunication facility. The applicant has provided a map depicting the site selection search area. Eight comparable FCC license holders operating within this search area have been identified; none have constructed telecommunication facilities and begun providing services. In the interest of protecting the county's viewshed, it is encouraged that all telecommunication facilities are constructed in a manner that is conducive for co -locating with other comparable service providers. CUP's should not be granted until attempts to co -locate have been exhausted. The applicant has identified other comparable FCC license holders in the area that will be seeking telecommunication facilities in the near future and, without allowing for co -location, the County may encounter a significant increase in telecommunication facilities in the viewshed. As there are no comparable facilities in existence within the search area, it is acceptable that this facility could be permitted with the understanding that other comparable service providers be allowed to co -locate on the tower. In order to alleviate the future abandonment of telecommunication facilities, the ordinance requires that procedures for guaranteeing the removal of such towers be established during the CUP process. The applicant has researched possible methods to guarantee the facility's removal. The applicant proposes that the County not require a monetary guarantee, but accept Shentel's (Shenandoah Mobile Company) business practice as a guarantee. The applicant, Shentel, states "It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose." The Zoning Ordinance requires that a guarantee be provided for removal of facilities; therefore, this needs to be resolved prior to this Shenandoah Mobile Co., CUP #022-97 Hunting Ridge Site Page 3 December 30, 1997 application's review before the Board of Supervisors. The structure will be a 350 -foot, three -sided, self-supporting galvanized steel tower initially equipped for operation of a personal communication system. The tower will be provided with a dual lighting system which provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use. The Zoning Ordinance requires that these lights be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties. At this time, the proposed accessory structures are not visible from adjoining properties, roads or other rights-of-way. Therefore, landscaping and screening of any accessory structures will not be required. Request for Construction -Type Waiver: Monopole -type construction is required for all new telecommunication towers. The Planning Commission may allow lattice -type construction for towers located outside the UDA and not adjacent to identified historic sites. An identified Rural Landmark, 34-913, the Paul A. Sweeney Barn, is in the vicinity of this site. However, it is staff's belief that the impact to this site is limited. This site would potentially qualify for the lattice -type tower. The applicant proposes to construct a self-supporting lattice -type tower, requiring the Planning Commission's approval. The applicant has stated that the height of the tower, in addition to their interest in constructing a tower that is readily modifiable for subleasing, would be best accomplished with a lattice -type structure. It is the applicant's contention that the height of the proposed tower would make a monopole -type construction cost - prohibitive. Staff Recommendation for January 7, 1998: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable rates. 3. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of tower abandonment. 4. A minor site plan is approved by the County. O: \AGENDAS\COM MENTS\HNTNGRDG.CU P WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA December 16, 1997 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office Box 280 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (703) 662-2422 Re: Request for Conditional Use Permit Comments Installation of Commercial Telecommunications Facilities TWR167 - Smith Property TWR78 - Guthridge Property TWR79 - Anderson Property TWR84 - Poole Property TWR180 - Ritter Property Dear Mr. Greisz: Based on review of the above referenced projects by our engineering firm, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority does not anticipate that the above towers will penetrate FAR Part 77 Surfaces that will impact operations at Winchester Regional Airport. Final comment on these request will be contingent on receiving favorable responses from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation on the FAA Form 7460-1 submittals. I would like to request that a copy of each response from FAA be forwarded to this office as soon as you receive it. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office (540) 662-5786. I appreciate your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, 0� Douglas P. Strand Executive Director CUP #022-97 PIN: 51-A-07 Shenandoah Mobile Co. All parcels in this area Hunting Ridge Site are zoned RA (Rural Area) TWRC078 Hunting Ridge Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I i FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA C(( P #0z2_?q 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner x other) NAME: Shenandoah Mobile Company ADDRESS: Post Office Box 280 - 212 Piccadilly Street, Edinburg, VA 22824 TELEPHONE (540 ) 984-3003 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Thomas C. Guthridge and Nina Miceli Guthridge, husband and wife 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) At intersection of Rts. 50 and 37, proceed west on Route 50 approximately 2.8 miles to intersection with Route 608, go west on Rt. 608 approximately 0.3 miles to its intersection with Route 616. Go west on Rt. 616 approximately 1.1 miles-- to i esto Turtle Meadow Drive, proceed 0.5 miles on Turtle Meadow Drive to tower site. 4. The property has a road frontage of 19161.74 feet and a depth of ±2,000 feet and consists of 108:908 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Thomas C. and Nina M. Guthridge as evidenced by deed from John G. Kaknis, et ux, recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 823 on page 1456 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 51-A-67 Magisterial District Back Creek Magisterial District Current Zoning Rura T Area 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North RA n ri��tt�al z East Agricultural/Vacant DF�' South Vacant/Residential RA West Residential RA (Lincoln Estates) 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: A 350' self supporting steel tower and a 8'-x 10' _ concrete equipment pad 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and in front of (also across street from) the property where requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME Daniel E. Whitacre Address 519 Turtle Mea ow Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 51-A-9 Paul A. Sweeney, Trustee Address 1301 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Property ID# 51-A-116 James H. Connelly Address 1034 McDonald Road Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 51-A-31 Donald R. Ricketts Address 2437-36 Berryville Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property ID# 51-A-27 John Michael Saul Address 13813 Town Farm Road 20772I Property ID# Edward B. Pigeon Address 170 White Pine Lane er,602 ID# 51-A-29 ,1-11'6,�Q' ;'J 1 [Property Decl, TWRC078 NAME Cody D. & Beverly L. Kerns 241 Greenwood Drive Winchester, VA 2260 51-1-5 Xt .r7 b'EC P997 tZc�j �,.Ev �; +v ��i Joseph L. Greathouse Address 339 Heartwood Drive Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 51-A-66 William B. & Dana M. Address 338 Heartwood Drive Winchester VA 22602 Ebeling ty ID# 51 -A-66A s F 314 Heartwood Drive Thomas C. Guthridge nr Property ID# 51 -A -66B Mark E. & Cathy A. Snyder Address 230 Lightwood Court Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 51-23-12 James H. & Ruth A. Holmes Address 181 Lightwood Court Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 51-23-13 Address 181 Lightwood Court James H. & Ruth A. Holmes Property ID# 51-23-14 Sylvester D. Speelman Address 1356 North Hayfield Road Property ID# 51-A-17 Marguerite E. Bernard Address 307 Bear Run Road Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 51-A-18 Floyd L. & Kay C. Ritter Address 141 Bridgeport Lane Winchester VA 22602 Property I D# 51-1-1 A Address 917 Quail Run Lane i Jay & Nellie M. Batt, III Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 51-1-2A Davis S. & Betty S. Address 204 Wardensville Grade + Winchester VA 22602 4 Property ID# 51-1-3 Bauserman Randall K. Riley Address 1247 Gray Spring Avenue Bunker Hill, WV 25413 Property ID# 51-1-4 Cody D. & Beverly L. Kerns 241 Greenwood Drive Winchester, VA 2260 51-1-5 Xt .r7 b'EC P997 tZc�j �,.Ev �; +v ��i TWRC078 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner X Owners' Mailing Address MOBILE COMPANY L. Z, Project Manager 314 Heartwood Drive, Winchester, VA 22601 Owners' Telephone No. (540) 877-1306 Shenandoah Mobile Company - (540) 984-3003 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR• USE CODE: �Zp L7 RENEWAL DATE: N Oki %9�� —'�' �� TONER HEIGHT = 350' 50' TOWER 6N.384/A 95264 7 -F-- 7N2 A760T43 8N185 AB3U249 -i- 9N126 APO0273 _ - I Origo 4190285 -I---- "41 -Is _--1N13S A.850660 ItN=S A,B000T 7 ISY29 ASS+IOU3 ! I 14N12 A 790064 _1 15NIO A 79007.9 i I B1•t.HSMW' BBl0164 M?,v 34 \ 8501280 M:Y F. 1 (1) CP50 CAP PLATE (1) APL5 BEACON PLATE (6) 5/8" X 2" BOLT ASSY (P/N: 710031GA) FLASH DUAL REO.STROBE LIGHTING KIF V6690 HORIZ. BRACE ASSY AT 300' - SLOPE CHANGE _ VB8O3A HORIZ. BRACE ASSY AT 290' SLOPE CHANGE TOWER U�SIGN LOADIN6---- DESIGN CIESIGN WIND LOAD PER ANS I /EIA -22?_ -E l 93 l , 7th MPH WIND LOAD ((/2" P,ADIAL ICE LOAD). THIS TC;lFR fS DE57GNED TO lL;-FOPr THE FOLLCW'I�- LO .!.- ELEVATIO II ANTENNA E.P.A. (sF LINE (FT.) T YPE A'O ICE WI TN ICE TYPE 347 6 CAPq 56210 Ar.'*Et:N W/6-6' OIC AHMS 5� TG TAL r66 TOTAL 300 6 DAPA 50210 ANTENNAS W;�6 6' SLUE A�7M5; 53 TOTAL 66 TOTAL _275 C+ -P, ✓4 �_5 nN7CNYn5 lyi 3.6_SIOL nF iS „7 TOrr' _ __O iOJA!_ - -(6j 7-S/A^ 25O 6-P0455 A;JIFNfJAS to"3-(>' SIO_!- Alar l_ .S7 TOTAL 50 tOTAL (6) T -5/R" _225 6-PO455 A/✓-Eh'NAS v, --6- A{i.N;- r37 TOTAL 50 TOTAL (6) Zoo 33-9HP 01S-'E5_Wi(I<oiio)i.7,_o1 r4D Torn! /bo r_orAL 150 G -P0455 ArJ7ENr✓n5 36' SfCE ARMS 3.' Tt77Al 50 TOTAL iG) NOTE: ANTENNA AZIMUTH 15 SHOWN 1N DEGREES 141 THfN THE (BRACKETSI NOTE: INITIAL ANTENNA LOAD (4) DAPA 58210 W/(4) 6' SIDE ARMS AT 297' ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES 1. ROHN COMMUNICATION TOWER DESIGNS CONFORM TO E.I.A.-222-E U11L FSS OTHERWISE -SPECIFIED UNDER TOWER DESIGN LOADING. TOWER DESIGN MAY OR MAY NOT CONFORM TO LOCAL. STATE OH FEDERAL REOUIRENENTS. 2. THE OF_SIGN LOADING CRITERIA INDICATED HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO ROHN. THE DESIGN LOADING CRITERIA HAS BEEN ASSUM£D TO tic BASED ON 51TE-SPECIFIC DATA IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/EIA-222-E AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY OTHERS PRIOR 70 INSTALLATION. 3. SEE INDIVIDUAL .SECTION ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS FOR PART NUA18ERS AND SECTION ASSEMBLY CETAILS. *4. FABRICATION DRAWINGS, IF REFERENCED, ARE FOR SHOP USE ONLY. 5. STEP BOLTS ARE PROVIDED ON ONE LEG ONLY FOR SECTIONS 6 THROUGH l/. AND ALL THREE LEGS FOR SECTIONS /2 TllRDl!t3H 16 AND ALL MIV .SECTIONS. G. PAL NUTS: ARF PROVIDED FOR ALL TOWER AND ANCHOR DOL1-S (SEE DWG, A790135). 7. THE LEG PART NUMBER IS STAMPED AT AHE B07TUM OF EAC7f LEG OF EACH SECTION. H. TOWER DESIGN ASSUMES LEVEL GRADE AT TOWER .SITE. 9. TOLERANCE ON TOWER STEEL HEIGHT ISEOUAL TO FLUS lI: OR MINUS 1/2%. t0. W"ORK SHILL BE IN ACCC:,O:A.NCE IVI7"14 E.I.A.--.' -E. 'g:7,70CTVRAL S TAPff,rA',DS FOR STE_-l- AN. TENYA T04FRS AND A1117 ENNA Sri"/ :1?77 NG STRUC7 URES. !!.. PURCHASE? SHALL .VERIFY THE INSTALLATION I'; IN CONFORMANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGVIREMENTS FOR OBSTRVCTION MARKING AND LIGHTING. l2. 70WER MEMBER DESIGN DOES Nor INCI_UOF STRFSSES DUF TO ERECTION SINGE ERECTION EOUIPMENT AND CONDITIONS ARE UNXNOwN. DESIGN ASSUMES COMPETENT ANO OVALIFIED PERSONNEL WILL ERECT THE TOWER. l3. DESIGN ASSUMES PO d DAPA TYPE ANTENNAS ARE MOUl TED SYMME7RICALLY TO MINIMIZE TOROUS. 14. ANTENNAS AND LINES LISTED IN TOWER DESIGN LOADING TABLE ARE PROVIDED BY OTHERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE_ NOTED. 15. THE 7DIAER AZIMUTH SHOWN IS A RELATIVE AZIMUTH USED TO ESIARLISH TNF RELATIVE POSITION OF ANTENNAS WITH RESPECT TO THE rOWER FOR DES i Gib. 16. DESIGN ASSUMES THAT, AS A MINIMUM, MA1N7'1.-NANCE AND INSPECTION WILL BE PERFORMED OVER THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE IN ACCORDANCE W'1 TH ANSI/EIA-222-E. 17. 21CO20GA Y BOLT ASSY'S AND 9H3424 RIIdGFILLS ARE PROVIDED FOR Ar7"ACHMENT OF REO/STROBE FLA4I51EA1) TO BEACON PLATE. 18, DISH MOUNTS ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 19. SIDE ARMS ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS LVtiLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 20. TOV.ER ORIENTATION TO BE DETERMINED BY OTHERS.. 21. ONE 15 -HOLE WAVEGUIDE LADDER IS PROVIDED FROM 10'1 TO 300' ELEVATION, (2-WAVEGUIDE LADDERS ARF FUTURE) 22. ROHN SHALL HAVE THE Opr1ON TO REVIEW FINAL DISH LOCATIO1Y5, AZIMUTHS AND MOUNTS TO VERIFY THAT ASSL,m,D TOGCY:E VALUES, AAD LOCAL STRESSES ARE NOT FXCEEDFD. 23. BONN -LOC SAFETY DEVICE IS SUPPLIED FOR THE ENTIRE HEIGHT OF - THE 7 OWER. 24. DISH AZIMUTHS SHOWN ARE NOMINAL AZIMUTHS USED FOR DESIGN. ACTUAL AZIMUTHS(TO BE DETERMINED BY OTHERS) MUST NOF RESULT IN INCREASED •.- DESIGN LGADS. 25. DESIGN ASSUMES THAT ANTENNA TRANSMISSION LINES AND WAVF-GUIDE LADDERS ARE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED OVER THREE TOV.'ER FACES. 26. W/G LADDER SECTION MAY REQUIRE FIELD CUTTINS TO PROPER LENGTH AFTER ASSEMBLY. ALL FIELD CUTTING MUST BE REPAIRED WITH COLD GALV OR ZINC RICH PAINT. "/}%c BASE SPREAD lO A -DOLT (;3C� TOTAL} TOWER RE✓1 C TIONS COMPRESSION 350. 9 KIPS Jy�!" OrA,f'J(t (` `i, \ K•'`•+3- Gsa" LG. ✓jv� 7EN5)ON 29.3.9 KIPS TOTAL SHEAR 58.0 KIPS __ O. T_�63. G FT.-K.IPSG FT. -K.IPS DUAN. PART NO N/A REF. N/A I REF. REF. X70A8 REFERENCE DRAWINGS 'F�Lr±'S sr^vl riT:: asa r arccr r�r= ... DESCRIPTION ;ROUTING d C'FAIiMrG DETAIL oTP BOLT VFTAIL :ROUND! NG DETAIL -OUNOATIGN d ANCHCR TC'LERANCE INC140P BOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE FAB. (TOP) ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE FAB. (BOTTOM ANCHOR P.OLT LAYOUT -OUNDAFION DETAIL ANCHOR BOLTS 30Lr ASSE)/8LY INS7ALLATION 15 -HOLE WAVEGUIDF- LADDER SECT10N . 1S-140LE WAVEGUIDE LADDER SECTION AAVEGUID€ LADDER CLIP ASSY VAVEGUID� LADDER CLIP ASSY VAVEGUIOE LADDER CLIP ASSY VAVEGUICE LADDER CLIP ASSY VAVEGUIOE LADDER CLAMP ASSY 70HrJ-LOC SAFETY HARNESS FOP POST ASSY :ABLE RESTRAINT ASSY :ABLE RESTRAINT ASSY 4 SA625PL 5' SICF. ARMS p 297.1 1 VS590 k10RIZONTAL BRACE ASSY 4T 300- 1 VBRO3A HORIZONTAL PPACE ASSY AT 290- 4 2'Y308 to tVAVEGVICE LADDER CLAMP ASSY ! M/541330 WIRE FOR 1415 33.0' 7 08KE1 OBSTRUCTION LIGHTING KIT I OBK25 LIGHTING CONVERSION KIT -7 DLKEIFTLSL DUAL LIGH7Lv_5 KIT RED/STROBE 4 _ ZI0070GAWW 1/2" X 2 B(;2 T ASSY W/COUDLE 4 X113424 fTI NGFILL`:---- <25' 530075 t2/3 NEOPRENE 'SO' CORD T APL5 BEACON PLATE 1 CP50 CAP PLATE G 2t003/GA 5/B^ X 2" BOLT ASSY * 4 21 O_008GA `�2 - 250006 3/O" FLET MASHER fi 2 FBMP POWER CONVERTER MTG. _PLATE _ Z ✓A905AW U -DCL r ASSY N%WASHERS WAS} 0° (SEE NOTE 11/5) (FOR MOUNTING POWER CONVERTER AT BASE OF TONER) TOUER / \ AXIS / TOWER CONFIGURATION N. T. S. 350' TYPICAL SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER T TE: BFO/lII 2/OBI 80790 611,1-3 N/A 0741234 C74 i234 C74 1211 0820356 D680699 Dc'B069B C901619 _ N/A 0950773 D_950773 0950773 cnosG4 N/A N/A SK73D369 f3760639 0770404 C770404 NIA (TYP.) •.A Pe rTs n D.s rtFtlen _- •. 0":. q Rev 8. O Cke HYD Apod o THIS DRAWING IE THE FROPERTy OF FOIW, IT f5 rJpf 1F-1 I) (f (, TO OF R W17ROUT COPI_.D O.`7 )RAcEO IN W)+JLE OR 1/( �( I / Gr-�(1J Ll IMPART Wf )ROUT OUR WRI T7EN CGY. E.YT. c -J Scor., f.RE By Dmf. T!,l.: L`-- SRH 9/27/95 I 350' 5SVNW TOWER ASSEMBLY CA. mak. e: II FOR - Z� - SHENANCOAN REF' AAP• CBM{f' 7 - SPP. S- 1P/t1�zc^ !LE:3;097f-'Af�r.,n.r)r.�-rn., C95145/ rr TWR078 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration U.SFe eralDepAviation of dMinirtarion Failure To Provide All Requested Information May Dela Processing Of Your Notice Federal Aviation Adminisirafion 9 y y 9 Aeronautical Study Number I. Nature of rroposal 2. Complete Description of Structure Type B. Class C. work Schedule Dates Please describe the proposed construction or alteration, J New Construction 0 Permanent Beginning 2/1 / 98 A. For proposals involving transmitting stations, include LJ Alteration * ❑Temporary (Duration __ months) End cL,4 ceffective radiated power (ERP) and assigned frequency. I ' If Alteration, provide previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number, if available not known, give frequency band and maximum EAP. A. Name, address, and telephone number of individual, company corporation, etc. proposing the B. For proposals involving overhead wire, transmission line etc., include the size and the configuration of the construction or alteration. (Number, Street, City, State, and Zip Code) Shenandoah Mobile Company wires ar their supporting structures. Post Office Box 459 C. For buildings, include site orientation, dimensions, and Edinburg, Virginia 22824 construction materials. D. Optional— Describe the p type of obstruction marking and ( 540 ) 984--•3003 lighting system desired. The FAA will consider this in thei Area Code Telephone Number Study. 3. Name, address and telephone number of proponent's representative, if different than 3A, above. Leonard L. Greisz c/o Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 ( 540 ) 984-3003 Area Code Telephone Number LOcatlon UT JTruciure Coordinates ( to hundredths of seconds if known) atitude 0 r 39 11 38.78 Dngitude 0 r 78 16 45.20 D. Source for item 4A data. — USGS 7.5' Other quad Chart ❑ Survey ❑ Specify B. Nearest City or Town rr and State Winchester, VA (1). Distance to 4 6 Miles (2). Direction to 46 92 Degrees C. Nearest public or military airport, heliport, flightpark, or seaplane base )KV Winchester Regior 1). Distance from structure to nearest point of nearest runway 6.987 NM (2). Direction from structure to airport 115.86 Degrees Exhibit 4 5. Height and Elevation ftonearestfoct) A. Elevation of ground above mean sea level. Exhibit 1 936 B. Height of structure including all appurtenances and lighting above ground or water. 350 C. Overall height above mean sea level 1,286 jicate the reference datum. 4E. Description of site location with respect to highways, street, airports, prominent terrain, features, Other existingstructures etc. Please attach a U.S. Geological Survey Ma ore equivalent) showing the construction NAD 27 ®NAD 83 ❑Specify ' 9 Y P ( q ) g site. If available, attach a copy of a documented site survey with the surveyor's certification. Mice is required by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 77) pursuant to Section 1101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app. § 1501)- Persons who owingly and willfully violate the Notice requirements of Part 77 are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per day until the notice is received, pursuant to Section 901(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 58, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1471(a)) as well as the fine (criminal penalty) of not more than $500 for the first offense and not more than $2,000 for subsequent offenses, pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1472(a)). 1EREBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, I free to obstruction mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking & lighting standards as necessary. e Typed or Printed Name and Title of Person Filing Notice signature Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager, PCS JR FAA USE ONLY * ' s r�z _ w. _ , , �, �. xt .,�r �., _ r,u'FAA`ivff virharratrrrn this form tar�ssu k tie Proposal':" ]Does n t orequire a notice to F Is not identified as an`'obstrucl Subpart C,'and would not be'; Is identified as an ohshvctionr Subpart C, but would not be a Should be obstruction a m2 ?Advisory Circtilaf 708460-J { yf-rk-`c" Yi«k=t ; Obstruction'markirig and lightif narks' sTtX f art e a separate ac nowledyement. ,required any time the project is tibandaned, or latest heighE` - n _" unless: the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application ore the above expiratiogdale Insuch cases the determination on of construction or on the date the FCC denies the application rminatio_n must be postmarked or delivereiilQlh€issuine at ce these` coo rdinateD an + moi' L�f o,}tia e v ► 5 vw -rl Gr''yrr 4`KF 1' s r��f ` 0 °T' 5% a ri; �p 83 Cgordlnates > T. t4 future correspondence w th the FAA) ;�l:;atltUde �; ? W kr^ qy ped in LQngltuder it Signature Dale NOTE: NOT DRAWN TC, SCALE TWR78 OVERALL HEIGHT: 1,286 ft. AMSL GROUND ELEVATION: 936 ft. AMSL EXHIBIT 1 Hunting Ridge, VA VERTICAL PLAN SKETCH OF PROPOSED ANTENNA AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY 6. � MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SITE �- �/ ]Exhibit f'i/ ��! �,' �_ql�_\�.�'�f.n�om�,I�r,�it—� ,m,�C��r��I�'�i,'�v.v v•7I l� 1-� I iiIai/J( LlR\� '-�`,� ��u/ �17J .1�r-�(?'_i Y �.-'I �\6� \��A.\� . 1 "\\�n�`i ._ .;- �:•��,�°1%�-= a1 ��\ �/�IIrg'r,IA��i 1 t .. 1 a,/i'Jio,,�--�,o/�!fl'-��'.- 1. ra':/.f'�nv_;`i 1o11i �Iti�_ /�.,,� ��}��I%. /i�p/-=/J;�/ i r ��jII iS\i�-f��0 r�//s� ,�, Q, _s0 I��j 1- i a`c% �ll��/ iN -:•(�_-rVt�-.�� I�'//a��,�,(0�� g,� •i/� i0,t/_� i p-� . r t,C ,fo ,�,d/iIt� 1/ rti �1 ��'i �1r�I� //`�1��_��I :/0�I„�-1°"/:1� I� � l( V ��,_(/ r�I��l ��?—IiI1/��t 1r�(1(C�1l •i�� r'�, r /��I \_�_-r ��:��\�di�''iI/ ..,,�a \_� (� )�./i/�'lr�1 Ir'�,n\iro r©l !1i!7�!w7'�.l ��' ;�`�:� '�i'/1�`_/; /ri-)i. '�/ _r vf-�i �1''OIIr J��vN(%)p0e� �9�%,/I�r�rI�l/� i��1�iiJ 0 G/1 i ,/2/i�';� '��/ S`;�-,�/,�I`��/ • ; r �r. .� ��.�,�.”i�� J �/.II/ r v9��}I c "�U 4ft�/ (, �I`A7)I�1/ �5 I,r 'r'I'I'IIl,% ��-��r� i9/_8i}�1/,I�l �0<o1I_'\1 r��•� ., .1 �� /i�1�/�`4v�fiV/\98�� p .i9i4.8 �I 1\�1 rr ��.Lr�� ,I ' / � % �/�i�"� O/0f.;<,�/ O`/o,�1J'�i\J �, 2TWR©78 - HuntingRidge � vCr',1i�0-,, ��/z,•0 - i.)��r s r ,�- ` f.:• (;1Ir '. ( (_ Q Shenandoah Mobile Company 12/97 T l iff nnC" 778Ch 4 19 Iyoo 69O i�r j/ ( IA 900 104Jn Y ,fSCALE 1:24000 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 5 0 1 KILOMETER 2 I CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 po 10 e2/oar97; (; :r 1VTt Plea sant j i 410 I .0 413, ]'n'c Ic 'lAqliRs,67,;Z� r22 9 7 I- r q9.8 PG?o' 2Z30 . . . . . . .V 4r lE OUR Mau Qn 'Y C Clar 3C4 MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SITE ac P° r3c a' A % TWR078 - Huntinc, Ridge ,nqs lZ53) 1017 !.'-A - I L- I I I b : Shenandoah Mobile Company 12/97 (237)"' Hed NOT AA1 1884 '1 1 Diracto ELGEE C M 22.3 7 PK (2� $ t2 0. L- ?74„�61 2615 sa 0 qF 944 )9411 -28,4o r P gmd/ms M A E;CS -lei y GR) 1-i71 1810.1939 J7�� Romney 6 (N)p. Bake tc: 4-j 7VI-;2 -'s-'Z�101.� S�T UNIAlN.� 152.5 % RIDc19601 x .cr 285 COR8 r A �54 MARlf+S KI c Z 1� c e 'p� 112. �q golf 2-335 A/ /-s courSEL"16S i^ sed 5A 0 -4-3 L (pyt) IN 9 (0 60 'f 1120 -e 5 harl? I Y-.1050 0 ` VC _1V 14 U��; 09 p6in 3uHIGI 5 7: S VVINNf! EST 12 r.,YS-3 194- 271R� 3 'L 55 t be 9.'t 32844 " PL Co., lkr-'t;"r 4i 1Er 7 HOA 40; 9 J6 b ,4 T�Q-Z Werilono vw B E R w 00 C' V. V 45 1.18-s2'-4 �41 -'T'C 7 3 -Ac90 Br 1940- ,-4 45r Strdsbur 01 1 -)U 1, 1-73 f 31 �1.•80.1- /* q` kLl4 r2y' R T It . . . . . . ...... clslo RR) -'i HIC, al)mbiate VR, rZ7dRIV TY) e, rk h Wdq 388. ar HAI K Al^yam" 1.42 QqF J- v/ 1302) lE 5 2 uc- 1.10 Edi.b A -f LEES -LEE.S k _4251 (335) 'uu 01” 45 W� A 42 4 ly 106s P �rro k "D Orlean (3 09Q) .00 990- 1 .. 5 A, Y ,, FU_ 22 7 450e )'q 12 (2 IV,-tU' LAVER 90 w N- 2151 arrenh e' 'L 3)1 2'8- I �� -\ -, 11K'4j'u ill. '61, . / I . 411-F nberville w V�I _71' F 9� //N>ARR NTGN 442 22 70 101 1 I I I I I0 NAUTICAL MILES 110 12030 HC 101 110 120 130 1 101 i6.KILOMETERS 110 130 10 !so -(A, PACPES fpv 1) -R R 435 21 Midla: St -r�'tw 7 CULPEPER '2 •BERRY L (P t 826 Bec !170 3 0 Lm itIr302' t" 283) 910 Q6k 7- 716 7 TWR078 - Hunting Ridge Shenandoah Mobile Company EExhib7it4 Item 2.A (FAA Form 7460-1): The structure will be a 350 foot three -sided self-supporting hot -dipped galvanized steel tower initially equipped for operation of a personal communications services system operating in the frequency band of 825 - 845 or 865 - 895 at a max ERP of 100 watts. See Exhibit 1 for pertinent structure and topographic measurements. Item 2.D (FAA Form 7460-1 ): We would prefer to use a dual lighting system with red lights for night time and medium intensity flashing white lights for day time and twilight use. ... WISHENTEL SHENANDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS P.O. Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0459 (540) 984-4141 December 16, 1997 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy: Please find attached additional information which Shenandoah Mobile Company is submitting in support of the five conditional use permit applications recently filed by Shenandoah Mobile Company and pending with Frederick County. Listed below by site number are descriptions of the type of installation we propose to install at each location: (1) TWR078 Hunting Ridge (Self Supporting Lattice -type) — We propose to build a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons: A. This site is outside the Urban Development Zone; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary, C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. (2) TWR079 Little Timber Ride (Monopole) — A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. (3) TWRO84 Bowling Green Ridge (Monopole) -- A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. (4) TWR167 Parkins Mills (Self Supporting Lattice -type) - We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site because: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; SHENANDOAH TELEPHONE COMPANY • SHENTEL SERVICE COMPANY • SHENANDOAH CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY SHENANDOAH LONG DISTANCE COMPANY SHENANDOAH VALLEY LEASING COMPANY SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY SHENANDOAH NETWORK COMPANY WE MUST SERVE WELL TO PROSPER • WE MUST PROSPER TO SERVE WELL Mr. Michael T. Ruddy December 16, 1997 Page 2 C. The proposed design is consistent with another structure viewable from the same area; and D. Monopoles of this size are not cost advantageous. (5) TWR ISO Sherando (Self Supporting Lattice -type) - We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary; C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. We appreciate your continued assistance and cooperation as we proceed through the conditional use permit process. Sincerely yours, Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager (PCS) Shenandoah Mobile Company LLG/lsh Enclosures ATTACHMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNCATIONS FACILITI nJ Submitted by Shenandoah Mobile Company Tower No. TWR078 Hunting Ridge Property Owned by Thomas C & Nina Miceli Guthridge z In accordance with Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Section 165.48.6, Subsections A (1) through A (4), the following information is attached: (l) Attachment 1 — A topographic map depicting the search area. (2) Attachment 2 — Identification of other service providers or commercial telecommunications facilities within the proposed service area. (3) Attachment 3 — Compliance with ANSUIEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation. (4) Attachment 4 - Statement of procedure for tower and equipment removal. C � r ' ATTACHMENT 1 " $L Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR078 � 03Conditional Use Permit �/0, I� � � � / � q"Ql/r0 / D o/✓ y 4li% ie /i goo /rr� i ��,y/ 1 x967' �J! - / agTh 9 800 �.� � �� `%- - �/� � � v 1 � '�� l -- i r � Ali � ��`� • /, _ � )1,711 fj r �� / - L � � �� A �jA r=' � � • 1/ 11 dr 1 ( � .0 nont�• -J•778 ;.. i T -��1 �p .. i i � - uh eY r- � � � r ; �' •/ „'/4 x �J % ,.�'��80` �/��' ; �, ,, /� ,/�, 900.; • _ -.�� ((� .-. ! �%�f � I r� ': �A�' rr,,, / I _ � ), � 900 _. � SCO _ y%.;/� ,- // j: ,li _ l _ — - - \• 1x.900 / / 00 L' 947 y�� - - / \� --�` � ? _ � � �� _ mac, •,i 94 \ �� j 1�`� �\ _� \' • -900 -� ,/' • -r 02 -_ i 47 ` i 10 ej if A/ x rl ! Me.�� //OA" � / r Q ao r • %/Mt Plea sante ATTACHMENT 2 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR078 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The comparable FCC license holders operating in the search area of the prospective site are... Cellular A -- Cellular One B -- Shenandoah Cellular PCS A -- American Personal Communications (Sprint Spectrum) B -- AT&T Wireless PCS C -- CF W Communications (Virginia PCS Alliance) D & E -- Shenandoah Mobile Company F -- Devon Mobile Communications There are no Commercial Telecommunications Facilities within the search area of the prospective site. ATTACHMENT X-3 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR078 Conditional Use Application COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNCIATIONS COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED ANSUIEEE STANDARDS FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD LEVELS AND RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION As set forth in OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997, entitled Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Haman Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, states on Page 14: "Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground -level exposure in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposure from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for broadband PCS. These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically `worst case' site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands times below the new MPE limits." (Emphasis added.) (A copy of excerpt from OET Bulletin 65 is being submitted with this package.) The antenna installation planned under this Conditional Use Permit will be at a height in excess of twenty (20) meters. Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 OET BULLETIN 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 dP The first edition of this bulletin was issued as OST Bulletin No. 65 in October 1985. This is a revised version of that original bulletin. NOTE: Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement by the Federal Communications Commission or by the authors. 2.1091 and 2.1093 (for portable and mobile devices). This requirement applies to some, but not necessarily all, transmitters, facilities or operations that are authorized under the following parts of our rules: 5, 15, 21 (Subpart K), 22 (Subpart E), 22 (Subpart H), 24, 25, 26, 27, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I, and L), 80 (ship earth stations), 90 (paging operations and Specialized Mobile Radio), 97 and 101 (Subpart L). Within a specific service category, conditions are listed in Table 2 of Appendix A to determine which transmitters will be subject to routine evaluation. These conditions are generally based on one or more of the following variables: (1) operating power, (2) location, (3) height above ground of the antenna and characteristics of the antenna or mode of transmission. In the case of Part 15 devices, only devices that transmit on millimeter wave frequencies and unlicensed Personal Communications Service (PCS) devices are covered, as noted in rule parts 2.1091 and 2.1093 (see section on mobile and portable devices of Appendix A). Transmitters and facilities not included in the specified categories are excluded from routine evaluation for RF exposure. We believe that such transmitting facilities generally pose little or no risk for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. However, as noted above, in exceptional cases the Commission may, on its own merit or as the result of a petition, require environmental evaluation of transmitters or facilities even though they are otherwise excluded from routine evaluation. Also, at multiple -transmitter sites applications for non -excluded transmitters should consider significant contributions of other co -located transmitters (see discussion of multiple -transmitter evaluation in Section 2). If a transmitter operates using relatively high power, and there is a possibility that workers or the public could have access to the transmitter site, such as at a rooftop site, then routine evaluation is justified. In Table 2 of Appendix A, an attempt was made to identify situations in the various services where such conditions could prevail. In general, at rooftop transmitting sites evaluation will be required if power levels are above the values indicated in Table 2 of Appendix A. These power levels were chosen based on generally "worst-case" assumptions where the most stringent uncontrolled/general population MPE limit might be exceeded within several meters of transmitting antennas at these power levels. In the case of paging antennas, the likelihood that duty factors, although high, would not normally be expected to be 100% was also considered. Of course, if procedures are in place at a site to limit accessibility or otherwise control exposure so that the safety guidelines are met, then the site is in compliance and no further environmental processing is necessary under our rules. Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground - level exposures in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposures from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for 14 broadband PCS.13 These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically "worst case" site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands of times below the new MPE limits. In view of the expected proliferation of these towers in the future and possible use of multiple channels and power levels at these installations, and to ensure that tower installations are properly evaluated when appropriate, we have instituted these new requirements for this limited category of tower -mounted antennas in these services. For consistency we have instituted similar requirements for several other services that could use relatively high power levels with antennas mounted on towers lower than 10 meters above ground. Paging systems operated under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 of our rules previously have been categorically exempted from routine RF evaluation requirements. However, the potential exists that the new, more restrictive limits may be exceeded in accessible areas by relatively high-powered paging transmitters with rooftop antennas.14 These transmitters may operate with high duty factors in densely populated urban environments. The record and our own data indicate the need for ensuring appropriate evaluation of such facilities, especially at multiple transmitter sites. Accordingly, paging stations authorized under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure if an antenna is located on a rooftop and if its ERP exceeds 1000 watts. Mobile and Portable Devices As noted in Appendix A, mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services (PCS), the General Wireless Communications Service, the Wireless Communication Service, the Satellite Communications services, the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) and Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized, respectively, under Part 22 (Subpart H), Part 24, Part 25, Part 26, Part 27, Part 80, and Part 90 of the FCC's Rules are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. Unlicensed PCS, NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. All other mobile, portable, and unlicensed transmitting devices are normally categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure (see Section 2 and Appendix A for further details). 13 For broadband PCS, 2000 W is used as a threshold, instead of 1000 W, since at these operating frequencies the exposure criteria are less restrictive by about a factor of two. `4 For example, under Part 90, paging operations in the 929-930 MI lz band may operate with power levels as high as 3500 W ERP. 15 ATTACHMENT a' 4 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR078 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL REMOVAL OF ABANDONED COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The Conditional Use Permit application process (ordinance) in Frederick County for Commercial Telecommunications Facilities requires that the applicant provide "information delineating procedures for guaranteeing the removal of the commercial telecommunications facility within one year of abandonment of operation." Having worked with the Planning Commission in the development of the ordinance it is our understanding that the intent of this section (§ 165-48.6. A. (4)) is threefold, (i) "not" to burden the applicant with a requirement to post a bond, (ii) not to leave the landowner "holding the bag" with'an abandoned site, unless, or course, that was the agreement with the landowner, and (iii) to ensure the tower itself is removed, not necessarily the foundation. In the spirit of complying with this requirement, Shentel considered several possibilities, including the purchase of a removal bond, entering into an irrevocable letter of credit to ensure removal, and the establishment of a self-funded sinking fund. Each possibility was rejected either because of cost, or because it restricted the use of critical working capital. Shentel is a locally established, successfully operating telecommunications company that has been doing business in the Shenandoah Valley continuously since 1902. It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose. Shentel stands behind that practice. Most recently Shentel decommissioned a cable TV tower in Shenandoah County and arranged to remove it along with our equipment. The landowner, however, asked us to leave the tower in place so he could use it for amateur radio purposes. We readily complied with his request, removing all of our equipment and cabling from the structure and the surrounding grounds, turning the site over to the landowner as requested. All of our site lease agreements contain a provision allowing us to remove our communications tower and all related equipment upon the termination of the rental period. - GUIETGDGE PROPERTY. FRMET8C2( CM MY. VA (iOR-70) 1 kyr, tiF s o R n P � ISRE� y N I FROY� CigN OF NIEIMATE 61 AMD ROUTE 37 AT EXIT 310. PROCEED NORTH ON ROUTE W APPROXIMTELY 5.3 MILES TO INTERSECTION ROUTE 37 NO ROUTE 50. PROCEED WEST ON ROUTE 50 FOR APPROXIMATELY ZB MILES TO INTERSECTION ROUTE 50 ALU ROUTE 606, f=10 WEST ON ROUTE 606 APPRDXWTELT 03 DIES TO INTERSECTION ROUE ' 606 ANDWiE 61& PROCEED NEST UI ROUTE 616 APPRM WTELY 1.1 MMES TO TURTLE MEADOW 40C PROCEED 0-5 AEES ON TURTLE MEIIOOW ROAD TO TONER SFIE. 1T� 15" 1�� AREA AND ACCESS 55 /UTILITIES S EASEMEHf ARE tAON DANIEL E. WHITACRE ��.µ�`'l PR%jW CIX6IEIRLY DESCNATED AS FRfDEM COUNTY TAI PARCEL 51-A-67 AND 1, ` D.B. 637 PG, 15 6 GENTLY OWNED EA' DUMAS C AND NIM A TITLE GRIFF80CF_ I X74 \ USE-' GRIL 51-AL 2 SrTE NTMI 7W45 PREPARED WrDN THE BENEFIT OF A TME REFOLD PREPARED 8Y 891ow �7' t RA & CNBWAC PLC. FI£% 32425 USE' AGRICULTURAL 17H6 SWEATY 6 R"CT TO ALL RESTMCMM EASOADOS OR WDO OF WAY OF 4®RD PRIOR 10 THE OAlE OF IES PW. \ 4. THE MIWAIM WO OF PRECSON FOR IHS SURVEY EXCEEDS 1:10000. 1 ElE SIM ARE B15EO ON 1615 STATON VEF4IIEW EUN - 761.'. NGWO 29 •' & BENCE WAX 6 A RAILROAD SPLICE SET M A 9• HICCORY MY. - 940.05. Y 7. C16WC PROPERTY CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 10&906 ACRES. C E 634 > & ZOM& DA7Y TAI PARCEL 51-A-31 CIRRDrt TCYWI.. R11MAL AREA W 2pNE0RA PROPOSED USE: SELF-SUPPOR NO CdAIRACAT10N5 TOMER WITH MEDIUM NDI9 TIY USE: AGR1CLILT-p- WHFTE Off LIGHT ASU RFD NGHT LIGHT (IF REQUIRED BY THE FAA) PROPOSED TOWER HECHT: 357 3 x PROPOSED LEASE AREA FEOUIRM SETBILm \ 4,900 Sq.Ft. w a112 Ar- FRONT CFRONT - 410• FROM ROAD RXiR-OF-WILY \ SDE 31' EJYT - JS 9. A$ THOMAS C. AND NIM MICELI GUT ROGE TTHOMASE GLTHI DGE AND a 445 TUD1E MEADOW LANE MINA MICEU GUTHRIOGE TOC M 22602 TAX 623 PG 1156 10. APPAONT: SH DVADOAH MOBILE COMPANY TAI PARCEL 51-A-67 !� 124 SOUOI MVI STREET PROPOSED 350' TOWER USE: AGRICULTURAL 11` PA BOX 459 EDNBIAC,. M 22824-0459 ' WELL CAP • "' X 10' (540) 964-4141 CELLULAR PW 11. P016 COM PIW1Y: AULCHD(Y POWER COMPANY 1.29' NUMBER DIRECTION DISTANCE P.O. BOX 3200 WINCHESTER. M 12604 EDGE OF W0005 Lt N 1576420" E 70.00' (600) 654-3317 L2 S 71'43'40' E 70.00 12. IDDIONE CD~.. SELL ATLANTIC t 5T&1620" M 70.00 2960 N. FARVEW PARK DRIVE L4 N 71'43 40 IN 70.00 FALLS CHIIIOC M 22046 241 THSWE DOES NOT LIEWIH IN A HIM DESOWED 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE 7HOMMAS PROPOSED 23' L6 5 B4'17'37" W 6739 C. Gi1THFLDGE I I AND EGRESS L6 N 5724 DS N 244.92 W 14. MOW MM.UES F'OR PROPOSED TOmM LATTNOE 39'11'3&41 0.8, 610 PG. 499 EASEMENT L7 N 77503 w 73. LONGITUDE 7516'46.20• TAI PARCEL Sl-A-668 J IS APf+t TOWER RISE ELEV. - 926A iT ZONED RA NUMBER O0.TA CHORD BR(, TANGENT RADIUS ARC n LOT AB-3 ROUSS O i'— 0 12' GRAVEL I& 715RAT WFpRE$FRTS THE SURVEY Of THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND ACCESS INCORPOFTA ACAN7 ACCESS ROAD Ct J52!'24" S 76'36'7 Y' E 27.77 6230 41.90 41.12 A. ERNS THS SLRKY WAS CO10UCTUD BY ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES ON 25 ALIO.REypEF1TML/V ttt C2 20'26'31" N 6737'21" W 1503 100.00 3166 35.49 Nn "WARD NOES LUT REPRESENT A COMPLETE BM)ARY SURVEY OF THE QM&x EII II t 1' TREE ROO s� DITY 17. NROW MOOS SET AT ALL LEASE AREA CORNERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. $�,� . EloSnNG SOIL ROAD FNIO OrmurscarwIGATE.' w THE LBE AREA NO EASE7ENIS IS. AS APPEAR ON TPUTT, ME wTm THE FREE ccNsw '►' S 21 3% AMC QOROAI[EORDIN E WITH THE DESAES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PWWRETORS OR TRUSTEM1167 74 -TOTAL NEU fAE1' ROW PROPERTY S SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING, _ c 1. NORTHERN VIRGINIAPORTER COMPAPANYY EASEMENT. NINA 40M GUTHROGE �� S 31'11'14" INTv^"^ POLES, ANC}KKtS, WIRES AND FO(TURES FOR RESIDENTIAL ROD 17}.70' RO0 SERVICE. O.B. 206 PG. 513 FOD FOO EXISTING GRAVEL ROW 2. al AND GAS LEASE TO C-E. BECK, 0.8 525 PG. 479 Mommk TO �. INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEIENT PAUL A SF THEY �. A NOTARY PUBLIC N AND FOR THE STALE AMD COINIT TO ARLWE OOFTE'N EW ROAD' 1 TRUSTEE 56 OF 751 I�AIJL A SWEENEY REVOCABLE TRUST AORESA 00 HEREBY CERTFY TWU THOMAS C GUTHRIDGE. WHOSE NAME 5 SIGNED TO (MOTH VARIES FROM 10' TO 757 TAI PARCEL 55TA-116 THE FOiONG WRTF14 BEARING DAYE OF 19_ 46 0.8. 452 PC. 320 0: ZONED RA PERSOICY APPEARED EEfORE ME AU A000MEDGED THE SAME_ TIMBERMOOD VIIACI 4^ USE. AGRTCUI.tURAL/VACANT GEN>Q MY HAND AND SEAL ON THIS _ BAY OF . 19_ NOYF118MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARK E wtLi A AND CATHY SYONOR lO \ D.B. 776 PG 594 TAX PARCEL 51-23-12 l ,LTH 0, TAX ZONED RA QHS ww;rxiwl TQ WIT;O f USE: RESIDENTIAL/VACANT '7-0 C . A NOTARY PI10lD N AND FOR THE SWE AND COUNTY ++��------� = O A. R OD H10EBY CTRURY D44T NINA MICELI LIIDRCL.0 WHOSE NAE 6 SIGNED 70 �( RT C PE9O5; THE F045 WING WRUFNG, RFARNG OAUE OF 19_ HAS Ma 1966 DFGI .N R `P PERSSBM=Y APPEARED BEFORE 1E AND ApoOKFGED Dw SAE' ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATESP OP�IPLAN GEM 111111100111 MY MID AW SEA ON THIS _ DAY OF • 19_ 44 7722 MAIN STREET 100 50 0 100 200 300 IUTALrIf1BlC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ~O >aNW+C MIDDLETOWN, VA., 22645 (540)-869-2501 �— MCT 1 971113.2177 1 CCP SCALE C - 100 AA 6��9p�.�7L�/Bb*d1�ry/1�� /1C /►��p�p�p� ®/►y �►p�y ��/�p��TOP�T DOCUMENT NO. L3tr1� ♦►9D Er4n , m aWwMboN0. VA DATE 2 NOV IC SCALE : AS SHOWN T 7 A PORI ION Vf GU F HRI� PROPERTY F BOCK CREEK MAMS 1 ERML DWS 1 RIC 1 � ET AN sur4s m MchrrArA VA DESIGNED: TO BE LEASED BY ��( COUNTY VIRGINIA SHEET ASSMATES/ Inc. PkmnwTI TY1--qM% Tw CHECKED: : ��MP SHENANDOAH MOBiLE COMPANY (TWR-78) 1 of Z COUNTY. VA rooM WTUMCMM OF NTERsuTE 61 NO ROUTE 37 AT CRT 310. PROCEED NORTH ON 11o1gE W APPRDnwm9 53 MEts TO NIERSECTDN ROUTE 37 AND ROUTE 50. PROCEED NEST-ONROUTE 50 FOR APPRDnwELT 22 M11FS W NTERSECDON RDUTE 50 AND RWTE Ka pRO= RST ON WDUIE 606 AP gmmwaY 03 NLEs To LATER ECt10N ROUTE 606 AND ROUTE $I& PNDCEED RST ON FDA 616 APPRMuWTELT 1.1 MLES TO TUT E NFADOW ORAE. PWOC® 0.S MLES ON TURTLE MEADOW ROAD TO TOWER WE. AMLAM 1. THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND Accts AND URUTES EASEMENT ARE LOCATED ON pgppEW CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS FREDDZCX COUNTY TAX PARCEL 51-A-67 AND 5 CUINEMTLY OWED BF THOMAS C AND MNA WEU 004OCE. 2 S9E PUPA WAS PREPARED " THE 8U6rt OF A TITLE REPORT PREPARED BT BRYAN t COL&^ PTC. FLED 32425 1 D46 PROPERTY 6 S11&EC7 TO ALL RESBMCTCAS, EASD+Dnz OR MCKM OF TRY OF RECORD PROR TO THE DATE OF THS RAT. 4. THE U44DASTEO PATIO OF PRED90N FOR THS SURVEY EXCEEDS 1:10000. 5 El.DAITDNS ARE BASED ON USGS SUTTON STEPtENS' DEV. - 781$'. "C"D 29 L BL71p1 MAT6L 6 A RALNOAO SRICE SET N A r KCXORI' MY. - 94G.OS'. 7. EXSTImG PNOPERTY CON1416 APPRSOIMTELT 100.906 ACRES & 2po6Duk RA6EM ZON NAG: RNLI AREA RA FFWM USE SELF-SUPPORTING taNLSICADd6 7wvl WON MEDIAL NTv6m WHTE Dw LOT[ AND RED MCHT LIGHT (E RECURRED BY THE FAA) PROPOSED XOWBR HEIGHT: 350' REDUWRED SEIB%m FRONT - 410' FROM ROAD RICHT-OF-WWY SUE - 30, 365' REAR - 365' 9. Offilm DONS C AND LORA MILLI OVDRCGE 445 TURTLE MEADOW LAE ■NDES1FR YR 22602 10. APPLICANT' SHpigUOAH MOBLE COM~ 124 SOUTH PAN STREET PA. BOX 459 ECu9NG M 22814-0459 (540) 964-4141 11. POWER W~. NIEOEMY POR" CO,~ PA BOX 320D WNLNESTER IR 22W (800) 554-3317 t: 12. TELDHO E CDMR B91 ATLANTIC 29W K FARViW PNM DRIVE FALLS CMN m, M 22046 (SW) 954-6262 13. THS S9E DOES MDT LL WOH N A HIM DESIGWED IOD YEAR FLOOD 20- 14. IND 27 VALES FOR PROPOSED TOUM LATLLIIOE 39'l17&41- UOh0rTUOL 7516'4&20- I& APPROX. TO" BSE ETEM - 926D FT. 1& THIS PIAT REPRESENTS THE SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND ACCESS EASDMDns. THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY ANDERSON t ASSODGES ON 25 AUG. 1997 AND DOES MOT REPAESOIT A COMFLEIE BOLS"W SURVEY OF THE Q n4wGE PROPERTY. 17. XON RODS SET AT ALL LEASE AREA CMIERS Ulam ODERIN E NOTED. OrOn CERTIFICRIE- THE LEASE AREA AND EASEMENTS. AS APPEAR ON THIS RAF. ARE WHH THE FREE CONSENT ARE N ACCORDANCE WNH THE DESRES OF THE U900WIED DEERS. PROPRIETORS OR TRUSTEES +oN i &ar-- wm_ NO�� TO in. 6 . A NOTARY PUBLIC N AND FOR THE STATE AND COUNTY N'ORESM Do HD"Y [ERTIHY( T1w DOMN9 c wnaRncE, .HOSE MARE 6 SIGHED TO THE FORECONG WRING. BEARNG DATE OF 19_HIS PUMALLT APPEARED BEFORE R AND ACXMDG fDGED THE SWIL G" UNDER W HYD NO SEAL ON THS -Off OF , 19 NOTARY PUBLIC MY CDMMSSHOM DUNES NOTARYS CFRTWOTE: RIANIT „� TO ND: L , A NOTARY PUBLIC N AND FOR THE STATE APO COLNTY AFORESAAO 00 FEISBY CDR THAT MIA MCUI QMFDGE WHOSE MAME 6 SIDED TO THE FOREm.D WPTWG BEARNG DOE a19 _PAs PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE M: AFD ADDIOU.EDCED THE SAME. GRAM UNDER W HAND AND SEAL ON THS _DAY OF . 19_ NOTARY PLOUC W COM.M6zm EXPIRES 78CZ 1 9711132115 I GCP \ WELL 8' ri DATE 12 NOW 97 REV1SaNs kEASSOCIAM ANDERSON EnginssFT6 °1oa1i°M'¢ DESIE :PAs $IiDWFN zo NPA. 1997 ANO sra� wRF°i"�bco.`Vw DRAWN DESHGNEo: . Inc. 0f1f1�' TM� Tm CHECKED' �/ELP/TEP PROPOSED SILT FENCE S 31'11'14- IN ROO TIMBERWOOD VILLAGE FUD _ LOT / 12 LARK E. AND CATHY' A STONOR D.& 776 PG. 594 TAX PARCEL 51-23-12 ZONED RA USE: RESIDENTIAL 9-0 350' TOWER PAD t)SYI.YESTOR O. SPEELMAN 5k0QY 0. KERNS DIRECTION DISTANCE 6 3 D.B. 362 PG. 13 TAX PARCEL 51-A-17 N t8't 620 E 70.00' I e DFSI .N R S 71'43'40' E 70.00 S 16'16'20 w 70.00N 71'43'40 W 70.00' KL2 ANDERSON AND ASSOCLATES ZONED RA USE-v;mcL&TDRAL S 81.11'31" w 87.57' ,vois g JJ'$ �� '`� s e� N 57-24'05 w 244.92 N 7750 3 w 73.66 NUMBE OEliw CHORD BRG TANDEM RADAS WRC Ct 3524'24" 5 76'36'17" E 21.77 62.50 41.90 47.12 C2 20'26'31 N 6T37'21 w 1&03 100.00 35.68 35.19 PROJECT 2)MMGUERRf E. BERNHARO TS 10)THOMAS C. GUTHERIDGE IARCEL SITE 3 TAX PARCEL0.516-A-18 DATE 12 NOW 97 REV1SaNs kEASSOCIAM ANDERSON EnginssFT6 °1oa1i°M'¢ DESIE :PAs $IiDWFN zo NPA. 1997 ANO sra� wRF°i"�bco.`Vw DRAWN DESHGNEo: . Inc. 0f1f1�' TM� Tm CHECKED' �/ELP/TEP PROPOSED SILT FENCE S 31'11'14- IN ROO TIMBERWOOD VILLAGE FUD _ LOT / 12 LARK E. AND CATHY' A STONOR D.& 776 PG. 594 TAX PARCEL 51-23-12 ZONED RA USE: RESIDENTIAL 9-0 350' TOWER PAD t)SYI.YESTOR O. SPEELMAN 5k0QY 0. KERNS 9}NMES 1i CONNELLY D.& 634 PG, 420 6 3 D.B. 362 PG. 13 TAX PARCEL 51-A-17 eLVERIr L KERNS p_g 460 PG. 778 e DFSI .N R - ZONED RA ANDERSON AND ASSOCLATES ZONED RA USE-v;mcL&TDRAL 7722 MAIN STREETMIDDLETOWN, VA, 22645 USE:RESJOENT1AL (540)-869-2501 DATE 12 NOW 97 REV1SaNs kEASSOCIAM ANDERSON EnginssFT6 °1oa1i°M'¢ DESIE :PAs $IiDWFN zo NPA. 1997 ANO sra� wRF°i"�bco.`Vw DRAWN DESHGNEo: . Inc. 0f1f1�' TM� Tm CHECKED' �/ELP/TEP PROPOSED SILT FENCE S 31'11'14- IN ROO TIMBERWOOD VILLAGE FUD _ LOT / 12 LARK E. AND CATHY' A STONOR D.& 776 PG. 594 TAX PARCEL 51-23-12 ZONED RA USE: RESIDENTIAL 9-0 350' TOWER PAD t)SYI.YESTOR O. SPEELMAN 5k0QY 0. KERNS 9}NMES 1i CONNELLY D.& 634 PG, 420 6 3 D.B. 362 PG. 13 TAX PARCEL 51-A-17 eLVERIr L KERNS p_g 460 PG. 778 TAX PARCEL 51-A-31 4 % Z - ZONED RA TAX PARCEL 51-1-5 ZONED RA USE-v;mcL&TDRAL I USE:RESJOENT1AL ZONED R ENTHAt USF_AGRICUL� PROJECT 2)MMGUERRf E. BERNHARO TS 10)THOMAS C. GUTHERIDGE IARCEL SITE 3 TAX PARCEL0.516-A-18 6}D° B. 5550 PC, 66FbC`17 °� P 51--�-668 9 � ZONED RA TAX PARCEL 51-A-27 ZONED RA USE:RESIDENTIAL/VAQ-T USE:RESIDENTUAL FOUND ZONED RA :RESOTIAL USEQR t 1 IADN E. 3)N0 RECORDATION ])STEPHEN a HALLIGAN THRY A M 519- 10 PROPOSED LEASE D.B. 348 PC. 142 TAX PARCEL 51-A-8 TAX PARCEL 511--223-12 )) 12 AREA ZONED RA ZONED RA uSE:ftMDEM1AL y2 4)JOSEPN A ORNOOREF LIS`RESIDENTML 12)PAUL ASMEENY, TRUSTEE PG 513 - BENCH MARK D.B. 474 PC, 150 8),IONN U04ACL Suri D.B. SW ,o RAILROAD SPIKE SET TAX PARCEL 51-A-16 D.B. 754 PQ 1823 TAX PARCEL 51-A-116 qN 9- HCKORr ZONED RA TAX PARCEL 51-A-28 ZONED RA "IEL - 910.05' USE:RESIDENTNL ZONED RA USE:VACART I I1IIII I el I I II I PROPOSED 12' GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 1- TREE I. aasn .xo orz Tc A 4Y1' z nialc .ra rn.oc ro r`c ronz Iaaa uvslnPc Wn�.c nuc uc 25' ACCESS EASEMENT IA/F x Ona nc rxrtn r�eac ro n WK rn�cc Uro ortoo rt .rto nuc mclxx - FA EJOSTTNG Sal Raw A„ g SILT FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE i urcxsn� or reac .Ho .rc .no me rn�o. I��II �� - n*cn rrerec Ili ' \ \ \G \ \ \ u RCP w S 1.Oa'STO1AL PAUL A SWEENEY, TRUSTEE \ \ 11661.7 D.8. 860 PG 513TAX \ ZONED 5, -w -Ula APPROVED BY THE ZONING MEADOW ROAD USE:VA('j17T ADMINISTRATOR zo" UN ROO \ O CONNECT TO E XYST c GRAVEL Ran\--��\\ \1 l I DATE A PORTION OF GUTHRIDGE PROPERLY TO BE LEASED BY SHENANQOAH MOBILE COMPANY 78 -HUNTING \ SITE PLAN 3C 15 0 30 60 90 0.S AMEES TO .616 SCALE 1� = 30' uu.urcn.w. BACK CREEK IrU�MTERIA LDWRiCT 14325-007 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 2ET 2 USE -RESIDENTIAL 13)OAN10. E. WHtTACRE ! D.B. 637 PC. 15 ! %-21.29' TAX PARCEL 51-A-9 _ ZONED RA VEHICI.AAR GATE THOMAS AND USF_AGRICUL� N YNCEU GU111PoDEE / D.B. 823 PC. 1456 ! TAX PARCEL 51-A-67ZONED ! ! RA USE: AGRICULTURAL lot PROPOSED 12' GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 1- TREE I. aasn .xo orz Tc A 4Y1' z nialc .ra rn.oc ro r`c ronz Iaaa uvslnPc Wn�.c nuc uc 25' ACCESS EASEMENT IA/F x Ona nc rxrtn r�eac ro n WK rn�cc Uro ortoo rt .rto nuc mclxx - FA EJOSTTNG Sal Raw A„ g SILT FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE i urcxsn� or reac .Ho .rc .no me rn�o. I��II �� - n*cn rrerec Ili ' \ \ \G \ \ \ u RCP w S 1.Oa'STO1AL PAUL A SWEENEY, TRUSTEE \ \ 11661.7 D.8. 860 PG 513TAX \ ZONED 5, -w -Ula APPROVED BY THE ZONING MEADOW ROAD USE:VA('j17T ADMINISTRATOR zo" UN ROO \ O CONNECT TO E XYST c GRAVEL Ran\--��\\ \1 l I DATE A PORTION OF GUTHRIDGE PROPERLY TO BE LEASED BY SHENANQOAH MOBILE COMPANY 78 -HUNTING \ SITE PLAN 3C 15 0 30 60 90 0.S AMEES TO .616 SCALE 1� = 30' uu.urcn.w. BACK CREEK IrU�MTERIA LDWRiCT 14325-007 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 2ET 2 PC REVIEW: 01/07/98 BOS REVIEW: 01/28/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #023-97 SHENANDOAH MOBILE CO. Commercial Telecommunications Facility Sherando Site LOCATION: This property is located approximately 3/4 mile south of the intersection of Routes 277 and 636. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUAIIBER: 86-A-209 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOEVING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and MH1 (Mobile Home Park) District; Land Use: Residential, vacant, and the Sherando Park PROPOSED USE: 300 -foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia De t. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections Department: Structure shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, Use Group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996. Please submit Virginia A/E sealed plans at the time of permit application. Fire Marshal: Post temporary street address signage during construction. Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposed facilities. Shenandoah Mobile Co. CUP #023-97 Sherando Site Page 2 December 30, 1997 Winchester Regional Airport: See attached letter from Douglas P. Strand, Executive Director, dated December 16,1997. Planning and Zoning: Ordinance Background: Frederick County adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in April 1997 that allows commercial telecommunication facilities with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This amendment specified that telecommunication facility CUP's could be approved provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted. Additional performance standards are also applicable to the CUP review. Ordinance Conformance: The proposed facility will be constructed on property located south of Route 277, adjacent to the Sherando Park and the Ritter Mobile Home Park. The Zoning Ordinance requires that towers of 300 feet in height (as is proposed) be placed a minimum of 365 feet from adjoining properties engaged in agricultural uses, and 315 feet from adjoining properties engaged in residential uses. The proposed tower location will comply with the setback requirements for such telecommunication facilities. The applicant has provided a map depicting the site selection search area. Eight comparable FCC license holders operating within this search area have been identified; none have constrUCted. teIU%oUr rnunication facilities and begun providing services. In the interest of protecting the county's viewshed, it is encouraged that all telecommunication facilities are constructed in a manner that is conducive for co -locating with other comparable service providers. CUP's should not be granted until attempts to co -locate have been exhausted. The applicant has identified other comparable FCC license holders in the area that will be seeking telecommunication facilities in the near future and without allowing for co -location, the County may encounter a significant increase in telecommunication facilities in the viewshed. As there are no comparable facilities in existence within the search area, it is acceptable that this facility could be permitted with the understanding that other comparable service providers be allowed to co -locate on the tower. In order to alleviate the future abandonment of telecommunication facilities, the ordinance requires that procedures for guaranteeing the removal of such towers be established during the CUP process. The applicant has researched possible methods to guarantee the facility's removal. The applicant proposes that the County not require a monetary guarantee, but accept Shentel's (Shenandoah Mobile Company) business practice as a guarantee. The applicant, Shentel, states "It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose." The Zoning Ordinance requires that a guarantee be provided for removal of facilities; therefore, this needs to be resolved prior to this Shenandoah Mobile Co. CUP 4023-97 Sherando Site Page 3 December 30, 1997 application's review before the Board of Supervisors. The structure will be a 300 -foot, three -sided, self-supporting galvanized steel tower initially equipped for operation of a personal communication system. The tower will be provided with a dual lighting system which provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use. The Zoning Ordinance requires that these lights be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties. At this time, the proposed accessory structures are not visible from adjoining properties, roads or other rights-of-way. Therefore, landscaping and screening of any accessory structures will not be required. Request for Construction -Type Waiver: Monopole -type construction is required for all new telecommunication towers. The Planning Commission may allow lattice -type construction for towers located outside the UDA and not adjacent to identified historic sites; this site would potentially qualify for the lattice -type tower. The applicant proposes to construct a self-supporting lattice -type tower, requiring the Planning Commission's approval. The applicant has stated that the height of the tower, in addition to their interest in constructing a tower that is readily modifiable for subleasing, would be best accomplished with a lattice -type structure. It is the applicant's contention that the height of the proposed tower would make a monopole -type construction cost - prohibitive. Staff Recommendation for January 7 1998: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable rates. 3. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of tower abandonment. 4. A minor site plan is approved by the County. 09AG EN DAS\COMME NTS\S I IE RANDO. CUP 'O�Ak ' SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA / December 16, 1997 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office Box 280 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (703) 662-2422 Re: Request for Conditional Use Permit Comments Installation of Commercial Telecommunications Facilities TWR167 - Smith Property TWR78 - Guthridge Property TWR79 - Anderson Property TWR84 - Poole Property TWR180 - Ritter Property Dear Mr. Greisz: Based on review of the above referenced projects by our engineering firm, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority does not anticipate that the above towers will penetrate FAR Part 77 Surfaces that will impact operations at Winchester Regional Airport. Final comment on these request will be contingent on receiving favorable responses from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation on the FAA Form 7460-1 submittals. I would like to request that a copy of each response from FAA be forwarded to this office as soon as you receive it. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office (540) 662-5786. I appreciate your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, 0� Douglas P. Strand Executive Director CUP #023-97 PIN: 86—A-209 Shenandoah Mobile Co. Sherando Site TWRC180 \ Sherando 1. Applicant I Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA r ! U, 02 (The applicant if the owner x other) NAME: Shenandoah Mobile Company ADDRESS: Post Office Box 280 - 212 Piccadilly Street, Edinburg, VA 22824 TELEPHONE (540) 984-3003 - Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager -g� 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Linwood D. Ritter and Elizabeth Ann Ritter, husband and wife. 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) At intprsactinn of Route, 277 and 6.36, orocPed south on Route 6-36 approximately 0.4 mile to a sharp left in the road Continue straight ahead on gravel road approximately 0.25 miles to tower site. 4. The property has a road frontage of 570.36 feet and a depth of 2,209.95 feet and consists of 39.074 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Linwood D. & Elizbeth A. Ritter as evidenced by deed from Christopher D. Deahl recorded- (previous ecorded(previous owner) in deed book no. 745 on page 532 as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 86-A-209 Magisterial District Opeguon Magisterial District Current Zoning Rural area 7. Adjoining Property: USE North Park East -Vacant/Residential South Vacant West Vacant/Residential ZONING RA R Rfi IMbI.L RA RA RA TWRC180 ti 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) rcial telecommunications facilities 2 3076 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: A- (' self supporting steel tower with a 10' x 22' concrete equipment pad 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and in front of (also across street from) the property where requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME County of Frederick Address Post Office Box 601 Winchester VA 22604 Property ID# 86-A-143 Raymond E. Chateauneuf, Jr. Address 1063 Hudson Hollow Road Ste hens Cit VA 22655 Property ID# 86-A-207 Linwood D. Ritter Address 746 Double Church Road i Stephens City,VA 22655 Property ID# 86-A-208 Samuel & Ann Walker Address 2330 3rd Street Middletown VA 22645 Property ID# 86-A-210 I Address 8430 Hidden Pines Road Clyde R. & Robert L. Property ID# 86-A-211 Trenary Clyde R. & Robert L. Address 8430 Hidden Pines Road Fort Pierce FL 34945 Property ID# 86-A-212 Trenary TWRC`I 80 Ncu'�TZ rp ♦ rfi �, .tea,`• ��<<�`''�"�' Raymond E. Chateauneuf Address P. O. 1. - Sterben-S Box 323 city,.—VA 22655 Property ID# 86-A-213 Double Churches c/o Benjamin M. Road Butler Address P. O. wincht-sh-r., Box 2097 VA 22604 property ID# 86 -A -57C Double Churches c/o Benjamin M. Road Butler Address P. O. Box 2097 ( Winchester VA 22604 4 property ID# 86 -A -57F Address + ll Property ID# Address Property ID# i Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# �A f'est rp ♦ rfi �, .tea,`• ��<<�`''�"�' 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. See attached site plan. TWRC180 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address i -• •Gre sz, • 746 Double Churches Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 Owners' Telephone No. (540) 869-4123 Shenandoah Mobile Company (540) 984-3003 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE:f.`; TO{YEf? DESIGN LOADING _ DESIGN WIND 1_O<lD PSR ANSI/EIA 1_-E 19 /, 70 typ)I T01t' R IiEIGHT = 3CO, BASIC V✓IND LOAD (l /7_ " P,ADI AL ICE LOAD) . THIS TrWFR 1'_ TYPICAL 300' SELF-SUPPORTING ELEVATION TOWER (FT. ) 6•v.S83: A95254 7 7N2 A780143 -1 8N185 A830249 -1 9N 126 A ROO273 I ON90 A 730205 I INl36 Ad50650 121125 A?ono i 7 131129 A510031 /4•V/2 � A79CO64 15Nto A 790079 T tiNH.5M:4' � ?BlG/64 \ MA 34 \ Eu0/280 _1 ,14350290 -I Ml4M6D 8650303 A'.VT1�8 E850613 347 PES:[NEO TO �V'FOPT TI -E ANTENNA P. A. (SF LINE TYRE NO ICE W*TH ICE TYPE E-DAPA 5S21G .At: TEI.IJAG Nib -6' LICE Arih.'S S.� TGTAL 66 TOTA!-� (F.) r_ti 000 6 -DADA 5£+210 A1JTE/JNAS N;'6 -6'-i UE ARMS (1) CP50 CAP PLATE ---- 53 TOTAL 275 6-P,7455 AN7EIJNAG W/3-5' S'- -' (1) AFLS BEACON PLATE -- ----__=10L AF!,f- .;7 TON (6) 5/8" X 2" BOLT ASSY Z50 6-P(1455 ANTFNNAS W:"3 -G' SIDE ARM$ 37 TOTAL (P/N: .1100316A)_=25 6-PD455 Art; E'0115 w_3-6' S1[�E nJttrs-i-37 TOTAL FLASH DUAL RED/STROBE 200 3-9' HP D154E5 (/<Oj(O%j C4ilJ_ ld0 TOTAL LIGHTING KfT /50 6-PD455 ANTENNAS 'Wv/3 5' SIpE ARMS 3.' TO7nL NOTE: ANTENNA AZIMUTH 15 SHOWN IN DEGREE VB590 HORIZ. BRACE WITHIN THE (BRACKETS_! ASSY AT 300' 0 NOTE: INITIAL ANTENNA LOAD (41 OAPA 58210 SLOPE CHANGE W/(4) 5' SIDE ARMS AT 297' ELEVATION VBP03A HORIZ. BRACE ASSY AT 290' SLOPE CHANGE 36-5 11a" BASE SP)3EALI l0 A -DOLTS 00 TOTAL) ! " DIA. X 7G" LG. GENERAL NOTES 1, ROHN COMMUNICATION TOWER DESIGNS CONFORM TO E. 1. A. -222-E UP1LF_SS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED UNDER TOWER DESIGN LOADING. TOWER DESIGN MAY OR MAY NOT CONFORM TO LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL RFOUIREMENTS. 2. THE DESIGN LOADING CRITERIA INDICATED HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO ROHN. THE CE51GN LOADING CRITERIA HAS DEEN ASSUMLO TO BE BASED ON .SITF_-SPECIFIC DATA IN AOCOROANCE WITH ANSI/FIA-222-E AND MUST BE VERIFIEII BY OTHERS PRIOR 70 INSTALLATION. 3, SEE INDIVIDUAL .SECTION ASSE.MLLY DRAWING`; FOR PART NUULERS AND SECTION ASSEMBLY DETAII-S. *4. FABRICATION DRAWINGS, IF REFERENCED, ARE FOR SHOP USE ONLY. S. S7FP BOLTS ARE PROVIDED 0111 ONE LEG ONr.Y FORSECTIONS G THROUGH 1 /, AND ALL THREE LEGS FOR SCCT10N5 /I Tl1R!7-s6 !6 AND ALL MW SECTIONS, 6. PAL NUTS ARE PROVIOED Iii: ALL TOWER ANU ANCHOR DOL 75 (SEE DWG. A790/35). 7. THE LEG PART NUMBER IS STAMPED AT 71-9- /JOT TUM OF EACH LEG OF EACH SECTION. S. TOWER DESIGN ASSUMES LEVEL GRADE AT TOWER ,SITE. 9. TOLERANCE ON TOWER STEEL HCICRT P5 E7Q IAL TO PLUS 1:: OR MINUS /O. ttORK SHILL BE 1111 ar7CC L tai.^±= tell"H C. I ) �% E-7,":;JCIURAL s rAPrL,llP S FOR STE_-t ANTENNA TOWERS AND nIV t. to ",::H7ING STRUCTURES. 11,. PURCHASER SHALL .VERIFY 71,E INSTALLATION I.'; I,! CC/Pdl"t7RMANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGUIREMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION MARKING AND LIGHTING. 12. TOWER MEMBER DESIGN DOES NOT INCI-UDE STfiFSSES DHF TO ERECTION SINCE ERECTION EOUIPMENT AND CONDITIONS ARF UN,'PfvtW. DESIGN ASSUMES COMPETENT AND QUALIFIED PERSONNF_L. WILL E-)" THE TOWER. 1 3. DESIGN ASSUMES PO d DADA TYPE ANTENNAS ARE MOUNTED S Y41,WE 7RI CALL TO MINIMIZE TORQUE. 14. ANTENNAS AND LINES LISTED IN TOWER DESIGN LOADING TABLE ARE PROVIDED BY OTHERS, UNLESS OTHER4I5F_ NOTED. 15. THE TOWER AZIMUTH SHOWN IS A RELATIVE AZ11.f'JTI( USEU TO E57ABt_ISl, THE RELATIVE POSITION OF ANTENNAS WITH RESPECT TG THE TOWER FOR DE:Si GIN. 16- DESIGN ASSUMES THAT, AS A MINIMUM, MAIN7ENANCE AND INSPECTION WILL BE PERFORMED OVER THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE IN l.CCOl7DA,vCE WITH ANSI/EIA-222-E. 17. 21002OGAIMV BOLT ASSY'S AND KH3424 RINCFILLS ARE PROVIDED FOR ATTACHMENT OF RED/STROBE FLAf_Jl 1F TO DEACON PLATE. 18. DISH MOUNTS ARE TO BE PROVIDEO BY OTHERS, 19. SIDE ARMS ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS UNLESS OTHF_RWISF NOTED. 20. TOWER ORIENi-Ar10N TO BE DETERMINFD BY OTHERS. 21, ONE 15 -HOLE WAVEGUIDE LADDER 15 PROVIDED FROM /0" TO 300' ELEVATION. (2-WAVEGUIDE LAODF_R5 ARE FUTURE) 22. ROAN SHALL HAVE THE OPTION TO REVIEW FINAL. DISH LOCATIONS, AZIMUTHS AND MOUNTS 70 VERIFY THA! ASSUMcU TOT.OI)E V.AL. UES, ANI? LOCAL STRESSES ARE NOT EACEEOFO. 23. RCYIN-LOC SAFETY DEVICE IS SUPPLILU FOR '1hE ENTIRE HEIGFIT OF THE 1'OW'ER. 24. DISH AZIMUTHS SHOWN ARE NOMINAL AZIMUTHS USED FOR DESIGN. ACTUAL AZIMUTHS(TO BE DETER -WINED BY OTHERS) MUST NOT RESULT IN INCREASED - DESIGN LOADS. 25. DESIGN ASSUMES THAT ANTENNATRANSAfISSIUN LINES AND WAVF-GUIDC 26. W/ LADDERS LADDER SECTION MAY rREOUIRF FI!_LrDTC'U77l NGV To P/O!-r.R LFNG T7! AFTER ASSEMBLY. ALL FIFLO CUT71NG MUST UE PLflAIf+EU WITH COLD GALV OR ZINC RICH PAIN7 TOWER REACTIONS_ CC'.Mf-RESSION 350.9 'If'S TEN5l0P! 293, 4 Klf•5 TOTAL SHEAR 58.0 KIPS O. T. At. 19955. c FT, -KIPS OUAN. PART NO. N/A REF. N/A l REF. REF_ REF. 7 or I V6R_03A 4 tYY30R(A Mf SW330 1 OBl<E! f OBKZS i DLKEUFTLS 4 2/002OGA4 4 KH 3424 225 530075 1 APL 5 1 CP50 5 210031.GA 4 _ 2100013GA 2_T 25CC'05 L - FBhfP * 2 JR90SAW * (FOR MOUNTING POWER CONVERTER AT BASE OF TOWER) REFERENCE DRAWL, DESCRIPTION 3ROUTING 2 DRAINAGE DETAIL STOP BOLT OZ TAIL SROUNDIt1G DETAIL �GUNDATIO/'J 6 ANCHOR TC'LERA ANCF-OP BOLT TEMPLATE INSTA ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE FAB. ANCHOR BCiT TEMPLATE FAB. ANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT FOUNDATION DETAIL ANCHOR BOLTS BOLT ASSEMBLY INSIALLATIOn 15-HGLE WAVEGUIDE_ LADDER. _C I5 -HOLE WAVEGUIDE LADDER 5 N'AVEGUIOE LADDER CLIP A<_5) W.AVEGUIDC LADDER CLIP ASST WAVEGUIDE LADDER CLIP ASS) WAVEGUIDE LADDER CLIP ASS) WAVEGUIDE LADDER -CLAMP ROHIJ_LOC SAFETY HARNESS TOP POST ASSY CABLE RESTRAINT ASSY CABLE RESTRAINT ASSY BOTTOM BRACKET ASSY b- SILT- ARMS p 297'4 HORIZONTAL BRACE ASSY AT HORIZONTAL 11RACEASSY AT 4f'AVEGUICC_LADDER_CLAMP A' _WIRE FOR MIS ,33'7' OB57 RUCTION LIGHTING x17" LIGHTING_C'ONVERSION KIT OVAL LIGH11N5_ KIT RED/ST, I/2" X 7 BCrLT ASSY tV/CG( RINGFILLS W PLATE 'LATE X 2" BOLT ASSY X 1 1/,%" .BOLT ASSY FLIT WAC[{i .R MTG. 00 (SEE NOTE # 15) . TONER / \ AXIS / � 120. � (TYP.J TOWER CONFIGURATION N. T. S. 1Jo.A virion Darcr /yrlon - -"-- ' THIS DRAWING IS THE PRCPFHIY OF F:J)N(. IT IS NOI 70 D£ REPt+UCrlLED, COIPIFJ L!? Tr1A,'CO IN N11OLE ON fN PART W17HOUT OUR WRITTEN CCM1tiLNT, Scar., �,E' By Dot. iT4r1., Dro SRN 9/21/95 I 300' SSVMW TOWER ASSEMBLY LAlck. d, n r ri FOR SHE.MANCOAH PEfiSONAL COMAt. APP• Ena.• A�-n. _ tet., Ph �' 2G - ENG. FILE, 33097PM ii r,P;,•,,'u'r r:n. � t.O.r7 ("� r l BF91(!1 CBR0790 A952611,t-3 N/A A790t35 �9G1Dl8. fgt<, �90f878, 18;5 R C 74 1234 [741234 C741234 C74iZ34 C74/234 CBZOt55 5K7 t, D01_- A14.. By ACMd BYA ABy A CMd BYA Ay�d r l TWR180 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Us Depoitment of Transportation Failure To Provide All Requested Information May Delay Processing Of Your Notice Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study Number t. Nature of Proposal 2. Complete Description of Structure Tvpe B. Class J New Construction Permanent C. Work Schedule Dates Beginning 211 /98 Please describe the proposed construction or alteration. A. For U Alteration Temporary (Duration months) End proposals involving transmitting stations, include effective radiated power (ERP) and assigned frequency. If ' If Alteration, provide previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number, if available not known, give frequency band and maximum ERP. A. Name, address, and telephone number of individual, company corporation, etc. proposing the P Y P P P 9 B. For proposals involving overhead wire, transmission lines etc., include the size and the configuration of the wires construction or alteration. (Number, Street, City, State, and Zip Code) Shenandoah Mobile Company an their Supporting structures. Post Office Box 459 C. For buildings, include site orientation, dimensions, and Edinburg, Virginia 22824 construction materials. D. Optional— Describe the type of obstruction marking and ( 540 ) 984-3003 lighting system desired. The FAA will consider this in their Area Code Telephone Number study. B. Name, address and telephone number of proponent's representative, if different than 3A. above. Leonard L. Greisz c/o Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 ( 540 ) 984-3003 Area Code Telephone Number 1. Location Ut structure Coordinates I to hundri if known atitude 0 39 04 ongitude 0 of seconds. B. Nearest City or Town and State 05.79 Stephens City, (1). Distance to 4B 78 . 1 11 1 08.64 D. Source for item 4A data. 'JSGS 7.5' Other !uad Chart ❑ Survey ❑ Specify 2 miles (2). Direction to 4B 293 Degrees Exhibit 4 ilcatethe reference datum. 4E. Description of site location with respect to highways, street, airports, prominent terrain, features, NAD 27 NAD 83 Other existing structures, etc. Please attach a U.S. Geological Survey Ma ore equivalent) showing the construction ® ❑Specify 9 y p ( q ) site. If available, attach a copy of a documented site survey with the surveyor's certification. dice is required by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.A. Part 77) pursuant to Section 1101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended4„ U.S.C. a owingly and willfully violate the Notice requirements of Part 77 are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per day until the notice is received, pursuant to Section 901(a) of the Fede of Av ation Act ofo ,56, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1471(a)) as well as the fine (criminal penalty) of not more than $500 for the first offense and not more than $2,000 for subsequent offenses, pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1472(a)). HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, I 3ree to obstruction mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking & lighting standards as necessary. 'fe Typed or Printed Name and Title of Person Filing Notice Signature Q_S~ i ck1 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager, PCS _ JR FAA USE ONLY -e,5 ;F will either�eturri this form or issue a separate'acknowledgemenf. he -Pr Supplemental Notice oLConstruction FAA Form 7460-2, is required any time the'prolecl is abandoned, or s Does no(regwre a notice to FAA , '_ s„' At least 48 hours before the start of I SIs unboptairtdeCn,tiafiendd awsoualnd onbost tbruecatiohnazuanrdderto aaniycnstaavnigdaatirdonof"F_AR Part TI -e Wico. nstru`ctior n onstrucion reithin five days ajerthe caches s. j greatesheight v; , This determinahon expires on =�' - unless Is Identified as an obstruction under the standards of FAR Part 77 "� }� ia) extended iewsed or termiriat_e-d by the issusing office; Subpart C, but would not be a hazard to air navigation (b) the construction.is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application coostruction;permit is made to the FCC on or before the above expiration date. In such cases the determination Should be obstruction'❑ marked Itghted pei FAA ` rr a �p expires on she -date:prfmribed by the FICC for complepon of construction, or on the date the FCC dentes the application `, r `Advisory Circular 70/7460 1 Chapters .r : °i , , NOTE fiequest for extension of the effective penbd of this'determ nation must be postmarked or delivered to the issuing office �; 1 � r �_ � at least �5 da�s poor (o the expiration date �° '�-r� � :;�-r �j -" rs,„� = ;,fir"'• ,� � Obstruction marktn and k titin � _ -�-�� r It thestruclure is sublec(to the Itcensm� authority of the FCC a copy of th s determmahort1f be It thatagecy = ,�. r • - - _._ .. �.r-� , _... t �.,..E,h?':.< .�S-.-_-•t {r.�..--„...�`}'<-.wti"'4,r wC,ar,+..-e",z-'_..i�...s,...��_:.._ .ti, } e: � r s � -� �it 'r }.'T`•gc �'"�'1=Yt �Sivs3`?`'s � Z�.}'�k�.l"r,G {..��'y`��2�y7� �`t' � 4 �x t"•--i� _ � '� ", r _,- •��b .�k�s� cy�, c �.z.- 1� � ,.L.r _-•at �73a. 3f.. ?$tY'��tt rV.^.+.. +.'�..�. a'"a--ifw � J^Q.H _;�” "^ t v �. �_� mac, ��' 1 Y _ 5 i r -��a♦ 3a ",. 3 tt;-.Y�Syc rr^z �t .ri.+,Y, 4-x EN•`1.r ' - T 2 t .-�' - - �t 9 3 i `c,- _. {� C ��' -''"�X �r..;T.:�.� u5i �.'��-� f�'`k•.'Jc''G �kA�-•�.-st P --r' r 3` n. ;`�� yr�•i S.� T „ - w y �3y� $ se these coordinates for an aD 83 Coordinates fixture correspondence with ttie'FM a st Lltlttldt? `� `�^r' Lon Rude. ~ _ �;, �r * ar max: F 9 .. s red in Signature Date 5. Height and Elevation (to nearest foot) C. Nearest public or military airport, A. Elevation of ground above mean heliport, flightpark, or seaplane base sea level. OKV Winchester Exhibit 1 nnal730 (1). Dis ance from structure to nearest B. Height of structure including all point of nearest runway appurtenances and lighting above 4.8951 nm ground or water. 300 (2). Direction from structure to airportC. Overall height above mean sea level 23.187 Degrees 1,030 ilcatethe reference datum. 4E. Description of site location with respect to highways, street, airports, prominent terrain, features, NAD 27 NAD 83 Other existing structures, etc. Please attach a U.S. Geological Survey Ma ore equivalent) showing the construction ® ❑Specify 9 y p ( q ) site. If available, attach a copy of a documented site survey with the surveyor's certification. dice is required by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.A. Part 77) pursuant to Section 1101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended4„ U.S.C. a owingly and willfully violate the Notice requirements of Part 77 are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per day until the notice is received, pursuant to Section 901(a) of the Fede of Av ation Act ofo ,56, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1471(a)) as well as the fine (criminal penalty) of not more than $500 for the first offense and not more than $2,000 for subsequent offenses, pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1472(a)). HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, I 3ree to obstruction mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking & lighting standards as necessary. 'fe Typed or Printed Name and Title of Person Filing Notice Signature Q_S~ i ck1 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager, PCS _ JR FAA USE ONLY -e,5 ;F will either�eturri this form or issue a separate'acknowledgemenf. he -Pr Supplemental Notice oLConstruction FAA Form 7460-2, is required any time the'prolecl is abandoned, or s Does no(regwre a notice to FAA , '_ s„' At least 48 hours before the start of I SIs unboptairtdeCn,tiafiendd awsoualnd onbost tbruecatiohnazuanrdderto aaniycnstaavnigdaatirdonof"F_AR Part TI -e Wico. nstru`ctior n onstrucion reithin five days ajerthe caches s. j greatesheight v; , This determinahon expires on =�' - unless Is Identified as an obstruction under the standards of FAR Part 77 "� }� ia) extended iewsed or termiriat_e-d by the issusing office; Subpart C, but would not be a hazard to air navigation (b) the construction.is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application coostruction;permit is made to the FCC on or before the above expiration date. In such cases the determination Should be obstruction'❑ marked Itghted pei FAA ` rr a �p expires on she -date:prfmribed by the FICC for complepon of construction, or on the date the FCC dentes the application `, r `Advisory Circular 70/7460 1 Chapters .r : °i , , NOTE fiequest for extension of the effective penbd of this'determ nation must be postmarked or delivered to the issuing office �; 1 � r �_ � at least �5 da�s poor (o the expiration date �° '�-r� � :;�-r �j -" rs,„� = ;,fir"'• ,� � Obstruction marktn and k titin � _ -�-�� r It thestruclure is sublec(to the Itcensm� authority of the FCC a copy of th s determmahort1f be It thatagecy = ,�. r • - - _._ .. �.r-� , _... t �.,..E,h?':.< .�S-.-_-•t {r.�..--„...�`}'<-.wti"'4,r wC,ar,+..-e",z-'_..i�...s,...��_:.._ .ti, } e: � r s � -� �it 'r }.'T`•gc �'"�'1=Yt �Sivs3`?`'s � Z�.}'�k�.l"r,G {..��'y`��2�y7� �`t' � 4 �x t"•--i� _ � '� ", r _,- •��b .�k�s� cy�, c �.z.- 1� � ,.L.r _-•at �73a. 3f.. ?$tY'��tt rV.^.+.. +.'�..�. a'"a--ifw � J^Q.H _;�” "^ t v �. �_� mac, ��' 1 Y _ 5 i r -��a♦ 3a ",. 3 tt;-.Y�Syc rr^z �t .ri.+,Y, 4-x EN•`1.r ' - T 2 t .-�' - - �t 9 3 i `c,- _. {� C ��' -''"�X �r..;T.:�.� u5i �.'��-� f�'`k•.'Jc''G �kA�-•�.-st P --r' r 3` n. ;`�� yr�•i S.� T „ - w y �3y� $ se these coordinates for an aD 83 Coordinates fixture correspondence with ttie'FM a st Lltlttldt? `� `�^r' Lon Rude. ~ _ �;, �r * ar max: F 9 .. s red in Signature Date NOTE: NOT DRAWN TObCALE TWR180 OVERALL HEIGHT: 1,030 ft. AMSL GROUND ELEVATION: 730 ft. AMSL EXHIBIT 1 Sherando, VA VERTICAL PLAN SKETCH OF PROPOSED ANTENNA AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY C MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SITE ' / r rr TWR180 - Sherando Shenandoah Mobile Company 12/97 J " • 6 j` `�� f `J h >7 �.., --73° Exhibit 2 •_� 7s3 o r57 Radio 1,50 ,IIc� (�11� ♦ <i '` ` - �� v i \;� l °° �i�� ` l ' % '15 rl \-•\ ° �'`. 1 / `\ 1 z4 l' Jl-�-\�_� .J �� °) ]��'.' -•-- I i �r 1 _ _I'. 1✓ �•-- =\� �l 1 :i F _ ,, • � - - 769 • l ' ' �7f�-- -. � � -� 3� .. � _ . / /1 ;' ' ; , � _ _ ` _�_- - 1 "\ 'qfF tom, �..: \ c6752 ._ Q �r''�J4i iIv I i �� ✓1;11 �� - i IV •;l l —// \` (` ��•`— \�:,�%// � ? 740"iO /•" / •� c' - �) (� q .�� //_/'. X766 \ r` ;\J '� 7s°( io\`'�� (J,I�Y V iF.� C•'/ �'/ ✓ //�'i :.1 I, y: ° ,-•(/.' \� \� -A lose �� m, �> �ii am �I j ` ��i� / In �J/>ru .J�r�l,-J HJJ j,(�� 0-!�,�� Oa�;ji\ O�� , c_.*11 %r'�;%Sl` ;� ?.�� )�1��`; l �.�(�; �,•�y'I fi ll /\� )1.'. '.\ /)�lv'\\��lu DG �iix.-, �.Frie dshiP� _ ,.-7 �'.,� \.f< �C/I•) �' ' f �� .I ../� +l i ' � '�=� -�1 ,�. ��) �i1 f �r- o � ti rl5wi�i�/ JvJm�(�v/ ^ 1y\) ://�/�� 7i MR )AR 1 /,. \\ V ✓Irk �L� 1 ° , \' l)) ��,L� �� Irk; )AR- " 30 -�n � � �J /, �� / - 1\.�� `j I� � 9p.-1`, '1 / �° ai �!)� �\ ��1� i �� u>:,,•til 1 9°_.� � �� l,�I,1�J �r 0 l ,�r::�/ ll .: �_', �� .;r `�.�� vrc:+ � _' L:l '�-� - °;° 1 C n�� y • -" \� : 1.`C�:, (� �(� � °��'�� , SCALE 1:24000 1 q 0 1 MILE �� ,> / - f r- R,� 1000 _ 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1^ 5 0 1 KILOMETER lJ '' t CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 L -"t - 2730 NOU Or C! I �Q, S r %A 4- 'WR 180 - Sherando Exhibit 3 49 Hed d A-st ir NOT ect, Ilk 1-r Class D,dFf hers A Al LGEE 2237-- 7 J- 1265; -0 2 48' w 9't �fd 41e, rnr 21 qm5 1711 yr 7apr •z /'Il'cEWvv if tP 2615 vl 14, 16 Pwl ".;!.V.' r°loco—sp 4 — ---l-771 0 SHEPH ps ERDI(WRB • R xx m--GT--124.3,� G B.kertc -00d N T A! N,� VOL "k 70 122 OA, SIT �/2 67 !IMB Z/ 122,11- �R Capon' A ......... ......... . . . . . . . . . . SB RG- '0 us JJ2. 1 uc couu �M\RB i3 5 SEL 1130, L ESBUH(5, LP I L INS (9 q9 jAn 112C mW - 7- & q" 19 - N- (30 1050 3J lyl011 I I -,- 141j" P6int- Ifl KP.11 I': (I -on -3 - 1240, t WINCHESTER/ R -ES QlaiPCO 1941. u 1-3 4� 727, --L p 2aaf Ft9- 173 W 'GAN HO Q1 6 4 L: e�riilo Pr0jD0 sed Loc c -- V 100— ;r e hL-n RUN A— J1 1 4" IJ L B E,,:,,, ) Ic 0 t�/ f-!�-- 2n z 'yv 1� STI, A,ts 45 2-3yu 17 90 1-737 u C Aj , -0t, V A6 le (,R) FRR HIC Roc cy ctorFown 54- Z3 0 W-Mly-13 ICE Pvj bi UC --Z &A -tut"- -(3 1'7) c _�BENDx4 SGS J- UAI NIAHtA P 1.251 PUIU :51 A5 —qi' M0,01. (PV) W -21- lieSe- 27 FR 00 XyOrl 0, 9 S; 0 S F." - P ng�fonl 2'8 A—UAV15 (Po) Z.000 W, 7" - I // in 042 22 4Y UK (V AIRES. 01 450k po IA71 10 N., orrento iTimberville Pi ARR Nu F0 442 22 70", 120 H, 101 i Mv_ES I,u 120 130 I 1 10 K-: GV --- :RS 110 JIM 14 l) Go I PA RES I Pvn 'R R 2 Midic 1252 GR` ::--- P�20 �2'6 ERRYY�,E (� '1P IgrorGlt 'Linvil 3 �2U) Bec .eT-;,A -A TWR180 - Sherando, VA Shenandoah Mobile Company Item 2.A (FAA Form 7460-1): i Exhibit 4 The structure will be a 300 foot three -sided self-supporting hot -dipped galvanized steel tower initially equipped for operation of a personal communications services system operating in the frequency band of 1850-1865 or 1930-1945 at a max ERP of 200 watts and the in frequency band of 825 - 845 or 865 - 895 at a max ERP of 100 watts. See Exhibit 1 for pertinent structure and topographic measurements. Item 2.D (FAA Form 7460-11): We would prefer to use a dual lighting system with red lights for night time and medium intensity flashing white lights for day time and twilight use. O .... • ffENT EL SHENANDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS P.O. Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0459 (540) 984-4141 December 16, 1997 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy: Please find attached additional information which Shenandoah Mobile Company is submitting in support of the five conditional use permit applications recently filed by Shenandoah Mobile Company and pending with Frederick County. Listed below by site number are descriptions of the type of installation we propose to install at each location: (1) TW -R078 Hunting Ridge (Self Supporting Lattice -type) — We propose to build a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons: A. This site is outside the Urban Development Zone; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary; C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. (2) TWR079 Little Timber Ridge (Monopole) — A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. (3) TWRO84 Bowling Green Ride (Monopole) -- A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. (4) TWR167 Parkins Mills (Self Supporting Lattice -type) -We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site because: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; SHENANDOAH TELEPHONE COMPANY . SHENTEL SERVICE COMPANY • SHENANDOAH CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY SHENANDOAH LONG DISTANCE COMPANY SHENANDOAH VALLEY LEASING COMPANY SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY SHENANDOAH NETWORK COMPANY WE MUST SERVE WELL TO PROSPER • WE MUST PROSPER TO SERVE WELL Mr. Michael T. Ruddy December 16, 1997 Page 2 C. The proposed design is consistent with another structure viewable from the same area; and D. Monopoles of this size are not cost advantageous. (5) TWR1SO Sherando (Self Supporting Lattice -type) - We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary; C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. We appreciate your continued assistance and cooperation as we proceed through the conditional use permit process. Sincerely yours, Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager (PCS) Shenandoah Mobile Company LLG/lsh Enclosures ATTACHMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNCATIONS FACILITIES g . y Submitted by Shenandoah Mobile Company Tower No. TWR 180 .. ' Sherando Property Owned by Linwood D Ritter &Elizabeth Ann Ritter In accordance with Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Section 165.48.6, Subsections A (1) through A (4), the following information is attached: (1) Attachment 1 — A topographic map depicting the search area. (2) Attachment 2 — Identification of other service providers or commercial telecommunications facilities within the proposed service area. (3) Attachment 3 — Compliance with ANSI/IEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation. (4) Attachment 4 - Statement of procedure for tower and equipment removal_ ATTACHMENT 1 �o Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR180 �� • - �� Conditional Use Application cn_ 842' fir`, 47 753.J��. % `7zo�:/�, 7aoT 2 T •� f l\\ ti i \ 8 y � �.�-•� '� 111 ill � / / \ ✓/,'! INTI H•o / �i�;�`� �'�o i i c / tirr l �� B C/� x,1769 �• - � ` i�. - 1,,.. � r ; '' `/ -= �h/ � ✓, ..� f,. ;/% � � . .'� � l✓/ °O. � f\.\ ,-_ / � � � /738 �� b x766 / / X750 /�V�S _ - v�' i1 �� ! •� q Oc� \�� /,(� a , !� � �i r � �� 1 � � �.-� � �, � � • (-� � v �v� �w� v��jl � Jam/ � /��, _.� �,��.iJ\`°o��l�,\��- � i �i o° ' Jp� %� f \ • ' � 1 \ �t/'/�; II �• -.s \ �L /~�� ,il /� � j; .-\\�,�f\ \� ��\�) ;� l KWI 30 IV J /lig\'/ r ✓��.� \;-��;��(�' -.( GC., \�/ -._ � \�li�`�1 - �.,� i�l�J �\^��j fit\ ��.. 50 730 17 iA , r � �j5 ATTACHMENT 2 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR180 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The comparable FCC license holders operating in the search area of the prospective site are... Cellular A -- Cellular One B -- Shenandoah Cellular PCS A -- American Personal Communications (Sprint Spectrum) B -- AT&T Wireless PCS C -- CFW Communications (Virginia PCS Alliance) D & E -- Shenandoah Mobile Company F -- Devon Mobile Communications There are no commercial telecommunications facilities within the search area of the prospective site. ATTACHMENT 435 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR180 Conditional Use Application COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNCIATIONS COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED ANSI/IEEE STANDARDS FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD LEVELS AND RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION As set forth in OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997, entitled Evahsating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, states on Page 14: "Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground -level exposure in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposure from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for broadband PCS. These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically `worst case' site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground-levell power densities are typically hundreds to thousands times below the new MPE limits." (Emphasis added.) (A copy of excerpt from OET Bulletin 65 is being submitted with this package.) The antenna installation planned under this Conditional Use Permit will be at a height in excess of twenty (20) meters. Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology Evaluating {compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 OET BULLETIN 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 The first edition of this bulletin was issued as OST Bulletin No. 65 in October 1985. This is a revised version of that original bulletin. NOTE. Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement by the Federal Communications Commission or by the authors. 2.1091 and 2.1093 (for portable and mobile devices). This requirement applies to some, but not necessarily all, transmitters, facilities or operations that are authorized under the following parts of our rules: 5, 15, 21 (Subpart K), 22 (Subpart E), 22 (Subpart H), 24, 25, 26, 27, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I, and L), 80 (ship earth stations), 90 (paging operations and Specialized Mobile Radio), 97 and 101 (Subpart L). Within a specific service category, conditions are listed in Table 2 of Appendix A to determine which transmitters will be subject to routine evaluation. These conditions are generally based on one or more of the following variables: (1) operating power, (2) location, (3) height above ground of the antenna and characteristics of the antenna or mode of transmission. In the case of Part 15 devices, only devices that transmit on millimeter wave frequencies and unlicensed Personal Communications Service (PCS) devices are covered, as noted in rule parts 2.1091 and 2.1093 (see section on mobile and portable devices of Appendix A). Transmitters and facilities not included in the specified categories are excluded from routine evaluation for RF exposure. We believe that such transmitting facilities generally pose little or no risk for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. However, as noted above, in exceptional cases the Commission may, on its own merit or as the result of a petition, require environmental evaluation of transmitters or facilities even though they are otherwise excluded from routine evaluation. Also, at multiple -transmitter sites applications for non -excluded transmitters should consider significant contributions of other co -located transmitters (see discussion of multiple -transmitter evaluation in Section 2). If a transmitter operates using relatively high power, and there is a possibility that workers or the public could have access to the transmitter site, such as at a rooftop site, then routine evaluation is justified. In Table 2 of Appendix A, an attempt was made to identify situations in the various services where such conditions could prevail. In general, at rooftop transmitting sites evaluation will be required if power levels are above the values indicated in Table 2 of Appendix A. These power levels were chosen based on generally "worst-case" assumptions where the most stringent uncontrolled/general population MPE limit might be exceeded within several meters of transmitting antennas at these power levels. In the case of paging antennas, the likelihood that duty factors, although high, would not normally be expected to be 100% was also considered. Of course, if procedures are in place at a site to limit accessibility or otherwise control exposure so that the safety guidelines are met, then the site is in compliance and no further environmental processing is necessary under our rules. Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground - level exposures in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposures from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for 14 broadband PCS.13 These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically "worst case" site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands of times below the new MPE limits. In view of the expected proliferation of these towers in the future and possible use of multiple channels and power levels at these installations, and to ensure that tower installations are properly evaluated when appropriate, we have instituted these new requirements for this limited category of tower -mounted antennas in these services. For consistency we have instituted similar requirements for several other services that could use relatively high power levels with antennas mounted on towers lower than 10 meters above ground. Paging systems operated under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 of our rules previously have been categorically exempted from routine RF evaluation requirements. However, the potential exists that the new, more restrictive limits may be exceeded in accessible areas by relatively high-powered paging transmitters with rooftop antennas." These transmitters may operate with high duty factors in densely populated urban environments. The record and our own data indicate the need for ensuring appropriate evaluation of such facilities, especially at multiple transmitter sites. Accordingly, paging stations authorized under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure if an antenna is located on a rooftop and if its ERP exceeds 1000 watts_ Mobile and Portable Devices As noted in Appendix A, mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services (PCS), the General Wireless Communications Service, the Wireless Communication Service, the Satellite Communications services, the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) and Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized, respectively, under Part 22 (Subpart H), Part 24, Part 25, Part 26, Part 27, Part 80, and Part 90 of the FCC's Rules are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. Unlicensed PCS, NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. All other mobile, portable, and unlicensed transmitting devices are normally categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure (see Section 2 and Appendix A for further details). 13 For broadband PCS, 2000 W is used as a threshold, instead of 1000 W, since at these operating frequencies the exposure criteria are less restrictive by about a factor of two. 14 For example, under Part 90, paging operations in the 929-930 MHz band may operate with power levels as high as 3500 W ERP. 15 ATTACHMENT X6--'4 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR180 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL REMOVAL OF ABANDONED COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The Conditional Use Permit application process (ordinance) in Frederick County for Commercial Telecommunications Facilities requires that the applicant provide "information delineating procedures for guaranteeing the removal of the commercial telecommunications facility within one year of abandonment of operation." Having worked with the Planning Commission in the development of the ordinance it is our understanding that the intent of this section (§ 165-48.6. A. (4)) is threefold, (i) "not" to burden the applicant with a requirement to post a bond, (ii) not to leave the landowner "holding the bag" with an abandoned site, unless, or course, that was the agreement with the landowner, and (iii) to ensure the tower itself is removed, not necessarily the foundation. In the spirit of complying with this requirement, Shentel considered several possibilities, including the purchase of a removal bond, entering into an irrevocable letter of credit to ensure removal, and the establishment of a self-funded sinking fund. Each possibility was rejected either because of cost, or because it restricted the use of critical working capital. Shentel is a locally established, successfully operating telecommunications company that has been doing business in the Shenandoah Valley continuously since 1902. It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose. Shentel stands behind that practice. Most recently Shentel decommissioned a cable TV tower in Shenandoah County and arranged to remove it along with our equipment. The landowner, however, asked us to leave the tower in place so he could use it for amateur radio purposes. We readily complied with his request, removing all of our equipment and cabling from the structure and the surrounding grounds, turning the site over to the landowner as requested. All of our site lease agreements contain a provision allowing us to remove our communications tower and all related equipment upon the termination of the rental period. (El 10 1�m FROM INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 81 AND ROUTE 277 AT OUT 307. PROCEED EAST ON ROUTE 277 9 MIAND 36. APPROXUJaY 1LES TO INTERSECTION ROUTE 277 AROUTE 6 PROCEED SOUTH ON ROLRE 636 APPROMIATELT 0.4 MES TO A SAW LEFT N THE ROTO. CDNT.UE STRAIGHT AHEM ON GRUEL ROAD FOR APPRDVMTFLY 035 MILES TO TOWER SITE. I. THE PROPOSED LEASE MFA NO AtfiSS ANO UNITES EASEMENT ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY DESGNAIFD AS FREDO C COUNTY TAI PARCELS 86-A-206 A 86-A-209 AND CURRENTLY OWNED Or LN'A000 RITTER AND ELIZABETH ANN RITTEJL 2. SITE PLAN SMS PREPARED RWM THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT PREPARED BT BRYAN t ELIA COPMC. i LU 32455 HS 1 TPROPERTY 6 SUE ECT TO ALL RESTRCR0N4. EASEMENTS. OR RIGHTS OF FAY OF RECORD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS PlA1. 4. THE UADAJSTED MT10 OF PRECIS N FOR THIS SURVEY EXCEEDS 1:10000, S. EIEWMINS ARE BASED ON IAC A GS STATION VEPHDC ETEV. - 781-W. NCIOD 29 6. BENCH MARK 6 A RAILROAD SPIE N A tY PIE E1EV - 731.26. 7. OUSTING PROPERTY CCXTA96 APPRO030MY 39.074 ACRES 6. ZONING ORTk CURRENT ZONING. RURAL AREA RA PROPOSED USL SELF-AUPPORFNO CpYIACLT06 TOWER WITH NEDI M N1E611Y WH/TE DAY LIGHT AND RED LIGHT LIGHT (E REQIRED BY THE FAA) PROPOSED TOWER HEICIT: 307 REQUIRED SEOBAM FRONT - 325' FROM ROAD NCR-OF-WKY SIDE - 365' REAR - 365' 9. 046Ek INW00D 0- RITTER AND EJUBEIH AIN RITTER 746 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD WNCESTM M 22615 10. APPLI<iuR: SHENANDOAH MOBILE CO~ 124 SOUTH MAN STREET P.0. BOK 459 EDNBURG, M 22624-0459 (540) 964-4141 I f. POWER COMWMNr: POTOMAC EDSON POWER CO PAN, P.D. BOX MOO WNC MEM M 22804 (800) 654-3317 IZ TELOWNE COPNM: BEL ATLANTIC 2980 K FAR" PARK ORAE FALLS CURL. M 22046 (540) 954 -SM 11 THIS STTE ODES t'DT LE MEAN A H 11. DESIGNATED 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE_ 14. NAD 27 MANES FOR PROPOSED TOWER: EARRAE 39D4,0142' L0MC1UoE Mi 1'09-63' S. APPROX TONER BASE ELEV. - 729LO FT. 16. THIS PUT REPRESENTS THE SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED FUSE AREA AND ACCESS FASEENM THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY AFUERSONI t ASSOCIATES ON 25 AUG 1997 AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE WEER PROPERTY_ 17. IRON ROOS SET AT ALL COR EIS OF ERASE AREA UNLESS OTHIOMSE NOTED. OWNIOR'S CERTIFICATE; THE ETAS AREA NO EASEMENTS, AS APPEAR ON THS RAT, ARE WITH THE FEE CONSENT AND N ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS OR TRUSTEES. DUE: LLIZAELIH ANN RITTER Ohm- HOT/NYS CERTIFICATE, rMFVAo�A 6E( TO ME - 1 A NOTARY PUBIC N NID FOR THE SITE AND COUNTY AFORESAID DO HEREErr CERTIFYLIN WOOD THAT WOOD 0. ROM WHOSE RALE 6 SG40 TO THE FOREGOING WRTID, BEARING DATE OF 19_ HAS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACKNOWLEDGES THE SNL OWEN ODER MY HVD AND SEAL ON THIS -DAY OF . 19_ NOWTF PUBLIC MY ONOR590N EXPIRES DOUBLE CHURCHES ROAD REALTY PARTNERSHIP IAT 1{ 0.8 664 PG 87 TAI PARCEL 86 -A -52C ZONED: RA USE: RESOOMAL/WCAN] ROBERT C. TRENARY AND CLYDE R TRENARY D.D. 506 PG. 667 TAX PARCEL W -A-211,212 ZONED RA USE: VACANT ROD FOUND ON LINE O Mor S 3T36'IO- W DESX NER ANDERSON h ASSOCIATES 7722 IRAN STREET M WETOWN, VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 DOUBLE CHURCHES ROAD REALTY PARTNERSHIP IAT I -F CA 664 PG. 67 TAI PARCEL 66 -A -57F ZONED, RA USE RESIDENTW4POCIAT / PROPOSED LEAS MU - 4900 SO FT. 0.112 ACES / SA / RpAp / DELTA - 97Mi ND1AR'S CERTIFICATE q.,Y/ M CDLJNlY OF AREDS"XTO WIT: �,S*LTN q ? p 44 i L A NNDTARY PUBIC N AND FOR RE STATE AND COUNTY L - 9433 SGRE OFTM RT G PEWITS - AFIVESW DO HEREBY CONFIT HW EJIABEM ANI RS E 6 SI WEDNAE M THE FOREGOING WWMIG, SEAMIG DUE OF 19_ HAS N. 1966 PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACUOOMEOGFS THE SAME y- GMAT LIM W HAW NO SEMI ON THIS -DAY OF . 19- MOURY PUg1C MY COMWISSON EIPIES �4'D SY ■ - - WUfINW WR180\Ci 1 971111.1110 1 RBC/ELP �ppOpOSD 25' INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT w kE AND s��• N ASSOCIATES. Inc. Pkwwws Td-Clb& TX ROD FOUND ON LINE O Mor S 3T36'IO- W DESX NER ANDERSON h ASSOCIATES 7722 IRAN STREET M WETOWN, VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 DOUBLE CHURCHES ROAD REALTY PARTNERSHIP IAT I -F CA 664 PG. 67 TAI PARCEL 66 -A -57F ZONED, RA USE RESIDENTW4POCIAT / PROPOSED LEAS MU - 4900 SO FT. 0.112 ACES ROO FOUR f/`7BE�NC�TN�J�( / SA / RpAp / DELTA - 97Mi �SPOE / CFO. BRIG. - S IN 11Y PANES. / R - 6000' i OAK AT I L - 9433 / / CHO - 6455' 4 x2.50' I ROO FOUR f/`7BE�NC�TN�J�( �SPOE y� IN 11Y PANES. it i OAK AT I COR 4 x2.50' I y- JII- SY ■ - - - I - - FOUND �ppOpOSD 25' INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT NOTE THE FOLLOr71G EASEMENTS WERE USTM M THE TIRE REPORT PREPARED BY ww t CMINA l PLC FILE 132451 1. BLANKET EASEMENT TO OESAPFAKE/POTOMNK TELEPHONE CC4IL Aw OF MRO W FOR TELEPNCNE SANDE OA 312 PG. 564 2. NORIFERH VIRGINIA POWER COMPANY EASEMENTS FOR UK AID POLE ANCHORS ALONG -S7 yHEW6 CRY ROWS PER DA 162 PG 65 AND DS 178 PG 429. USMEJRS 00 NOT AFFECT A18ECT LEASE AREA 1 NORRERN VI4GIiA POWER COMPANY FA.SEYENT FOR ELECTRO SERVICE M OVULE: OR 205 PG 11 EASE" TIDES NOT AFFECT SUBECT LOSE AREA 4, NORTHERN VINi6A W ER CO*~ EASEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC SERVICE: OIL 261 PG 664. EASELEA'1 DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT LEAS AREA. 1 NORTHERN VIRCOM POWER MIPNNY EASEIIENT FOR ELECTRIC SERIACE TO PINING 94M OR 210 PG 252. EASE1ENt DOES NOT AFFECT SUBECT LEASE MFA 6. NORTHERN VpL7M POWER CFA~ EASEMENT FOR ELECTRIC SOMM TO OIEING AND DANT PARLOR; MR 248 PG 256. EASEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT MUSE AREA 7. NORTHERN VWGWU POWER C01PMF EASIER FOR ELECTRIC SFRVKE TO TENANT HOUSE DS 246 PG, 261. USEVENT 006 NOT AFFECT StUBU CT LEASE AREA. COUNTY OF FREDERICK M 440 PG 421 TAI PARCEL WA -143 ZONED: RA USE. PARK N 31'59,05" E �r�pCp pHTpt 9717K EULIBETFIBNN RTtE�R OA 719 M 446 SE PUT N O.B. 755 PG 1646 TAX PARCEL WA -206 POWER ZONED 8-1 LASE: MOBILE HOME PARK PDL�rPOWEIt BELE AI ANTIC-VWRCOK INC POLE EASEMENT FOR SAM CABLES GRF£L ROAD SEE 0$ 656 PG 114 TELL PAD WITH TELE. 1Llf. TEL PE0. -- - N 3291'5Y E 927-15' ESO" FOR WELL _ FOR PIONEER TRAILER SEE 0.B 719 PG 456 RDD FOUND POST FOUR TEL _. WELL /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _________________________________ MATE : f t Nov 97 19 NOV 9 ♦ PORTION OF RITTER PROPERTY SCALE AS SHO" 19 NOV fl7 /� r Vf\ E TVI\ V� DEsw4ED: TO BE LEASED BY OR"m: Re` SHEN41DOAH ?MOBILE COMPANY (TWR180-SHERANDO) CHECKED: CCP LFNDOD 0. RITTER AND ELIZABETH ANN RITTER 0,8. 745 M SM TAIL PABC£L 86-A-209 ZONED RA LSE: VACANT S 3rorlo- W SAMUEL WALKER AND ANNIE ALSDNE WALKER OR 745 PG 0712 tAX PARCEL 66-A-210 ;OED RA LSE: Wcw/REsoENML 20' EASEMDR TO I POTOMAC ODfS0NN I OR 7Lo P.G. 1177 1 1 I FOLIO 47 RIGHT OF FLY SEE OS 339 PG 207 27Dr APPR01uIA7EY .4 TELLMILES TO RTE 277 81PEEL POWER POLE RAYMOND E CHUGUktLF R OR 313 PG- 503 TAX BICE M -A-207 ZONED, RA AGRICULTURAL gilll,9aH r :► DOCUMENT NO- OPEQUONMAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 14325-00d FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA I 1 9E ET 2 I in Welt FROM NTERSF.CROM OF INTERSTATE 81 AND RARE 277 AT EXIT 3D7. PROCEED EAST p1 AXTE 277 APPR=MATCLY 1-9 PIES TO INTERSECTION ROUTE 277 AND 9WTE 636 PROCEED SOUTH ON RDUTE 635 MPROMNATELY 0.4 MILES TO A SHARP LEFT N THE IOM. COMTXUE AMIGO AWA ON GWNEL ROAD FOR APPRO)MIAl LT 025 MILS TO TORR SITE. SnElLim I. AREA AND ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY WRRLNTLY DMGNAiED AS FREDER IIX COUNTY TAX PARCELS 66-A-200 A 66-M209 AND CLOM NRY OWNED BF L)A•OOD RIMR AND ELgABM AIN RITTER. 2 SITE PLAIT WAS PREPARED NTN THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY W M A C(XDME P.LC FIEF 32455 1 TRS PROPERTY 6 S18ECT TO ALL RESTRICTIONS, EASDENTS. OR RIM OF WAY OF RUM PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TAS PLAT. 4. THE LCIADA15TED MBD OF PRECISION FOR AHS SUMEY EXCEEDS 1:10000 1 EIEWMAIS ARE BASED ON LSCA GS STATION STEP1 W ELEV. - 781.', WAD 29 i BENCH MRK 6 A RMRON) SPPM N A 1Y PINE ELEV - 73116. 7. DOSTIC PROPERTY COMTN6 MPROIL•fUFLT 39D74 ACRES 6 ZONING DATk O.A+RENT ZUWIR RURAL AREA M PROPOSED USE: SELF-SFPORRNG COMM NCUM006 TOMER WIN MEOUM KMNSTY WHTE DAT LA.M AID RED NIGHT LIGHT (IF REMIZED BY THE Fm) PMOPOSTD )OIIER HWIT: 300' REOUNED SEIBA.rX FRONT - 325' FROM RCN RM-OF-WkY SDE - 3W REAR - 35Y 9. OWER LI IODO 0 RIM AND EUZPAM ANI WIER 746 DOUBLE CMAiCH ROW 11610ESlDl M 22655 10. APPLVWE: SHDVA0W MOBLE COMPANY 124 SWM MAN STREET P.O. BOX 459 E0.6LAN' M 22924-0459 (540) 984-4141 11. POKER COU'AMI: POTOMAC ED60M POWER COMPANY P.O. BOX 3200 WINCHESTER. M 22604 (am 654-3317 12. TFTEPLIOIE COMPWt BELL ATUNUC 2960 N. FANVEV PARK ORM FAUS CH RCK 041 22046 (560) 954-6212 11 INS SITE DOES NOT LIE MINK A KUA DESI7LATED 100 YEAR FLOOD ZOM. 14. MMD 77 WIL E5 FOR PROPOSED TOMER: LATITUDE -"V&42' LOMCI OE 7vII)D9.w 11 APPROX TONER BASE DEV. - 729A FT. 1C THIS PLAT ROWSDRS THE SULKY OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND ACCESS EASEMENTS THS S14VEY III1S COMWCFED BY ANDERSON A ASSOOATES UI 25 AUG. 1997 AID DOES MOT REPRESENT A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE RIMER PROPERLY. 17. NOM AM SET Al ALL COWERS OF (EASE AREA UM -ESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE LEASE AREA AND EASEMENTS. AS APPEAR ON THS RAT. ARE WO THE FREE CONSENT AND N ACCORDVICE MTN THE DESIRES OF THE L)OERM" OWNERS, PROPREfORS OR TRUSTEES EL RFFER DUE: NTE: MnWf'S CERTIFICATE COUtfY Of FREOETLOC TO MIT- I, A MDDWY PIBTC N AND FOR TAE STATE AND COUNTY AFORESAD DO FERIAT CERTIFY TLW LNVI000 0 R(HER, WHOSE MME 6 SCIED m THE FOREGOING WRITING, KARIC DATE OF 19_ HAS PERS)NALLT APPEARED WORE ME AND AOOIORfDGES THE SAME. GEM LMROEER MY IMMO MD SEN. ON IHS—OAT OF . 19— wEmY PLBJC w COMMISSION EXPIRES NOTARY'S CERTIFICATE mlNn Of FREDUWd(ro WD: L A NOTARY PUBLIC N AND FOR THE STATE AND COUNTY AFORESAID DO HEREDY COMFY THAT EUZAWTH AMI RDTER. RiOSE TAME 6 SLED TO THE FOREGOING VRIFK BEARING DATE a19— HAS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND AOUIOWLEDLES THE SiWC GAEN WINDER MY KW AND SEAL ON T15—DID' OF . 19— NOTARY PURIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES WR 180\C2 971111.0923 1 RBC/ELP NUMBER DIRECTION DISTANCE L1 N 3701'57" E 70.00' O L2 S 575803' E 70.00' L3 S 3707 57 IN 70-DO— _E4_ N 5756 03 W 70.00 N 03'05 32 IN 53.72 I LIS N 5758'03" W 5.25 WT / / / / / FA 1. SEf POSTS AAO IXEAvwTE A 4�4 ,Iao,cN YPS,OPE ..� THE Il1E Oi POSTS. I TBENCHMARK NCHMA R7K 6' RL ROAD 3 SPIKE 2- PINE EV. UTXfFY KWARD ' III II I 2 STAPLE -.IE fEM.PIL TO THC POSTS _ _�j FLOW 1 wnwpl INE fILTEII iwB1UC TO M Fact .io E%TEND rt .rto THE TRixx E><G^-� � DETAIL - STET FENCE ND 3M FLO PROPOSED 12' GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD J',_k�. - - � EXIFMION Oi iABWC NO -iliE P(TO THE ,QC>tOT VIII / cam✓/ �s'. III SET FENCE SEE DETAIL 3701'57" E LNWOOD 0. RITTER AND ELIZABETH ANN RITTER D.B. 756 PC. 1846 TAX PARCEL 86-A-209 ZONED RA usE: VAUNT 323' ROD FOUND N P.. COUNTY OF FREDERICX D-8. 440 PC. 421 TAX PARCEL 86-A-143 ZONED: RA USE: PARK EUZABLTH ANN �PoTTERER O Da 719 PC. 446 SEE PLAT IN O.EI 756 PC. 1846 TAX PARCEL 86-A-208 ZONED B-1 POWER POLE DESIGNER ANDERSON A ASSOCIATES 7722 MAIN STREET MIDDLETOWN. VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 RPE FROND APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE 30 15 0 30 60 90 SCALE 1" = 30' kAEASSOCIAM.�"'1F"'w' a SSCCAALE /S HO H7 199N� 7 A r VR 1 M� OF FU 1 1 ER TROP GSI\ 1 1,�—NAW.Bbdmbw% V,%,� o�ouoN I�AGIsiERuL asrRlcTANO sl mom �,�„ DESIGNED: TO BE LEAS BY SHEETPkwwwm Te-twF, rn C"DIIII& VA °CKED � SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY (TWR 180 - SHERAMDO) �m�� C�NTYI VIRGINIA Z o Z InC. - O TO NEW GRAVEL ROAD INTO EMSTNG GRAVEL ROAD. I CONE. PAD WITH PROP25 INGRESS BASKETBALL GOAL AND E\ SS EASEMENT I TELE PED. DESIGNER ANDERSON A ASSOCIATES 7722 MAIN STREET MIDDLETOWN. VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 RPE FROND APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE 30 15 0 30 60 90 SCALE 1" = 30' kAEASSOCIAM.�"'1F"'w' a SSCCAALE /S HO H7 199N� 7 A r VR 1 M� OF FU 1 1 ER TROP GSI\ 1 1,�—NAW.Bbdmbw% V,%,� o�ouoN I�AGIsiERuL asrRlcTANO sl mom �,�„ DESIGNED: TO BE LEAS BY SHEETPkwwwm Te-twF, rn C"DIIII& VA °CKED � SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY (TWR 180 - SHERAMDO) �m�� C�NTYI VIRGINIA Z o Z InC. - PC REVIEW: 01/07/98 BOS REVIEW: 01/28/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #024-97 SHENANDOAH MOBILE CO. Commercial Telecommunications Facility Parkins Mills Site LOCATION: This property is located off Route 642, approximately 3/10 mile past the intersection of Squire Lane and Knight Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 76-A-98 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use. - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use. - Agricultural and institutional PROPOSED USE: 200 -foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dent. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections Department: Structure shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, Use Group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996. Please submit Virginia A/E sealed plans at the time of permit application. Fire Marshal: Post temporary street address signage during construction. Shenandoah Mobile Co. CUP #024-97 Parkins Mills Site Page 2 December 30, 1997 Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposed facilities. Winchester Regional Airport: See attached letter from Douglas P. Strand, Executive Director, dated December 16, 1997. Planning and Zonin : Ordinance Background: Frederick County adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in April 1997 that allows commercial telecommunication facilities with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This amendment specified that telecommunication facility CUP's could be approved provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted. Additional performance standards are also applicable to the CUP review. Ordinance Conformance: The proposed facility will be constructed on property located to the north of Route 642, approximately 3/10 of a mile past the intersection of Squire Lane and Knight Drive on the Smith property. The Zoning Ordinance requires that towers of 200 feet in height (as is proposed) be placed a minimum of 215 feet from adjoining residential or vacant property, and 225 feet from any road right-of-way. The proposed tower location does not comply with the setback requirements for this facility as a setback is required along the 30' road right-of-way access easement running through the property. The tower may be located elsewhere on the property in conformance with the setback requirements. In this case, it may not be appropriate for the Planning Commission to grant a reduction in the setback requirement, as per Section 165-48.6 (B), as it has not been demonstrated that the tower in any other location on the property will be of equal or lesser impact. The applicant has provided a map depicting the site selection search area. Eight comparable FCC license holders operating within this search area have been identified; none have constructed telecommunication facilities and begun providing services. In the interest of protecting the county's viewshed, it is encouraged that all telecommunication facilities are constructed in a manner that is conducive for co -locating with other comparable service providers. CUP's should not be granted until attempts to co -locate have been exhausted. The applicant has identified other comparable FCC license holders in the area that will be seeking telecommunication facilities in the near future and without allowing for co -location, the County may encounter a significant increase in telecommunication facilities in the viewshed. As there are no comparable facilities in existence within the search area, it is acceptable that this facility could be permitted with the understanding that other comparable service providers be allowed to co -locate on the tower. Shenandoah Mobile Co. CUP 9024-97 Parkins Mills Site Page 3 December 30, 1997 In order to alleviate the future abandonment of telecommunication facilities, the ordinance requires that procedures for guaranteeing the removal of such towers be established during the CUP process. The applicant has researched possible methods to guarantee the facility's removal. The applicant proposes that the County not require a monetary guarantee, but accept Shentel's (Shenandoah Mobile Company) business practice as a guarantee. The applicant, Shentel, states "It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose." The Zoning Ordinance requires that a guarantee be provided for removal of facilities; therefore, this needs to be resolved prior to this application's review before the Board of Supervisors. The structure will be a 200 -foot, three -sided, self-supporting galvanized steel tower initially equipped for operation of a personal communication system. The tower will be provided with a dual lighting system which provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use. The Zoning Ordinance requires that these lights be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties. At this time, the proposed accessory structures may be visible from a road right-of-way. Therefore, landscaping and screening of any accessory structures would be required. Request for Construction -Type Waiver: Monopole -type construction is required for all new telecommunication towers. The Planning Commission may allow lattice -type construction for towers located outside the UDA and not adjacent to identified historic sites. An identified Rural Landmark, 34-1200, the Clem -Haines House, is in the vicinity of this site. However, the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report does not refer to this as a potentially significant historic resource. It is staff's belief that the impact to this site is limited. This site may potentially qualify for the lattice -type tower. The applicant proposes to construct a self-supporting lattice -type tower, requiring the Planning Commission's approval. The applicant has stated that the height of the tower, in addition to their interest in constructing a tower that is readily modifiable for subleasing, would be best accomplished with a lattice -type structure. It is the applicant's contention that the height of the proposed tower would make a monopole -type construction cost -prohibitive. Staff_ Recommendation for January 7, 1998: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower is located on this property in compliance with the required setbacks. Shenandoah Mobile Co. CUP #024-97 Parkins Mills Site Page 4 December 30, 1997 3. The tower shall be available for co -locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable rates. 4. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of tower abandonment. 5. A minor site plan is approved by the County. 6. Screening any proposed accessory structures from the adjoining road right-of-way, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, is provided. O: UAGEN DAS\COM MENTS\P RKN SM LL. CUP SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA December 16, 1997 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (703) 662-2422 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office Box 280 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Re: Request for Conditional Use Permit Comments Installation of Commercial Telecommunications Facilities TWR167 - Smith Property TWR78 - Guthridge Property TWR79 - Anderson Property TWR84 - Poole Property TWR180 - Ritter Property Dear Mr. Greisz: Based on review of the above referenced projects by our engineering firm, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority does not anticipate that the above towers will penetrate FAR Part 77 Surfaces that will impact operations at Winchester Regional Airport. Final comment on these request will be contingent on receiving favorable responses from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation on the FAA Form 7460-1 submittals. I would like to request that a copy of each response from FAA be forwarded to this office as soon as you receive it. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office (540) 662-5786. I appreciate your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, Douglas P. Strand Executive Director CUP ##024-97 PIN: 76—A-98 Shenandoah Mobile Co. 76—A-98B Parkins Mills Site TWRC167 Parkins Mills Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant f the NAME: Shenandoah Mobile Company PERMIT owner �W -q x other) ADDRESS: Post Office Box 280 - 212 Piccadilly Street, Edinburg, VA 22824 TELEPHONE (540) 984-3003 Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Wayne A. Smith and Julie C Smith, husband and wife, and Orah B Haines, life 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) From intersection of Routes 522 and 642, go 1/10 mile east on Rt. 642 to Knight Drive (private gravel road). Follow Knight Drive northerly approx. 1/2 mile to intersection with Squire Lane. At intersection with Squire Lane, continue straight on Knight Drive (dirt road) for 2/10 mile to farm gate Pass through gate (relatch gate after Passing through), go another 1/10 mile to where road makes 90 -degree turn to left. The tower site borders the right side of the road at the curve. 4. The property has a road frontage of none feet and a depth of ±1,769 feet and consists of 94 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Wayne A. Smith and Julie C Smith as evidenced by deeds from Orah B. Haines, Widow recorded (previous owner) in deed book no . 758 on page 968 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick? and Deed Book 753, at Page 820, respectively. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 76-A-98 & 76 -A -98B Magisterial District Shawnee Magisterial District Current Zoning Rural Area 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North —Agricultural RA East Tnstitutinnal RA ''`-.> South A"i r-i,l hrraI RA West Agricultural RA 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) commercial telecommunications facilities 0 9. It is proposed tha the following buildings will be constructed: A 200 foot self supporting steel tower and a 8' x 10' concrete equipment pad 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and in front of (also across street from) the property where requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE -14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME Address 486 Knight Drive Wayne A. & Julie C. Smith Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 76 -A -98B Address 211-33 Forest Lake Drive Kathy S. & Steven E. ..Stephens City,VA 22655 Fishel Property ID# 76 -A -98C Eugene F. Grove Address 340 West Parkins Mill Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 76-A-97 Address 536 West Parkins Mill Road Anna Agnes White Kemp Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 76 -A -97A Edwin E. White Address 2073 Cindermill Lane Winchester,.VA 22601 Property ID# 76 -A -97B Edwin E. White Address 2073 Cindermill Lane Winchester VA 22601 Property ID# 76—A -97C } TWRC167 NAME Martin T. Craigo (Address 327 Knight Drive White Post, VA 2 Property ID# Ted W. & Janet L. Hagen Address 151 Chancellor Court White Property ID# 76-4-2 Glenn R. & Lelma E. Address 460 Harmon Circle, S.E. Christiansbur, VA 24073 Horst Property ID# 76-4=3 F. Wayne & Linda K. Address 124 Page Court White Post VA 22663 Wright Property ID# ' 76-4-4 Michael H. Pryor Address 211 Squire Lane White Post, VA 22663 Property ID# 76-4-5 i Greg T. Humphreys Address 307 Squire Lane J White Post VA 22663 4 Property ID# 76-4-6 Michael B. &Sandra J. Address Post Office Box 762 h City, VA 22655 McDonald Property ID# p Y 76-A-130D Edwin E. &Susanna H. Address 484 West Parkins Mill Road White, Jr. Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 76 -A -97D Thomas R. Hart Address 351 Knight Drive Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 76-A-99 Donald L. Strosnider Address 313 Knight Drive ,• nchpster,-VA 22602 Property ID# 76-A-100 John & Peggy B. Address 1810 Front Royal Pike Fostee r Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 76-A-101 Dot Ann &Lee Roy Address 291 Knight Drive Orndorf f Winchester VA 22602 Property ID/#/ 76-A-102 - - -., R TRWC167 NAME Mark & Deborah Eastman Address 201 Armel Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 76-A-103 Christopher A. & Christine L. Bunker Address 377 Fairfax Pike, Suite 1 Stephens City, VA 22655 � Property ID# 76-A-103A Romaine E. & Jeannette E. Thompson Address Route 1, Box 145-F White Post, VA 22663 Property ID# 76-A-1 03B Bountiful Farm, L.L.C. c/o Donald R. Hague Address 1009 Orchard Way Silver Spring, MD 20904 Property ID# 76-A-1 03C Bountiful Farm, L.L.C. c/o Donald R. Hague Address 1009 Orchard Way Silver Spring, MD 20904 Property ID# 76-A-103D Province of the Most Sacred Address Post Office Box 825 f Winchester VA 22604 4 property ID# 76-A-1 Lawrence E. & Hazel J. White Address 680 West Parkins Mill Road Winchester A 22602 property ID# 76-A-1 30 William & Sally Miller 580 West Parkins Mill Road VA 22602 Property ID# 76-A-1 30A William E. Catheart Address 676 West Parkins Mill Road Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 76-A-1 30B Cathy D. White Address 678 West Parkins Mill Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 76 -A. -130C Address Property ID# Address ,Property ID# I I � TWRC167 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. See attached site plan. TWRC167 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. SHIIQANDOAff BILE OOMPANY Signature of Applicant By: _- Leonard L. Greisz, Project Mang Signature of Owner. Owners' Mailing Address 486 xnigbt Drive, w;nchPGt-Pr, VA 2?rin? Owners' Telephone No. (540) 869-1341 Shenandoah Mobile Company (540) 984-3003 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: r 12 USE CODE•. RENEWAL DATE: -. ,t i l ype or Hrint on i nJs Form TWR167 US Department or Transportation Federal' Aviation Administration 1. Nature of Pro Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Failure To Provide All Requested Information May Delay Processing Of Your Notice .,pe B. Class C. Work Schedule Dates New Construction a Permanent Beginning 2 1 98. Alteration * Temporary (Duration months) End - 6/1/98 * If Alteration, provide previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number, if available : 3A. Name, address, and telephone number of individual, company corporation, etc. proposing the construction or alteration. (Number, Street, City, State, and Zip Code) Shenandoah Mobile Company Post Office Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 ( 540 )984-3003 Area Code Telephone Number 3B. Name, address and telephone number of proponent's representative, if different than 3A. above Form Approved OMB N0. 2120-00 Aeronautical Study Number 2. Complete Description of Structure Please describe the proposed construction or alteration. A. For proposals involving transmitting stations, include effective radiated power (ERP) and assigned frequency. I not known, give frequency band and maximum ERP. B. For proposals involving overhead wire, transmission line€ etc., include the size and the configuration of the wires ar. their supporting structures. C. For buildings, include site orientation, dimensions, and construction materials. D. Optional-- Describe the type of obstruction marking anc lighting system desired. The FAA will consider this in thei study, Leonard L. Greisz c/o Shenandoah Mobile Company Exhibit 4 Post Office Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 ( 540 ) 984-3003 Area Code Telephone Number 4. Location Of Structure 5. Height and Elevation Ito nearest foot) A. Coordinates (to known) dtns or seconds, B. Nearest City or Town C. Nearest public or military airport, A. Elevation of ground above mean Latitude 0 n and State he ort flight ark, or seaplane base OKVp sea level. 39 06 00.109 Stephens City,egi iester Exhibit 1 707 Longitude 0 r „ (1). Distance to 46 (1). Distance from structure to nearest B. Height of structure including all 78 08 42.47 4 Miles P,of nearest runway appurtenances and lighting above ^ n. Source for item 4A data. 2.5561 nm ground or water. 200 'JSGS 7.5'(2). Direction to 46 Chart 7.5'[] Survey OtherSpecify (2). Direction from structure to airport C. Overall height above mean sea level tuad 250 Degrees .70688 Degrees 907 Indicate the reference datum. 4E. Description of site location with respect to highways, street, airports, prominent terrain, features, NAD 27 ®NAD 83 [D gP amity er existing structures, etc. Please attach a U.S. Geological Survey Map (or.equivalent) showing the construction site. If available, attach a copy of a documented site survey with the surveyor's certification. Notice is required by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 77) pursuant to Section 1101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1956, as amended (49 U.S.C. app. § 1501). Persons who knowingly and willfully violate the Notice requirements of Part 77 are subject to a civil penalty of 51,000 per day until the notice is received, pursuant to Section 901(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1471(a)) as well as the fine (criminal penalty) of not more than $500 for the first oRense and not more than $2,000 for subsequent offenses, pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. app § 1472(a)). I HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, I agree to obstruction mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking & lighting standards as necessary. Date Typed or Printed Name and Title of Person Filing Notice Si natur S 1� of Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager, PCS FOR FAA USE`ONLY r r ,_.,. `: f t, '_ _ ti • .f . t_...._..-. _� - _: , 'Fn e r.,;a �;«r .. «... rht3 Pr T oposal 8Dees not require a hotice to FAA 1s not idenpfiedas an bbsirucGo'n to Subpart C and would not be a hazt ❑ Is identified as an obstruction under Subpart C but would not be a haza 1rd 1 ' ❑ should be obstruction � marked i < Advisory Circular 70/7460 1' Chapt, Q Qbstruction.maik -rig and _righting arc ed or teiminaled by the issusing office, Lis subject. to the licensing authority of the Fec in,permit is'made to the FCC on_or_before the farm arissue a separate acknowledgement. any time the project is abandoned, or tom, f r ghl t t P � Unless: ral Communications Commission (FCC) and an application rove expiration date In such cases the determination 1stru6tlon or on the date the FCC demes the ipplicatlori _mustba postmarked or delivered to the issuing 0 ire I „ i 3 ...,{ J•Fr',% 5^" "Y G 1 "4. 4y T - { t � d_'-` 1. -" / ' - 'Y - ti J1,, -*,4, N: ,•� [ t ti FC "L '5 o C .< i-4�}i LS•" r Y+..i 7 'r �N} f`„� _ �..�+�h4 �"r 'r f t >�' ��' i�ir J-•YTG� •tit �•F, J J' � d N^._,7� � �y - NADA�' n Y_ �:2 8 Use these coordinates forany'idfiyr i't 4 v 2 0 < y- v i, a fan t. 3 :Cool'ill-. �-� t 3 �� rz K6_r dmateS #irt re conespindgoye thtlieFAA) x Latitudeti . �>c ,p fv ' ,Longitude .,. .'P:i s_ :r J 'Y.1wt'-1 ,� int, �?.f t`LF issued in Signature Date NOTE: NOT DRAWP O SCALE TWR167 - PARKINS MILLS, VA OVERALL HEIGHT: 907 ft. AMSL GROUND ELEVATION: 707 ft. AMSL FEXHI 1 Parkins Mills, VA VERTICAL PLAN SKETCH OF PROPOSED ANTENNA AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY 1 MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SITE TWR167 - Parkins Mills 5 ` Shenandoah Mobile Company 12/97 0 - I �. \ u o J -J r IN x6 =�\ �#4 Exhibit J \moi d� , l% ��\U� -�' �� , � )� / r` r►��7 �l 1 � �'/�/,��`. f�— Ls � OG./yti1o" OcedL CI11 9"AIJ �"�J o.% 'ora..- .I:��! C.l\( /il`�/.1�' �-� \.` p� {, •7 � f (� Q a, {an. II._ �l �` i� op �tery'�r.� � �� :-� l�' •_ � 7`)��\ (\ •IIlI ��-730—• 2 _� l2� � ell _ ` -%� � % � �\�- � - �J �� n rr � { 'l3rc lF 1� i'-rJ '�� I � u_ / f rcP• f/ (�� ` ^ Jam' `� `, �\\ �' ��. ��,I� �r i �.��a�•, c �'�� w �� _Ill( ��`fl/�' ; �� ,j�/� '740-� r 100� ��~• ��\.� a` �'�) �1� r. o/if �I�� —�� i f \lam l O C i� lc�i 1 `��rl� �'�z< �� , J/ ' �- �� , I Lis �ZT�I, li .�j i j rs-1� -) "i +��.r'�-� - �, ': r r-- ) - Ik - _ :'�-2r- •O� ... ' J( _° 1� Cdr`\ \ � �-� � n��%1 I tii r) .� ,/i/—� _.�1 ��p ��i� . i i J"�� tiJ 1�. ,��.r� �I� j l� �� / • 0l.v.`� (z+ ,I [/5 I) •( '�•f.�. a , 1 _�� i r,� i - 7 �1. w ,:y�� » 6j't��,•- a'�ORzc_n X11 1 Ll p r� 7 ,if,] C�•, (j/1I ) �i-y rl ,�� (�1 �Qr •„� �/_ -. �� Yfele v\}.:/),I n • o+C- 1 r �(. i�) )1 );� V\.��i-�� )-1J �'� I r SCALE 1:24000577' 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET l� 1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 � �. � 1 J��-�( �A oo tel'`--� � gyri r/J/J v ' • � ( f � � / I�. _ \.\j'1» ��..: :i012 ,�'r •`._ 1[ I I Y r-�-7-��' ''••••�� "�ld85Cs I` ' p �4 .a pi` lr.r BF7- }{ACF+ STr ry Froslbur - '� 'A,A ., 1 sf u� ` 182 pV" nr ✓ :11�9.B�tt ,`r-2%3° o ennarinicaiaor- ! \.''„ V 438F-�' M 6" V'� '. rs°1 11 5) 7t• f E 5BURC�i r. Mou` nsvill iOMA.tr �1 1'8g4r CI ar S r Focr 9d 84 MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SITE ,tn °��" TWR167 - Parkins Mills I z Exhibit 3 eley rings �. Shenandoah Mobile Company 1017 { r r ' I2/97 d (237} : c :i 1 � F Wilir�rms 98 7_f021 shb f "S 2029 C9 i4"P n Hedg •:CRESA_.' - * °- See NOTAMs/Direcfri`� <�• r 339R7f'uVr,_ .j KEYE a� / 1 ELGEE 3 e 1884 .. �o Clas p,erFlirs / L 2237 2548 r Spr�gfield �: 1 49 !�/ rtinsb o�^`: sx .._ 218) i. , V B 214 Y� � < < r 7 U• PS,,TI�VIEW(P 1 2615 58 sTi n 8 3 "-44 ° - 2172 v18 16 24 Ali. Z • .. r, R/�f`•,: - 1^h r, 1991 /toy 284° 5 ///} / tf j' ,+�o,p o �hepi � 1 ..i j. - „1 i'/ 0.��' E�5 M MSY tR %AH/a)ELS r?� 5J0 S. .�:''/'�1 1 / -1771 . /FR>g2_VRt>/ `9? . 1810 1939 u, EASTERIy V1 /! a Romney �6i < _ (ZZQ) SH RHERD �'' p Ei. Y h'�AFTINS6 PG %4jtB BOkert r6i `• (Pvt) `'.l Ci_124.3*Q _ —°RY nod g _ - 'cOs,Q.ti;0`NTANIi5'2s I'f `/,s57-"47o:°1E29s -.-•\ X267/il' 22A IRS' e T�n18FR RI (:'F A tea. c° 6o_�zbr^ (285 RG-_ Bn )..- yolF (l� 235 R E Au us a•'g R F /�C�hiRB f U 112.IC course _ om C PON \1 1•E BUR ESL G ■ i � `moi O$ •'� - ../ 54 0 ' - J c O •- AL (P,"ell �e , 7 89 yr. [(/.- INSJ.G'• rG/ o °u'3r, 1120 Ir nesborb: 1; P 136o crle 1 t 255 - \ o, ore !' '-"'�':: _ �/ ), 118 %Q3r�11 EO (300 _foo Oy c7^� ltl t` . •Sumnli s'G f _- / + 1409 ) "Z�-(Pvt)� �I�• ( Point NK 141 A30�70r t. y6S t /0 140 t_P / ` j HIGF�zVIEVv 595 30 S \� / (20 a�0 /WN HESTER Q `-5% J 'r HE.ST`R (o):vl 1. 275 U= T ,� 1j .y 4.5 ( ) q_\ , 17;13 2 r^c �. za- yG• i TF 284.4 - J� �� - tea. �'3..�� Ber II - IF - } Purcell 0 2 s 9 v - 6k / r 7 r73 313 t �� CO,GJAt,I 't ` HOA E 1446) efield /R> { 7.639 �4 T�(<'' / _ ruemoo / 'r tq - (i aide svil e "� �F. : oc = :P r wfin �5 G 3330 4/ ePRen ` R6st P20 1 Lit y �) �l•i ?f' Mrllwoo Isc 45 { .. / _ \�•,il 80 x sJH 2390 30`13 c90 6r;� 2 1940 � t (� IF 50 7 ¢�.X 3• - Sfr sburg-�230F / 1737 -_�® 9sz i`L 3293 " �, 2: n Pons n 04 ' -mac° 22T •i c UPPeryiIFe c°h v ,� � '�•� `{fir-� r yyp. I.'� 1 89� soF oc 1880- �� - �`i-J-r' lr course ' s 3085 t �� A y O ti 'Y f �z Mrddieb�urrg •� �-: l �. -- � "° ' ln�� Gty; 'h (�l E rt ///� 1362 � � '�' r• /�` �PREBvILLEY(Pvt) �: .�\:y ; �.•4.1T C�L /Z %50_ - _ 5 -, 1 N fP'q Wo d ock [[lARREN co-FRR / HIC ORGY q3219Columbi nate soon L3 i,23 O�' /r Y tR �ctorlown 544 32 ^ •. 127 114.. P_�% 15'o461dg 2388 UP 0W. 56RR1 71vt1• 95f yy a Y BRYCE �� +RII R BEND 22 122.8 UC &06� � 20) LI Eri _ (31°7) c y1+26 X302 •ic _ 139, / t 1 A c �S t� cool tours Ed' bur ' 26 17 111 3 Ch 901 DN.�-• Jf U Plains t 127 KaR)tt Rvr F' , 1810® = !_251' i �s1� [{` as .LEES�lfRG3=! M fiali\7 _ s v'• skl s 291 335 8a'O -/ rs� entorjvllll a `% '� ' ( 1 LONG� ll t) • f� } 2�I5'`r z 4• Sp�z} - �R 1 - mery ,,r�, 45 ,o• -.r'25 Maea .. A Qo ,�i r r��- ! !, + "i r4 A `-Q EiIDO\13 Imo) 1 V."Y28Q? 72 /� kl Ve lle Y4 FIm1,Hll GQ 1 See VT: r 7p6/ Y 1C 2 r�_ { se t• / EPAIVW'• ( -� o' y t ,384f O�Dj 5 6 %' AA JTS o i It '' - C �J (300-11' - /�9` ,.� _ _ Orlean I` 4,, 201 s NO' SRL E (Pe) 676 a• 0 NALITI-.. ° ;. - 0 FOX�AGR S R 2 .-_ 32 > 6shm fon �# -- 0.., (2061 ALM .S 1;0 .. .. ncn� � 10 STATUT=__ES \ . - 20 nIr Y to IIO Zo �0 30 d0 130 Iso leo L/��7p P NEW ;''4 ,J2 % ( 8) % (220: a HORt idwa 3304 1 ` �'"'",� �f'1 - `-�rmin to.,,,•,� � •; 39' 1 - s75 'L'3 )2 tE^ M('3�4,•9) tuRAv (220 .r°� ie t ,�'� � o� c �_ t ft s •- . C SANO,VA / :.��i n C 1 95 / >`g�2 �) y Y c'F1 s E-272 `�j305 e116;3,Ctt�170CSN.•.: AJI CRSS ? :{ P S / T L a orC 120 s �# M E as N t-. 1 I 'R ti (26C ' � ;000 tn85 r i T fp Woodville ' LEESBURG'1 21FFER Midiard. / { - Sto a €'e a. r„N s CULP t P cA` io Linvil r •: ^ x�7:6[ y1„n dr )q•k �} 2% 3 ` i'252 u BERPa826 ealelo�nA 231302 0 �\••��/ 1 ngta 1 0”' � i� ( 28.5 ov 76 R 1 'r `_Eder: ??�. / r;Q �r326t6R1= ,�v�IS TWR167 - Parkins Mills, VA Shenandoah Mobile Company Exhibit 4 Item 2.A (FAA Form 7460- 1): The structure will be a 200 foot three -sided self-supporting hot -dipped galvanized steel tower initially equipped for operation of a personal communications services system operating in the frequency band of 1850-1865 or 1930-1945 at a max ERP of 200 watts. See Exhibit 1 for pertinent structure and topographic measurements. Item 2.1) (FAA Form 7460-1): Because the height of this structure is 200 feet, we do not plan to mark it. If the FAA requires that it must be marked, we would prefer to use a dual lighting system with red lights for night time and medium intensity flashing white lights for day time and twilight use. Towtf-? HEIGHT ND LOAD L)ESIGN -LOA,1 REFERENCE DRAWINGS = ZJ�� DESIGN W(rdD LOnO PER ANSI/EIA-222-E-1991, 70 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED (1/2" RADIAL ICE LOAD). THIS TONER IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING ITEM DUAN. PART N0. v `~ n LOADS: DESCRIPTION DWG. NO. ELEV- LINE N/A REF• GROUTING d DRAINAGE DETa7L TYPICAL 250' SELF--SUppORTING A TION ANTENNA 2 N/A FEF, 8691 i t FT TYPE E. P. A' SFL SIZE STEP BOLT DETAIL 1365 f264 j�]}�� NO ICE W/10E ; •; BGKB GROUNDING DETAIL "�"` 297 (6)DAPA 5R010 ANTENNAS 4 _ N/A REF. FOUNOa TILNJ d ANCHOR FOLERANCE C731/O_ 52.0 G5.0 f6) l-5/8" Ae/0214 W/(6) 5' SIDE ARMS. (TOTAL) (TOTAL) -b- N3'a REF• ANCHOR SOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION 87.,0521 280 (61DAPA 58010 ANTENNAS 20LT ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE FAB. (TOP) * SK740208 WI(6) 6' SIDE ARMS 52.0 65.0 (6) l-5/8" 7 3 20LB ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE FAB. (BOTTOM (TOTAL) (TOTAL) 8 N/A REF, ANCHOR 80LT LAYOUT ) * C821082 260 (3)PD1137. ANTENNAS 80.0 /35.0 9 N/A REF. FOUNDAT/ON DETA fL A96/SOI W/(3J G' J/D SIDE ARMS (70T AL) (TOTAL) (3) l-5/8" 10 1 V894 6q NORIZ. pRACE ASSY gT TOP A961594,1 250 It 36 IX78AB ANCHOR BOLTS 0880699 (3) PANEL ANTENNAS 100. 0 1/5,0 (24) 7/R" d l2 N/A .REF, BOLT ASSEMBLY INSTALLATION N/A W/(31 3' SIDE ARMS (707AL) (TOTAL) (3) /-//8" W/(2) III -BACKS EACH 13 ! vB808A HORIZ. BRACE ASSY AI 220'1 a790 r35_ APL6A BEACON PLATE ASSY 230 (6)OAPA 58010 ANTENNAS 52.0 65.0 14 1 APL 6A BEACON PLATE ASSY 0880698 (6) 1-5/8'• /5 4 KH3424 R(NGFILL B760624 FOR FLAW DUAL RED/STROBE N'/(6) 6' SIDE iIRMS (TOTAL) (TOTAL) /6 4 N/A L CLLIG 2/GOZOGANW !/Z^ X 2" BOLT ASSY W/DEL WASHERS C7j04pj LRCL LIGHTNING ROO (REF) 210 (6)ASP952 ANTENNAS 31.0 45.0(6) 7-5/8'• 17 1 DLKE/FTLSDUAL L LIGHTING K/T V6946A HCR1Z. W/(3) 6' SIDE ARMS t8 I MIS0950773 W280 WJRE FOR MIS BRACE ASSY AT TOP (TOTAL) (TOTAL) 7N702/A961492 (6) 20 1 /80 (6)P0455 ANTENNAS 37.0 50.0 9 / OBKEI OBSTRUCTION LIGHTING KIT N/A !-5/B" -) W/(3) 6' SIDE ARMS (TOTAL ) (TOTAL) 08KZ5 LIGHTING LONVERS70N KIT 0950773 200 D950773 7NIOiZl • 530075 'S0' CORD /2/3 NEOPRENE -9614 /50 (31 8' H. 1 D .? __S /40.0 /40.0 N/A A96/491 (OI, (l20J d (240) (3) 7-5/8" 22 1 RLFBHM SAFETY HARNESS C74 1234 X (TOTAL) (TOTAL) 23 1 RLTPA2 TOP POST ASSY C74l2 SLOPE 130 (6)P0455 ANTENNAS 24 /0 RLGRA3 CaBLE RESTRAINT ASSY CHANGE W/(3) 6' SIDE ARMS 37'0 50.0 (6j 1-5/8" 25 2 RLCRA2 C74_: (TOTAL) (TOTAL) CABLE RESTRAINT ASSY _ C74/2.•'�,' fTN442/A96l522 VRACGA SSS A. 26 1 RLBBA9 BOTTOM BRACKET ASSY -- BRACE ASSY AT NOTE: ANTENNA AZIMUTH IS SHOWN IN DEGREES 27 1 RLC250 SAFETY CABLE 250' C741234 X 220 + WITHIN THE (BRACKETS) 28 4 C74 234 WL lOF/54KD 15 -HOLE W/G LADDER SECTION ASSY C901B/9/IH7 GENERAL NOTES 29 Z2 WL20F154KD 15 -HOLE BYG LADDER SECTION ASSY 9N3£I1 /A96 / 488 X 30 4 IVY3080A WIG LADDER CL AAIP ASSY _ C9018l5/IBI 1. BONN COMAIUNlGA TION TOWER DESIGNS CONFORM TO E. L A. -222-E UNLESS 3l 4 WY308lA W/G LaDOER CLaMP ASSY C901819 _ OTT WISE SPECIE/Ep UPJDER TOttiER DESIGN LOADING. T06ER DESIGN MAY 32 20 KYr287A WZ6 LADDER CLIP ASSY C_01319 OR MAY NOT CONFORM 10 LOCAL, STATE OH FEDERAL REOUIREMFPlTS, 33 6 KY697 WIG LADDER CLIP ASSY C90lB1B 2, TIIE DESIGN LOADING CRI7ERIA INDICATED HAS BEEP! PROVIDED 10 ROt/N. ION28GIA 951467 THE DESIGN LOADING CRI7ERIA HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO BE BASED ON 3s 8 Kr695 w/G LADDER CLIP AASSY C9078r8 SITE-SPECIFIC DATA IN ACCORDANCE WITH Al1S7/EIA-222-E AND MUST BE '''S 1 LRCL LIGHTNING ROO C9018/8 -�- VERIFIED BY OTHERS PRIOR TO INSTALLATIO,V. 36 3 9A33PLZTBB SIDE AR.M ASSY AT 250'* Wi8' PIPES C86100NZA 4(REF, 3. SEE INDIVIDUAL SECTION ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS FOR PART NUMBERS AND * 37 4 llN26t/A9614B3 SECTION ASSEMBLY DETAILS. 210008GA 3/8" X 1-I/2" BOLT ASSY C770a0a 7ic4. FABRICATION ORA.WINGS, /F REFERENCED, ARE FOR SHOP USE ONLY. * 39 2 2_50006 3/8^ FLAT WASHER iC S. STEP BOLTS ARE PROVIDED ON ONE LEG ONLY FOR SECTIONS 6 * 39 2 FBMP POWER CONVERTER MOUNTING PLATE N/A -�- THROUGH I1, AND ALL THREE LEGS FOR SECTIONS 12 THROUGH 15 AND 'k 40 2 JRIIGAW U- 8800284_ ALL MW SECTIONS. BOLT ASSY W/14'ASHERS 605/020 12N95/A930859 6. PAL NUTS ARE PROVIDED FOR ALL TOWER AND ANCHOR BOLTS -� (SEE DWG. A790135). 7, THE LEG PART NUMBER IS STAMPED AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH LEG * (FOR MOUNTING (O' SEE NOTE 21 ) OF EACH SIGN AS, POWER CONVERTER 8. TONER DESIGN ASSUMES LEVEL .GRADE A7 TOWER SITE. 13N60/AS70403 9. TOLERANCE ON TOWER STEEL HEIGHT IS EQUAL TO PLUS l% OR MINUS 1127. AT BASE OF TOWER) -1 10. ORDANCE WITH E. 1. A STANDARDSRK LFOR STEEL BE IN CANTENNA TOWERS AND ANTENNA-STSUPRUCTURAL It 11, PURCHASER SHALL VERIFY THE INSTALLATION IS IN CONFORMANCE 14N72/A91 / 107 WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEGERAL REOUIREMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION MARKING AND LIGHTING. / \ 12. TOWER MEMBER DESIGN GOES h'07 INCLUDE STRESSES Ol1E TO ERECTION TOUER SINCE RECTION EOUIPMENT AND CO.MPETENT AND 01AL(FIEONOERSONNFLNS RWILL KEODESIGN AXIS ECTIOWER. / 1SN53/A9( ( 106 73. ASSUMES DESIGN ASSUMES THAT, AS A MINIMUM, MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION -� WILL BE PERFORMED OVER THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE IN ACCORDANCE \ WITH ANS!/EIA-222-E. !4. ROHN SHALL HAVE THE OPTION TO REVIEW FINAL DISH .LOCATIONS, AZIMUTHS AND MOUNTS TO VERIFY THAT ASSUMED TOROUS VALUES, / I6N1135MtY1B961662 \ / SLOPE AND LOCAL STRESSES ARE NOT EXCEEDED. /X\ CHANGE 15. ROHN-LOC SAFETY DEVICE IS SUPPLIED FOR THE ENTIRE HEIGHT OF 1Z0' THE TOWER. !/ I TYP, % /6. TO11ER ORIENTATION TO BE DETERMINED by OTHERS, M11lf103/89/1062 /7 SYMMETRICALLY ASSUMES TOAMINIMIZELTOR'OUE.ASP TYPE ANTENNAS ARE MOUNTED 18. DESIGN ASSUMES THAT- ANTENNA TRANSMISSION LINES AND (6) WAVEGUIDE TOWER CONFIGURATION LADDERS ARE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED OVER THREE TOWER FACES. i --� - 19. TWO 15 -HOLE WAVEGUIDE LADDERS ARE PROVIDED FROM IO': TO 250'1 N.T.S. A1tvL125/896166 ij ELEVATION (FOUR WIG LADDERS ARE FUTURE). 20. DISH AZIMUTHS SHOV,TJ ARE NOMINAL AZIMUTHS USED FOR DESIGN. ACTUAL AZIMUTHS(TO BE DETERMINED BY OTHERS) MUST NOT RESULT IN INCREASED GRO(IND L INC DESIGN LOADS. �44 2/, THE TOWER AZIMUTH SHOWN IS A RELATIVE AZIMUTH USED TO ESTADLISH TOWER SITE: `� J "'' 'ft• " `-^'I-30'-4" THE RELATIVE POSIT/ON OF ANTENNAS WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWER FOR _ 1 y F BASE SPREAD 22. DESIGN.ANTENNAS AND LINFS LISTED IN TGWE DESIGN LOADING TABLE ARE PROVIDED +} 3 �i BY OTHERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOT 47 AAED. N, • R.vrrre Dacr,prro ^r=. • �F + '{o ma tJOLTS! (36 TOTAL) 23. WIG LADDER SECTIONS MAY REOUIRF FIELD CUTTING TO PROPER LENGTH )}f15 DRAWING is THE PRor Rir OF RO W. IT 1s Nor w u r e ,w By�nnnc.,nnna.eA, e e, LG. AFTER R ZINCL Y. ALL FIELD CUTTING MUST BE /CEPA )REO WITH COLO 10 Br, f`EPR01XCEO, COPIED OR TRACED !N uxoIS as GALV OR ZINC RICH PAINT, IN PART W7 TROUT OUR NFITTEN CONSENT. Trf TD E REACTIONS 24 FOR AOTTACHMMEN/T TOFF[EDSSTROBE4 FLASHHEAUL TO BEACONASSY'K14304 PIGFILS ARE OPLATE. 'low By Bot,. T" I., API$ S SI ON a5G.3 KIPS 25. ALL ANTENNA MOUNTS 70 DE .SUPPLIED BY OTP.F_RS, EXCEPT AS NOTED. K I 4 154.3 KIPS 26. SIDE ARM ASSY. P/N SA, 3J I.2TB8 IS THE SAME AS P/N SA33PL2TB jo" S 2 96 ZS O TO ' (DWG. C851004) EXCEPT l-KH2229 MTG. PIPE REPLACES I-KH275 CA.c4..dr Q /` S S VM W TOWER R R•`'_' G3.3 KIPS MTG. PIPE. �i� �/. i ASSY FOR SHENANOUAH PERSONAL COMM /0045..5 FT, -KIPS - AGP• E- F/%r n''P- s"r•'• /}/r i G'%G Ern Fr1 E, 33097PIt.F, 17A�1 .•.,, . i�fl F, i n-7r7- i SHENANDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS P.O. Bax 459 - Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0459 (540) 984-4141 December 16, 1997 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy: O�VXo , Please find attached additional information which Shenandoah Mobile Company is submitting in support of the five conditional use permit applications recently filed by Shenandoah Mobile Company and pending with Frederick County. Listed below by site number are descriptions of the type of installation we propose to install at each location: (1) TWR078 HuntingRidd�e (Self Supporting Lattice -type) — We propose to build a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons: A. This site is outside the Urban Development Zone; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary; C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. (2) TWR079 Little Timber Ridge (Monopole) — A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. (3) TWR084 Bowling Green Ridge (Monopole) -- A monopole will be used at this location due to the relatively small size of the required structure. (4) TWR167 Parkins Mills (Self Supporting Lattice -type) - We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site because: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing-, SHENAIVDOAH TELEPHONE COMPANY • SHENTEL SERVICE COMPANY • SHENANDOAH CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY SHENANDOAH LONG DISTANCE COMPANY • SHENANDOAH VALLEY LEASING CC`,MPANY SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY S; iENA.NDOAf1 NETWORK COMPANY WE FAUST SERVE WELL TO PROSPER WE MUST PROSPER TO SERVE WELL Mr. Michael T. Ruddy December 16, 1997 Page 2 C. The proposed design is consistent with another structure viewable from the same area; and D. Monopoles of this size are not cost advantageous. (5) TWR180 Sherando (Self Supporting Lattice -type) - We propose building a self-supporting lattice -type structure at this site for several reasons: A. This site is outside the UDZ; B. A comparatively large structure is necessary; C. The structure must be readily modifiable for sub -leasing; and D. Monopoles of this size are cost prohibitive. We appreciate your continued assistance and cooperation as we proceed through the conditional use permit process. Sincerely yours, Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager (PCS) Shenandoah Mobile Company LLG/lsh Enclosures ATTACIIMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNCATIONS FACILITIES Submitted by Shenandoah Mobile Company Tower No. TWR167= Parkins Mills, Pro � TJ j, perty Owned by Wayne A. Smith Julie C Smith & Orah B Haines '�� In accordance with Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Section 165.48.6, Subsections A (1) through A (4), the following information is attached - (1) Attachment 1 — A topographic map depicting the search area - (2) Attachment 2 — Identification of other service providers or commercial telecommunications facilities within the proposed service area. (3) Attachment 3 — Compliance with ANSUIEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation. (4) Attachment 4 - Statement of procedure for tower and equipment removal- ATTACHMENT 1\ (` ``�� ' � S 31 Shenandoah Mobile Company `, v;- FE TWR167 Conditional Use Application a1 709 �.��._ \-., ,.•, - S�`V �X736`\ � I 4333 Ou 4332 -t / .� ,� "� tel\ f l �� \ ,..P �"' �� `J r—' _ `. �� \ \��• 6.^ I� l j �� .`� 1 e • J h�+-� '� g \a\ ` QQ�\�u ire Heart - � � 431 —��72�i��°_ - •l� � .730—� "�� 120� ai .^�7°p. r ��' -=_� 1 -��. -- l 11 . .,4 ` ,r/ �` •C�� (1/\J i � \ � � ,\ti. ` \�j� � \-'. fly � � y � ��1 oV W I� J \\�, %-i � \�l� � n�j '�� ,�I•��\�/ � '� � s 7 Ar ei%� .r/l \� . \ �� !��^ � �� y.J /� ��. { 1\ \��f/ .. ,Sim ?�i1 i�r=-�� -+�� C\. \',. •_ a��i �� l °r I�r;-�.-1;•• � ��`JrJ � ,rJ / '�' � � --_ _ � �,� �� U�'" , � �- �� (�� ~ 4330 51 J. -1 J� _I� . ��_ �_ ��,J/ a �'�r1 .,Iii _ w �� I r \1L �1 __ \\ `_'_ •�'i .,4o 54 �o 4� k \ r� 738 � �;�� =,�' S % �� -,_.i r//� - � p0r / �,\ 1 \�!C � �.�. �o�f 4�/� \•:\ =� / i / � �:- , � 4999 �. 0V- 1 •� /� -99 ` �; a j/i ,moo! �.--�r - ��^ �'~ l�.`�-1L 2CL� T .70 `.J �� :�1•p� �; % 1 )��' � /I��, •� �- � _ � u.�/l0 �=� "�� \ :ill i A w "j 28 ATTACHMENT 2 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR167 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The comparable FCC license holders operating in the search area of the prospective site are... Cellular A -- Cellular One B -- Shenandoah Cellular PCS A -- American Personal Communications (Sprint Spectrum) B -- AT&T Wireless PCS C -- CFW Communications (Virginia PCS Alliance) D & E -- Shenandoah Mobile Company F -- Devon Mobile Communications There are no commercial telecommunications facilities within the search area of the prospective site. ATTACHMENT A 3 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR 167 Conditional Use Application COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNCIATIONS COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED ANSI/IEEE STANDARDS FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD LEVELS AND RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION As set forth in OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997, entitled Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Hunian Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fieldv, states on Page 14: "Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground -level exposure in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposure from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for broadband PCS. These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically `worst case' site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands times below the new MPE limits." (Emphasis added.) (A copy of excerpt from OET Bulletin 65 is being submitted with this package.) The antenna installation planned under this Conditional Use Permit will be at a height in excess of twenty (20) meters. COMM UN/�v a w �'3 #°OMMiss°�'* Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology Evaluating Compliance with FCS' Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Melds OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97-01t August 1997 OET BULLETIN 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 The first edition of this bulletin was issued as OST Bulletin No. 65 in October 1985. This is a revised version of that original bulletin. NOTE: Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement by the Federal Communications Commission or by the authors. 2.1091 and 2.1093 (for portable and mobile devices). This requirement applies to some, but not necessarily all, transmitters, facilities or operations that are authorized under the following parts of our rules: 5, 15, 21 (Subpart K), 22 (Subpart E), 22 (Subpart H), 24, 25, 265 27, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I, and L), 80 (ship earth stations), 90 (paging operations and Specialized Mobile Radio), 97 and 101 (Subpart L). Within a specific service category, conditions are listed in Table 2 of Appendix A to determine which transmitters will be subject to routine evaluation. These conditions are generally based on one or more of the following variables: (1) operating power, (2) location, (3) height above ground of the antenna and characteristics of the antenna or mode of transmission. In the case of Part 15 devices, only devices that transmit on millimeter wave frequencies and unlicensed Personal Communications Service (PCS) devices are covered, as noted in rule parts 2.1091 and 2.1093 (see section on mobile and portable devices of Appendix A). Transmitters and facilities not included in the specified categories are excluded from routine evaluation for RF exposure. We believe that such transmitting facilities generally pose little or no risk for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. However, as noted above, in exceptional cases the Commission may, on its own merit or as the result of a petition, require environmental evaluation of transmitters or facilities even though they are otherwise excluded from routine evaluation_ Also, at multiple -transmitter sites applications for non -excluded transmitters should consider significant contributions of other co -located transmitters (see discussion of multiple -transmitter evaluation in Section 2). If a transmitter operates using relatively high power, and there is a possibility that workers or the public could have access to the transmitter site, such as at a rooftop site, then routine evaluation is justified. In Table 2 of Appendix A, an attempt was made to identify situations in the various services where such conditions could prevail. In general, at rooftop transmitting sites evaluation will be required if power levels are above the values indicated in Table 2 of Appendix A. These power levels were chosen based on generally "worst-case" assumptions where the most stringent uncontrolled/general population MPE limit might be exceeded within several meters of transmitting antennas at these power levels. In the case of paging antennas, the likelihood that duty factors, although high, would not normally be expected to be 100% was also considered. Of course, if procedures are in place at a site to limit accessibility or otherwise control exposure so that the safety guidelines are met, then the site is in compliance and no further environmental processing is necessary under our rules. Tower -mounted ("non -rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground - level exposures in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no likelihood of excessive exposures from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower -mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for 14 ly broadband PCS.13 These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically "worst case" site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands of times below the new MPE limits. In view of the expected proliferation of these towers in the future and possible use of multiple channels and power levels at these installations, and to ensure that tower installations are properly evaluated when appropriate, we have instituted these new requirements for this limited category of tower -mounted antennas in these services. For consistency we have instituted similar requirements for several other services that could use relatively high power levels with antennas mounted on towers lower than 10 meters above ground. Paging systems operated under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 of our rules previously have been categorically exempted from routine RF evaluation requirements. However, the potential exists that the new, more restrictive limits may be exceeded in accessible areas by relatively high-powered paging transmitters with rooftop antennas.14 These transmitters may operate with high duty factors in densely populated urban environments. The record and our own data indicate the need for ensuring appropriate evaluation of such facilities, especially at multiple transmitter sites_ Accordingly, paging stations authorized under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure if an antenna is located on a rooftop and if its ERP exceeds 1000 watts. Mobile and Portable Devices As noted in Appendix A, mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services (PCS), the General Wireless Communications Service, the Wireless Communication Service, the Satellite Communications services, the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) and Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized, respectively, under Part 22 (Subpart H), Part 24, Part 25, Part 26, Part 27, Part 80, and Part 90 of the FCC's Rules are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. Unlicensed PCS, NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. All other mobile, portable, and unlicensed transmitting devices are normally categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure (see Section 2 and Appendix A for further details). 13 For broadband PCS, 2000 W is used as a threshold, instead of 1000 W, since at these operating frequencies the exposure criteria are less restrictive by about a factor of two. 14 For example, under Part 90, paging operations in the 929-930 WIZ band may operate with power levels as high as 3500 W F.RP. 15 ATTACHMENT 3' 4 Shenandoah Mobile Company TWR167 Conditional Use Application SHENTEL REMOVAL OF ABANDONED COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The Conditional Use Permit application process (ordinance) in Frederick County for Commercial Telecommunications Facilities requires that the applicant provide "information delineating procedures for guaranteeing the removal of the commercial telecommunications facility within one year of abandonment of operation." Having worked with the Planning Commission in the development of the ordinance it is our understanding that the intent of this section (§ 165-48.6. A. (4)) is threefold, (i) "not" to burden the applicant with a requirement to post a bond, (ii) not to leave the landowner "holding the bag" with an abandoned site, unless, or course, that was the agreement with the landowner, and (iii) to ensure the tower itself is removed, not necessarily the foundation. In the spirit of complying with this requirement, Shentel considered several possibilities, including the purchase of a removal bond, entering into an irrevocable letter of credit to ensure removal, and the establishment of a self-funded sinking fund. Each possibility was rejected either because of cost, or because it restricted the use of critical working capital. Shentel is a locally established, successfully operating telecommunications company that has been doing business in the Shenandoah Valley continuously since 1901 It is our accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose. Shentel stands behind that practice. Most recently Shentel decommissioned a cable TV tower in Shenandoah County and arranged to remove it along with our equipment. The landowner, however, asked us to leave the tower in place so he could use it for amateur radio purposes. We readily complied with his request, removing all of our equipment and cabling from the structure and the surrounding grounds, turning the site over to the landowner as requested. All of our site lease agreements contain a provision allowing us to remove our communications tower and all related equipment upon the termination of the rental period. 1-.7000 JLmm F-0FMM 1 INTERCHANGE 313 00 MPMMWELr 4.6 LL SOUTH ON ROUTE S27 TO INTERSECTION LATH 642�CTION OF MUTES 5Z7 AND 242 00 0.10 LLE EAST oN 642 M OKM ORNE (PRAMTE CRNR MAD). FOLLOW VmGHT W (DIRT M,q FOR 02 LLE TO FAN GATE PASS MID" DATE (REWCH GATE AFTER PASSING GO,APPM7oLL NFRr MID E TO THERE ROAD MMXES 90 DEGREE TURN TO LEFT. IHf SITE BORDERS THE RICHT SIDE OF THE ROAO AT THE CURIE 1. THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND ACCESS AM UTILITIES EASEMENT ARE LOCATED ON PROPOW CURRENTLY DESIGMA7ID AS FREDEJ6pt COURT TAX PARCELS M -A -M 2 76 -A -M AND QAZAfMLY OWNED RT SOW A SARI AND AXE C. SMITH. 2. SITE PUN MS PREPARED REM THE BENEFIT OF A TOTE REPORT PREPARED BY BRYAN t COLEMAN. PIG FIE/ 57307 1 THIS PROPERTY 5 SUR.ECT TO ALL RCSTRCDd6, EASOMMIS. OR RIOTS OF W OF RECORD PRIOR TO THE DUE OF THIS PLAT. 4. THE UNADAISTED MTD OF PRECSON FOR TES SURVEY EXfiE05 ]:loom 1 ELEM7ONS ARE BASED ON USC t CS. STATION STEPHEIC ELEV.. 781,5, NILVD 79 L BENCH MARK 5 A RAILROAD SPICE N A 12- CEDAR ELEV - 710M 7. DMING. PROPERTY COMMIS APPROMWELT 8430 ACRES. L 20" DATA: CURRENT ZON INQ LORAL AREA (RA) PROPOSED USE- SRF-SUPPORTNO COMMUNICATIONS TOMER NTN MEDIUI NTUQ M1fTE DAY LIGHT AND RFD MIGHT LIGHT (IF REOURED Of THE FA CONSIDERED `ACCESSORr USE- PROPOSED SEPROPOSED loom !ERCT: 75V SE>WIM FIRM -M FROM ROAD RIGHT-OF-offSIDE - 230' REAR - 237 9. ONEk WVNE A SUM AND JUTE C SLfM 485 KNIGHT ORAE WINCHESTER. IR 22602 IA APPLICANT: StENA DOAH NOBLE C0IPAW 124 SOUM MAN STREET Pill BOX 459 EONBIRG, M 27824-0459 (540) 984-4141 It. POWER CO~. POIDWC EDISON POWER COMPANY PIl BOX 3700 WICHESTER. M 27604 moo) 654-3317 IZ TELEPHONE COIPAM. BELL ATLANTIC 2980 k FART EI PARK ORNE FALLS CHURCH, VA 22016-(540) 954-6282 11 THIS SITE DOES NOT LE HTHIN A HLa DESIGNATED 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONA. 14. IAD 27 MILES FOR PROPOSED TDKpz LATITUDE 3V Cls' 59.73' RDNOOUDE 79 06' 4148' 15. MAO 63 VALUES FOR PION= TOMER: LAMLIOE LONGITUDE IL THIS PIAT REPRESENTS THE SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED LEAP AREA AFD ACCESS FASC EXM THS SU TACT MS CONDUCTED Bf ANDERSON It ASSOCIATES ON 17 Na. 1997 AND ODES NOT REPRESENT A COMPLETE BOUNDARY 9AA4Y OF THE RITTER PROPERTY. 17. IR^IN ADDS SET AT ALL CORNERS OF LEASE AREA UNLESS OT ERN6E NOTED. THE LEASE AREA NCA EASENENIS, AS APPEAR ON THIS PLAT. ARE NIH DE FREE 0006M AM N ACCORDANCE WIN THE DESRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OeIARS, PROPRIETORS OR TRUSTEES. WPM A. SMITH 3uu— NOTAKS CERTIFICATE- 1�I+�A ERTIFICATE1�� COUNTY OF FREDERCIL TO OMT: L—. A NOTAIRY PUBIC N AND FDR THE STATE AMD COUNTY AFORESAID DO HEREBY CERIFY THAT MYNE A 90K WIOSE MALE 15 SIGNED TD THE FOREDONR IR rnK BFMNG DATE Of 19 _ HES PERSONALLY APPEARED BD0K ME AND ApONOn(paFS THE SAE CMEN VDDR MY HAND AND SEAL ON TNS—Oa OF , t9_ NOTARY PUBLIC K COMMISSION DNPIES S 753671- RDD TWO. STEVEN E F1SIEL NAM S F@EL D.L 664 PO. 1076 TAX PARCEL 76 -A -98C ZOHEO: RA MISE_ AGRICULTURAL ROM FND. NCO FRO. I I ' I / � I / I / I / I / RDD FNOL I / I / I / I I /ry�1/c JO' KCf'S5 EASEMENT Fla I EXIST. 37 A1CtESS 1 TO STATE MUTE 647 as 753 PG e7oi N rr48*lr / /TELL PEA PPE FNM ALL, J// fAlBH MO FWD SHED I THOMAS R HART D.B. 717 PG 54 TAX PARCEL 76-A-99 / ZONED: RA, USE, RESIDENTIAL TRfpED. ROMAINE E DoLPSON JEA NETTE E THOMPSON OUR MES PSS 1610 TAX PARCEL 76-A-1039 ZONED RA USE: MRICUTTURIL WO FMR MYIE A SMITH AAE C SUM CA 753 K 670 TAX PARCEL 76 -A -96B ZONED: RA USE, A,'RCULTURAL 100 EMO. 3711) va MYIE A SLIM �C. SMITH 758 M 968 PAiCEL 76-A-96ROPOSED 257 TOMER USEFA RICUSE: AGRX.TATIAbl — — .� — — — — SETR�GI — — — — — — — — — - -—SETa%Cx BOUNTIFUL FARMS L.L.C. Da 867 PC. 227 TAX PARCEL 76 -A -T05 ZONED: RA USE: AGRCULTIIWI / / / — — — — — — — — — — — — — PAM94CE OF THE HOST SACRED AB. 231 PC 92 TAX PARCEL 76-A-129 ZC En RA USE INSTITUTIONAL NOT CERIIFlGTE: 01 IO !i: " — E . Cau�X TO RAFT: 6ALTN pry L 11 N TT70 • IQQ7' l A NOTARY PUBIC MI AND FOR IIA $UTE GN COU/IY O MDIC$XO 00 HEREBY CERIfY THAT JUF C. SMITH, NNOSE MUTE 6 SIGNED =? s TO THE FDFEOOMNG MMONEi BEARING DUE OF 19 _ IRKS Pi tliR L OAM� E > PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACOOMLEDGES THE SANE Mo. 23657 DESIGNER No PURLNDER YY NAND AND SEAL ON TTS—DAT Of 19_ ANDERSON k ASSOCIATES F"L�VF"CLV 1 1 KM NDTM'f PUBIC NFL COMMISSION o1PXEs 7722 UAIN STREET NAL a`O� mlODETOW VA 22645 too so 0 1 00 700 300 (540) 869-2501 WR780\Ci 977111.1110 RBC/NEEP SCALE t a 100' mmmmd, `Q, ` AND GATE 21 NOV 97 REH6ONS: ♦ PORT / N OF SMITH PROPERTY DOCUMENT NO. U\U\ VA ° +Eo` A rVR6M1TO BE Er EASE 7 BYRVrGR6 6 5� � 15197-001 11SSOCIATESM Im. Tff C IMM. TN oRED6 aLEo � SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMP TWR167—PARKINS MILLS) FREDERICK COUNTY, 'AMNIA I — 2 1'-2000' FRpY�1-81 NRFAGMMGE 313 (WINCHESTER) GO APPROXWTELY 4.6 ML SOUTH ON ROUTE 372 TO RQERSECDON WITH P1 FROM INTERSECTION OF ROUTES 322 AD 642 00 0.10 MILE FAA ON 542 to Dow ORAE PRIMATE GRANEL "q FOLLOW adDa mw (DELT ROAD) FOR U WE TO FAN GATE PASS TROIGI GATE (RQATCH CAVE AiER PASSING W APPROMATELY OLIO MILE TOERE WROAD NAMES 90 DEGREE TRI/ TOLEST. THE SITE BORDERS THE RR7U SIDE OF THE ROAD AT THE CUR& 1. THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA AND ACCESS AND UTIITES EASEMENT ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY CURR:NTLT OESWan AS FREDERICK MINTY TAX PARCELS X_A-99 ! 76 -A -M AND CtRROALT OWNED BY MYNE A SMITH AND JULIE C SRAM. 2. 57 RN MS PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A THU REPORT PREPARED BY BRYAN t COLEMAN. P1.0 FIE/ 32507 1 THIS PRCPERTT IS SuILIECT TO ALL RE51RCiXi4 b4SE EATS OR RGHIS OF NAr OF RECORD PRIOR TO THE DUE OF THIS LUT. 1 THE IAMDA STE0 RAD Of PRECISION FOR THS SURYET EXCEEDS IAOD00. 5. UiW106 ARE BASED ON IAC t CS SWICN VCP EN 5- MY. - 791M', MGM 79 a BEACH TALAR( 6 A RARJIOAD SPNE N A 12' CCEAR ELEV - 710.31 7. Cl STING PROPERTY CORNS APPROOWTELY 84M ADZES. a ZOO" DATk CURRENT 20NNG: RIRAL AREA (TALI PROPOSED USE: SELF-SUPPOROND COWIWARATDNS TOWER WIM IEDWAN NIEN9 WHITE DA' LIGHT AND RED WIGHT LIGHT (IF RPO IRFD BY THE A CONSIDERED 'ACCESSORY' OSE PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT : 250' RDURED SEIBACK4 FRONT -2N FROM ROAD RICHT-OF-WIRY SDE - 230' REAR - 730' S. OWER NOW A SMITH AND A" C SMITH 496 KNIGHT ORVE WINCHESTER. Wk 27607 10. APPLICANT: SHENANDOAH WOW COMPANY 124 SOUTH Mw STREET P.O. BOE 139 (54NSURG -4H�� - 11. POWER CO~. POTOMAC E DISON POWER COMPANY PA BOE 3700 WINCHESTER. M 226D4 (a00) 654-3317 12 TELEPHONE COIPAM`. BELL ATLANTIC 2990 N. FARKW PARK DOW FALLS CWRC4 W. 27046-(540) 954 -SM 11 THIS SITE DOES NOT LE WENN A HDA. DFSCMUEO 100 YEAR FILOOD ZONE. 14. HAD 27 YLIDES FOR PROPOSED MOM LAMM 39 05' 59.73' LONCNOE 76 W' 4140 13. HND 93 VALUES FOR PROPOSED TOWER LATITUDE LONGITUDE IOL THIS RAT R WSENIS TIE SURVEY OF THE PAOP0SW LEASE AREA NO ACCESS EASEAOOS THIS SURVEY MS CONDUCTED BY ANDERSON t ASSOCU[S ON 17 NOVA 1997 AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE RITTER PROPERTY. 17. RCN RIDS SET AT ALL CORERS OF LEASE AREA UNLESS ODEIEWSE NOTED. THE LEASE AREA AND EASEHEMTS, AS APPEAR ON THIS RAT. ARE WITH RE FREE CONSENT AND N ACCDROANCE WITH THE DESIRES Of THE MOM" OWNERS, P OPRETORS OR TRUSTEES. N7TARYs CERITICIVE: COUNTY of FREDERCC. TO WIT: LA NOTARY PUBLIC N ADD FOR THE SWC NO COUNTY AFT)RESAO OO HEREBY CE TTY THAI WAYNE A 99K S HOSE MANE 6 SIDED TO THE FOREGOING WRITING. WARNG DATE OF . 19— HAS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE WE AND AGOLOWFDGES THE SANE CM31 LAW NY NAMED MO SEAL ON THIS —OO' OF . 19— NOiART PUBLIC MY CON6510N C04ES ROO EIMo. N . / P.C.S swer, ROD SET / 2WAYNE / / p SMITH TELL PEA / / JUE G 9Wn+ Da 758 PG 969 700 Tut PARCEL 76-A-99 USE- E A O L C 0. L LR q s AEMAWR OREVONt 0614ACE E Lf 1)EDWN E wm 4}ICHAR k PRYOR 7YOYAWE E THOIPSON 10)WVrNE A SMITH r 394-6 L3 M 7750'39" I DA MS PC 691 Ma 575 PG 140 JEANETTE E TIHOIPSON JJUE C SHAM 4754 L5 S" W TAX PARCELL, 76 -A -97C ZONED: RA TAX PARCEL 76-4-5 ZONA RA OA 768 PG_ 1510 DA 753 PG. 1170 TAX PARCEL 75 -A -103R LAX PARCEL 76 -A -MB RA L9 S 7710 E 110.67 LIO USE. AOR MUAIL 2)EDWN USE: RESIXMTV . ZOER RA ZONEIk USE: ALR ULTIRAL USE ALRCLl7WNi IN 77IODS- IF 70-00 I E WIRE S)THOIKS R HART FARMS. LLC OR 559 PG. 673 TAX PARCEL 76-A-978 DA 717 PG 54 TAX PARCEL 76-4-99 a)ROINDNL DA E67 PG 227 ZONED: RA 201EO R+ TAX RRca 76-A-103 s ) O 9 USE. USEsTry RE9oDRM1 USE: A RIC AfJRLlA.T1AbL- / L HUMPREY 3�IEO T H 6 E rsim USE: / 1 as All 431 vi KATHY ESHEL KATHY 9 sAa+m 76-4-6 RICULTURAIRA °s 7s�9x ��76- 8 PROJECT / I AGRMAIM ZONED:� ZGAEDt R% �L „e•' SITE / USE, RESIDENTIAL USE. 9 MUTO W .zi ROO EIMo. N . / P.C.S swer, ROD SET / 2WAYNE / / p SMITH TELL PEA / / JUE G 9Wn+ Da 758 PG 969 700 Tut PARCEL 76-A-99 USE- E A O L C 0. L LR q s AEMAWR OREVONt 0614ACE E Lf N 6E39 J9" IF 3N.04' L2 S 47171ST W 394-6 L3 M 7750'39" I 1511 L4 S 56'14 I 4754 L5 S" W N S 47259'IW" ► aD96' L9 S 7710 E 110.67 LIO N IT49'34 E 70.00 (II IN 77IODS- IF 70-00 E1EV - 100 UVY E A SMITH JAE C SWATH O.U. 753 PG 920 TAX PARCEL 76-A-998 ZONED RA USE, AGRICULTURAL SEI—BYX / ,. srr rows Aro auvrc ,. Axa — — z sr.ne .wc ro+arc ro rrc cows. — — — — — — — — — — — rwrrAor ursiarc Karn THE urc ja rows II i I L - - - - - - - r' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NOUVWS CERTFIGUL �L TO TAT: �,LTN N)♦Y' l A NOTW PUBLIC N AND FOR THE SURE AND COURT .10 AIDRESNO DO HEREBY CWIWY TAU JIAE C SMITH, WHOSE NATE 6 SIGNED TO THE FORGONE WWWC. WARNG DATE OF 19 HAS = Z LSI — PERSOMID LLT APPEARED BUM WE AAC*01IEDGES THE SAIF 90017 t I., I. a" UNDER WT HAND AD SEM. ON THS —OAT' OF . 19_ NOURY R,HJC WY COMMISSION EVRES Ne. 23x37 NAL t7A°A� 971111.1110 RBC/ELP WR11lado -8�0`\(7Cl1 ANDERSON Erqkm" Noduburg. VA , ASSOCIATES. Inc. TM TM FLO N y .nr TMc r>,rNx riewc ro nr: me .. er�u .wo wuwer rrc rrHC[ wNo IX1FH0 rt rYfO rNPE rREHf3l [Kwv+i£D sot LO —� / 6 FLOW j�N3RMU- v rerx wm wa rrto tr. � �IIIII rXm+ rv.ac SILT FENCE DETAIL ox 10 BCWH DESIGNER ANDERSON h ASSOCIATES 7722 MAN STREET YOOETOWK VA 22645 30 15 O 30 60 90 (540) 869-2501 SCALE 1- = 30' DATE 21 NOV 97 REV6NOHS; pnp.rynWI9 �yW��y SCALE : ILL SHOWN PORTION OF SM PROPERTY "WNEE MWDOCUMENT NO. 151x'7-001 DRAWN : TO BE BY FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA SLEET DRAWN : ELIC SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY 167—PARKINS MILLS) P 2 Nx 2 CHHEI]cED: RDC COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director f„ RE: 1998-1999 Capital Improvements Plan Discussion DATE: December 29, 1997 The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) has forwarded a recommended draft of the 1998-1999 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to the Planning Commission for discussion. The CPPS evaluated project requests provided by the Handley Regional Library, the Frederick County School Board, the Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, the Regional Airport Authority, Frederick County Administration, and the Frederick County Public Works Department. Following this evaluation, the CPPS rated new project requests and modified the 1997 project rankings and financial data accordingly. The CPPS directed staff to prepare the final CIP document for consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors following this discussion. Included with this memorandum is a summary of the project requests, a summary of proposed project costs, the evaluation form prepared by the CPPS, project tables comparing projects from the 1997-1998 plan and this plan, as well as project justification forms for new proposals. Staff asks that the Planning Commission review this information for discussion purposes. Staff will develop a final draft 1998-1999 CIP based on this discussion which will be advertised for public hearing. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors will adopt a final plan which is recommended tp be utilized as a guide during the development of the 1998-1999 Frederick County Budget. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PROJECT REQUEST SUMMARY • The proposed draft 1998-1999 Capital Improvements Plan consists of 25 projects. The 25 projects are proposed to be developed over a period of five years. • Five new projects are proposed as a part of the 1998-1999 Capital Improvements Plan. Three new projects have been submitted by the Frederick County School Board and two new projects have been submitted by the Frederick County Administration Office. • The Department of Parks and Recreation has proposed to combine the field house and indoor pool project. A feasibility study is proposed to be complete for this project prior to a rating and determination of a project scope. • The total cost of the projects proposed for the draft 1998-1999 Capital Improvements Plan is $102,111,246. This does not account for the costs associated with the proposed Public Safety Center, the Transportation Maintenance Facility, the Annex Facilities, or the Field House & Indoor Pool Complex. • The total county cost for the projects proposed for the draft 1998-1999 Capital Improvements Plan is $98,937,074. This includes the projected debt service cost of $33,939,022. PROJECTS COSTS & PROJECT EVALUATIONS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 1998-1999 County Priori epartment PriorityCounty Fro ects C©CTIViYONTRi13iJTi0)N Interest From Any TOTAL COUNTY Total Project 1998-99 I 3 Airport Land Acquisition Butflick Road 1999 2000 1 10 000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Contributions,. Notes Debt Service COSTS Costs 2 1 Bicycle Facl .Y 51 215, (i 0.000 A N A { 110,000 $1,400,000 3 2 NREP Addition 2,500,000 Si,2a.5 B NA:' ' $3 18 387 4 1 New Library 2,420 240 2,837,700 2500400 1,610,548 5 I Public Safe ty Gerrc; NjA* " ...:: 5,257;940 D 1�i1.' 5 250 948 40 $S 257,946 6 2 Park Land - WesternFrederick Co. 1 181 332 . $a 7: 3 Transportation/Maintenance/Warehouse N{A* 8>I 3 2 I 3 N /A sp 1181 332 $ 1181,332 8 I New Back Creek Elementary School 9,200 00015,126,816 0 N{ 9 10; 4 " Third County High School 2,000,060 14,000,000 4 000 000 9,200 000 30,004;000 5 926 816 15 1 6 Open Play Area CB 426,581 f 8 18 338,9 _. 48„338,91:8 $ 4:8,338;918'. 1 I 7 Tennis/Basketball Complex - C8 42658) N/A $426,581 12' 8 Soccer Complex - SP 33 7 163, 337 ' 163 N/A 337 163 $337,163: 13:. 4 Tennis/Picnic Area - SP 1,007,398 l 007,39 8 NIA 1,007,398 $1007 398 14 2 Annex Facilities N/A * 544,611 5446::1 1 . N/A 544,61 f $544611 15 !b liiclian HoIIQw Eletr entary ScEoof Addition 2,000,OQ(J 0 N/A 16 17 7 New Gainesboro Elementary School 1,500 000 8,500,000 Z 000;000 10000 Q00 [ 288 438 3 288,438 $3;288 438: 3 Softball Complex SP 432 642 , 6 442 192 I 4 9 6132,092 $16,442,192 18 I Route 645 Relocation -Design 3,000 '132'042 N/A '. : $432,042 19 Z Route 645 Relocation - Constivction 30 b00 3 000 A3,000 $150,000 20: S Elementary School Site Acquisition SE Co 500,000 j-000° 2 /A . 3 Oao6 $r,soo,000 21; :JO Shelter, Stage Seating CB....:: ;: 33 I I O $832,110 22 l 2 Maintenance Compound - SP 334 072 334,:172 NfA 339 172 $334,172 23 4 Baseball Field Renovations - SP200,000 677 998 20.01000 N/A 200,000 $200,000 24 ' 1 I Skateboard Park 677,998 N/A 677,998 $677,998 2S S Field House ndoor Pool N/A” 204,600 204800 N/A 204,600 $204,600 TOTALS $8,060,740 """�"'"'"""WW$23,844,561 $1,283,383 0 $64;998;052 NA $33,939,022 $9893707 0 , , 4 0 $102,111,246 A = Partial funding C = Debt Service is from Federal Airport Improvement Program (FAIP) and State Commonwealth Airport Fund (SCAF) grants unavailable at time of printing B = Partial funding from State grants and local gifts D= Partial funding from private, donations N/A' = Project Scope Not Determined At Time Of Printing N/A" = Feasibility Study To Be Complete Prior To Project Scope Determination 12/29/97 1998CIP.WK4 1998 FREDERICK COUNTY CAM T AL 1YIPRO-VEMEN 1 PROJECT S EVALUATION FORM LISTED BY DEPARTMENT; IN ORDER OF DEPARTMENT PRIORITY CRITERION and WEIGHT LIBRARY New Library SCHOOL SYSTEM New Rack Creek Elementary School NW Reg. Ed. Prog. (NREP) Addition Transportation Maintenance Facility Third County High School Southern Elem. School Site Acquisition Indian Hollow Elementary Addition New Gainesboro Elementary School Administration Building Renovations PARKS AND RECREATION Bikeway System Park Land Softball Complex - SP Baseball Field Renovations - SP Field House/Indoor Pool Open Play Area - CB Tennis/Basketball Complex - CB Soccer Complex - SP Tennis/Picnic Area - SP Shelter, Stage Seating - CB Skateboard Park Maintenance Compound - SP AIRPORT Route 645 Relocation - Design Route 645 Relocation - Construction Land Aquisition, Bufllick Road COUNTY ADMINISTRATION Public Safety Center Annex Facilities Coufmm to health, Icgally Distribute Ecmanic Related Public Camp. Plan Safety, Requited S.—i-- hnpact to Other S t,ppm< TOTAL Welfare Wclf— Projene 3 4 4 2 2 3 3 2/6 2/8 0/0 4/8 2/4 0/0 3/9 35 2./6 2/8 0fa 3-16 2/4 1/3 1/3 30 2/6 2/8 2/8 3/6 2/4 O/O 1/3 35 2/6 218 v/D 1 f 3t6 2/s 113 31 2/6 2/8 0/0 2/4 3/6 1/3 1/3 30 3/9 114 0/0 2/4 112 113 1/3 25 2/6 2/8 O/O 1/2 2/4 1/3 1/3 26 216 2.19 D/ -a 1/2 2.14 1/3 113 26 4/12 2/8 Ei/0 ! f I /2 2/6 2,}6 36 3/9 1/4 0/0 4/8 1/2 1/3 2/6 32 1/4 _ 0/0 112 1 I2 1/3 21'6 2b 2/6 1/4 0/0 1/2 1/2 1/3 2/6 23 2/6 1/4 0/0 go 1{2 216 3/9 31 3/9 1/4 0/0 3/6 1/2 1/3 2/6 30 3/9 1/4 0/9 3/6 1/2 2I6 1/3 36 3/9 1/4 0/0 3/6 1/2 1/3 2/6 30 3/`9 I /4 00 1 /2 0/0 2/6 2 (ii 27 3/9 1/4 0/0 3/6 2/4 2/6 2/6 25 1/3 1/4 0/0 1/2 1/2 113 216 2g 1/3 1/4 0/0 0/0 3/6 3/9 1/3 25 .2 1 /4 1/4 0 0 1/2 2./6 1/3 25 2/6 I/4 1/4 0/0 1/2 2/6 1/3 25 x;16 2/8 3f 12 1/2 214 ?;/6 2/6 44 319 3/12 0./0 112 1/2 2/6 113 34 3/9 2/8 0/0 1/2 1/2 1/3 1/3 27 FREDERICK COUNT' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA UAER10C0MM0N\CIP\EvALUATN. TOPIC DESCRIPTION WEIGHT 1 Conformance to Does the Project conform to, or contribute to Comprehensive Plan the attainment of goaWobjectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the Project 3 consistent with establishedpolicies? 2 Public Health, Safety or Does the Project improve conditions affecting Welfare health safety or welfare? Does it eliminate a 4 clear health or safety risk? 3 Legal Requirement Is the Project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal 4 requirement? 4 Equitable Distribution of Does the Project meet a special need of some Services segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the 2 Project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under- served relative to other areas of the county? 5 Economic Impact Is the Project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the Project improve the 2 tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? 6 Coordination with other Is the Project necessary for the successful Projects completion of other projects? Is the Project 3 art of a larger pro ect? 7 Public Support Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed Project? 3 UAER10C0MM0N\CIP\EvALUATN. 1997 & 1998 PROJECT COMPARISONS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS IF Parks & Recreation 98 Rank 97 Rank Project Description 98 Cost 97 Cost Difference 1 1 Bicycle Facility $318,387 $318,387 $0 2 2 Parkland - Western Frederick County $1,181,332 $1,159,772 +$21,560 3 4 Softball Complex Sherando $432,042 $422,328 +$9,714 4 5 Baseball Field Renovation - Sher. $677,998 $662,755 +$15,243 5* 6 & 8 Field House and $10,030,000J $3,495,200 Tntinnr P.,nl +$6,534,800 6 3 Open Play Area - $426,581 $416,992 +$9,589 Clearbrook 7* 7 Tennis & $337,163 $533,586 -$196,423 Basketball Complex - Clearbrook 8* 9 Soccer Complex - $1,007,398 $1,127,692 -$120,294 Sherando 9* 11 Tennis/Picnic - $544,611 $612,495 -$67,884 Sherando 10 12 Shelter/Stage - $334,172 $326,659 +$7,513 Clearbrook 11 13 Park $204,600 $200,000 +$4,600 LSkateboard L10 Maintenance $172,415 $168,539 +$3,876 Facilit - Sher. * indicates new capital improvements project description Parks & Recreation addendums have been made to the plan that was presented to the CPPS last year. The following describes the changes that have been identified in the table: Project 5: Combines the field house and indoor pool projects into a 118,000 square feet facility. Last year, the field house was estimated to be 29,900 square feet. The project also calls for a 200 meter indoor track and additional courts. Project 7: Has been scaled back from 8 tennis courts to 4 tennis courts and has eliminated the racquetball courts. Project 8: Has been scaled back from 3 soccer fields to 2 soccer fields and has eliminated 1 of the 2 picnic shelters. Project 9: Has been scaled back to eliminate 4 racquetball courts. Regional Library 98 Rank 97 Rank Project 98 Cost 97 Cost Difference Description 1 1 Frederick $8,457,940 $8,041,485 +$416,455 County Library The square footage for this facility has been increased from 34,000 square feet to 35,000 square feet. Build out of this facility is proposed to be 50,000 square feet. Priorities have been modified to satisfy DEQ monitoring requirements prior to the cell closures. Regional Airport 98 Rank 97 Rank Public Works 98 Cost P97 Cost Difference Project 3: 98 Rank 97 Rank Project 98 Cost 97 Cost Difference Relocation Description Design 2 3 1 1 Construction $800,000 $800,000 $0 Bufflick $1,400,000 $775,000 +$625,000 Debris Road Land Acquisition Landfill 2 4 Active Gas $500,000 $500,000 $0 Management 3 2 Cell Closure $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $0 4 3 Landfill $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Development Priorities have been modified to satisfy DEQ monitoring requirements prior to the cell closures. Regional Airport 98 Rank 97 Rank Project 98 Cost P97 Cost Difference Project 3: Description 1 2 i Airport Road $150,000 $125,000 +$25,000 Relocation Design 2 3 Airport Road $1,500,000 $1,400,000 +$100,000 Construction 3 4 Bufflick $1,400,000 $775,000 +$625,000 Road Land Acquisition The Regional Airport has various funding formulas for their capital improvement projects. The following represents this list: Project 1: Requires a $3,000 local match. Project 2: Requires a $30,000 local match. Project 3: Requires a $110,000 local match. Frederick County Public Schools 98 Rank 97 Rank Project 98 Cost 97 Cost Difference Description 1 1 Back Creek $9,200,000 N/A +$9,200,000 Elementary School 7 2 Gainesboro $10,000,000 $8,700,000 +$1,300,000 Elementary School i 11 3 4 Transportation N/A N/A $0 and Maintenance Facility 4 5 Third County $30,000,000 $32,000,000 -$2,000,000 —High School PROJECT JUSTIFICATIONS filename: 98forms.wpd 1998-99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM RETURN TO: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Project Name: —Northweste=gional Educational Programs I ) Addition Date Prepared: September 26, 1997 Agency: Frederick County School, Board Agency Contact Person: 'Thomas Sullivan Phone Number: 540 662-3888 ext. 112 860 Smithfield Ave. Location of Project: '-,3 Magisterial District: StonmAm 11 Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Northwestern Regional Educational Programs (NREP) is a joint operation of three area school divisions (Frederick County, Clarke County, and Winchester Citv). NREP provides educational services to handicapped students ages 2-21 for the three divisions. Currently, NREP serves approximately 145 students, 105 of which attend the main facility at the Smithfield Avenue location and approximately 40 of which are preschool students (ages 2-6) who receive services at several locations off -campus due to a lack of space at the Smithfield Avenue site. Of the nearly 145 students who receive services through IdREP, 99 are from Frederick County. The facility, which is awned by Frederick County, was built in 1960, and expanded in 1986 with the construction, of an addition. In addition to the main structure, two modular units were added in the early 19901s to provide more classroom space at the Smithfield Avenue location. The total square footacre, including modular classrooms, is 25.941 sa. ft- (SEE INTNT Ar_F i i Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. At this time, a schedule has not been developed for this project. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Project Name: Northwestern Regional Educational Programs (NREP) Project Description (Continued): The project will consist of the construction of classroom addition to the NREP facility. Preliminary information provided by Mrs. Karen Legge, director, indicates two to three additional classrooms will be needed by the 1998-99 school year. In addition, YXs. Legge has expressed the need for four additional classrooms by the 2001-02 school year (see attached correspondence from Mrs. Legge addressed to area school superintendents). At this time, the exact scope of the project has not been determined. KREP project) Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. Not applicable. Project Priority: 2 If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: New on list for 1998. Estimate Cost (in 1997 dollars): (In Thousands) PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total [Is:tFY:: 19 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 Planning, Surveying, & 150 Design 150 Land Acquisition Site Preparation & 200 Improvements 200 Construction 2,000 2 Furniture and Equipment 150 150 Other (opening day collection) TOTAL 2,500 r 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 (INREP project) Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received X "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. (In Thousands ) PPnPnCFT`1 1 TTTAT"YNTf- C!nTM.-1Vc Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts 2,500 2,500 Other Fundraising TOTAL I 2, 500 I I I I I 2, 500 Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): In all likelihood, funds will be obtained for this project through the use of a Literary Loan Fund loan. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. Approximately 75 students to be served (exact number to be determined when the scope of work is determined). Please describe the need for this project. The construction of an addition fo a program which has continued to g years. Currently, due to a lack of containing approximately 40 student location. The new school is needed in the special needs population in r NPEP will provide much needed space for row dramatically over the last several classroom space, five preschool classes s are not held at the Smithfield Avenue to meet anticipated enrollment increases Frederick County. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. Addition to the existing facility. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 MMMMM�� Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? The project contributes to the improvement of educational services to Frederick County students with special needs. The project is consistent with established policies and procedures of the Frederick County School Board and the County of Frederick. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? Completion of this project will result in an improved educational environment for students who attend the NREP facility. It will allow students who currently must receive services off -campus to return to the main NREP facility. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? State and federal laws and regulations regarding the education, of students who receive special education services are very detailed and complex. Increased student enrollment in the area of special needs requires the school division to provide additional space. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? The project will benefit children ages 2-21 with special needs as required by state and federal law. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? With the exception of the economic benefit of the project itself and the employment of additional school staff, the project will not jmprove the tax base, reduce operating expenses, or produce revenue. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 6 coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? Not applicable. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. Superintendents of area school divisions are in the :process of Making their respective boards aware of the need for additional space at the NREP facility. Numerous comments have been made at school board meetings by parents requesting consideration be given to upgrading the current NREP facility. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 7 filename: 98forms.wpd 1998-99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM RETURN TO: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Project Name: Indian Hollow E12matary s Date Prepared: -S PTnh,-r ?ti,iqq� Agencp Fredprick County School Board Agency Contact Person: Thomas Sullivan phone Number: 540 662-3888 ext. 112 548 N. Hayfield Rd. Location of Project: WinchesteK, VA 22603 Magisterial District: Gainesboro Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. The construction of an addition to Indian Hollow Elementary School will increase the capacity of the school from 585 students to 750 students in grades K through 5 by the addition of one classroom at each grade level. In addition, the sewage treatment plant which serves the school is in excess of ten years old and needs to be replaced. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure I to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. It is anticipated this project will take approximately six martths to complete once a decision is made regarding its timing by the school board. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Indian Hollow Flementaiy School project Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. Not applicable. Project Priority: 6 If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: New on list for 1998. Estimate Costin 1997 dollars): ( ) (In Thousands) PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total - 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 Planning, Surveying, & Z00 Design 100 Land Acquisition N/A Site Preparation & 150 150 Improvements Construction lf 600 1,600 Furniture and Equipment 150 150 Other (opening day collection) 7TO= 2,000 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Indian Hollow Elementary School project Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received X "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) 0 M Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. (In Thousands) PR(1Pflc1Wri FTrAmnvr_ Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts 2,000 2,000 Other Fundraising TOTAL177 2 000lr� 2,000 Please describe the source of funding (Le_ type of grant): In all likelihood, funds will be obtained for this project through the use of a Literary Loan Fund loan. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 i Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. The project will increase the student capacity of Indian Hollow Elementary School frora 585 to 750 students. Please describe the need for this project. Continued increases in student population have resulted in the need to eX'Daad the capacity of the school. Increasing the capacity of the school will. defer the need to construct a new school to serve this area of Frederick County until some time in the future. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. Addition to existing facility (not applicable). 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 %onformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? Yes, the project conforms to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to provide educational facilities for the school age population in this area of the county. It is consistent with established policies of the school board to maintain acceptable student -teacher ratios in the schools of the division. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? Yes, the completion of the project will result in ivproved conditions affecting the welfare of the school age population. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 M� Ii Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? - The construction of an, addition and renovations to Indian Hollow Elementary School will meet the rnandate of the school board to provide educational 1 facilities to the students of Frederick County. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? Not applicable. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Not applicable, with the exception, of econozaic activity generated as a result of construction activity involved in the project. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 6 Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? Not applicable. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. Data obtained during attendance zone hearings held in the spring of 1997; information provided by the Frederick County Planning Department; input from elected school board representatives; and, discussion with county officials. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 7 filename: 98forms.wpd 1998-99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM RETURN TO: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Project Name: Site Acali-sitim- Facm=jary School-Sour,—hern/EastejM Frederick County Date Prepared: September 26, 1997 Agency: Frederick Co= School Board Agency Contact Person: Thomas qiii-i ;Y7,aQ Phone Number: - 12 Location of Project: Southern/Eastern F.C. Shawnee or on J Magisterial District: (Not selected at- this time.) Project Description: Give a brief 1-2 J p ( )paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Project involves the selection and purchase of a site in southern,/eastern Frederick County for a future elementary school. Based on, past experience, it will be necessary to purchase twenty to twenty-five acres in order to construct a 750 -student capacity, K-5 elementary school. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Purchase of a site is anticipated during 1998, with construction of a new elementary school within a five to eight year period, depending on growth in elementary school age Population. Construction schedule will be adjusted to reflect enrollment trends in elementary school age population. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Site Acquisition project Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. Not applicable. Project Priority: 5 If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: New on list for 1998. Estimate Cost (in 1997 dollars): (In Thousands) PROPO.gVn FY'P v,-nVrTTDL'c 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 --- --- +-., V1\1/L] Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition 500 500 Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL _ 7 500 500 _ 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Site Acquisition project Basis of Lost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. X Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. (In Thousands) PPnPncFTI VrnvnrNTi- cY,rn,r-ro Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Donds anu Debts 500 500 Other Fundraising TOTAL. 500 500 Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): In all likelihood, funds will be obtained for this project through the use of a Literary Loan Fund loan. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. Southern and eastern Frederick County has been designated as residential growth areas by the county. The school division continues to experience growth in school-age population as new developments are approved. It is anticipated this trend will continue for the foreseeable future, and the need will occur to add student capacity within the next five to eight years, if not sooner. Acquisition of a site for an elementary school at this tin e will result in a lower cost to the county and allow the school to be completed m a more timely manner once a decision is made regarding the need for the new facility. Please describe the need for this project. Continued growth in the elementary school age population in this area of the county will require additional classroom space in the near future. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. Southern/eastern Frederick County has been designated at residential growth areas by the county. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? Yes, the project conforms to the attaimLent of the goals and objectives of the ccraprehensive plan and is consistent with established policies to provide for the educational services to the school acre population of Frederick County. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? Not directly applicable; however, the ultir,to construction of anew elementary school in this area wmp ill irove school age population. conditions affecting the welfare of the 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 ®� ® Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? The purchase of land will be the first step in the process of the school board continuing to meet its legal obligation to provide to students. educational facilities Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? The project, when complete (construction of elementary school), will provide additional classroom space in this area of the county. In addition, the ultimate construction of a new school facility in this area will help maintain student - teacher ratios established by the school board. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? No direct economic inpact related to purchase of land. 1998-99 Capital Improvements flan Project Requests Page 6 Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the pro' part of a I project? Not applicable. i Public Support: ' Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. As a result of 1) public comments during attendance zone hearings conducted in the spring of 1997; 2) data obtained from the Frederick County Planning Department; and, 3) input from elected school board members, it is apparent the need will exist within a relatively short time period for the construction of a new elementary school in this area of the county. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests page 7 1998-99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION ANO JUSTIFICATION FORM RETURN TO: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Project Name: Frederick County Public Safety Center Date Prepared: 12/2/97 Agency: Frederick Co. Sheriff's Office Agency Contact Person: Sheriff R.T. Williamso 662-6168 North Frederick Pike Phone Number: Location of Project: Indian Hollow RoadIVjggisterial District: Gainesboro Project Description: GiveofI-? o ) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Relocation of Frederick County Sheriff's Office from the Judicial Center to area currently occupied by the Frederick Co. School Transportation department. This oro-' is contigent upon the relocation of the current transportation center to the Redbuc Run Elementary property. In conjunction with.the relocation of the Sheriff's Off ica consolidation of all offices of emergency service providers would be included. In addition, space has been included for possible satellite offices for the Commissione_ of The Revenue and the county Treasurer's office. This building would occupy approximately 23,000 square feet. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any wort: that might have been done in previous years. including studies or oche, - planning. This project is contingent upon the relocation of the Frederick County Schools' Transportation department from their current site. In addition, studies will be necessary to determine the presence of any hazardous materials from the previous occupants which would necessitate the removal thereof. 1998-99 car, Impro-z^ttn�s Plan Project Requests 2 Pa_ Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any .� other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. Depending upon the relocation of the transportation department and contingent upon determinations of the need for satellite offices in that area for the Treasurer's Office and the Commissioner's Office and. -Upon approval of the Director of Emergency Services for Frederick County. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priorxt and current status of project: Has not been previously listed in the Capital Improvements Plan. This will be a new project. ate■ Estimate Cost (in 1997 dollars): Not currently available PROPOSED EXPFNn1TTm rc Element Planning, Survevina, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL Is' FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th F Y Beyond Total 1998 1999 2000 2Q01 2002 Fy 3 1998-99 Capitai Improvements Plan Protect Requests Paz 3 Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of thfollowing. u Want to ovide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer. architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) XX Other (please explain) currently not available Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 1998 1999 5th FY Beyond TOTAL2000 2001 2002 Fy General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fundraising II I I I I I TOTAL Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): would require local funding 1995-99 Csoirli fmpro�ements Plan Project Requests 4 Pau,e 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. The Frederick County Sheriff's Office currently has 80 employees. With the Possible inclusion of the Fire and Rescue office in the same building, the number would increase to 85. Again, with the possibility of satellite offices for the Treasurer and the Commissioner of the Revenue housed within the same building the number would increase to accommodate their office staff and to meet the needs of the citizens of Frederick County. Please describe the need for this project. Frederick County Sheriff's Office currently occupies space within the Winchester/ Frederick County Judicial Center. This space was first occupied in 1984 with a staff of 36 employees. Today we have 80 employees and provide -numerous additional programs over and above what was provided in 1984 while continuing to afford the citizens of Frederick County the best services. In addition, an in-house study (copy enclosed) has been initiated by Judge Wetsel indicating the need for additionE space within the Judicial Center for court offices and other arms of the judicial branch of the government. With the growth rate Frederick County is experiencing, the Frederick County Sheriff's Office must continue to grow to accommodate the need -z of the community. sew w Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project.. The nature of law enforcement service providers require a minimal response time in the safest possible manner. This will benefit not only the citizens of Frederick County but law enforcement officers also. The current location of the Sheriff's Office in the city of Winchester with its congested streets and heavy Populated areas increase the likelihood of emergency response time jeopardizing persons and properties. Relocating the Sheriff's Office at the current site of the transportation building would be more conducive to providing the best possible services to the citizens of Frederick County by not dealing with the congested traffic, limited parking and accessibility to the judicial center. Furthermore, the location of the current transportation department would provide easy access to all areas of the county via Rt 37 and Interstate 81. Additionally, currently on the 1997-98 Capital Improvement Plans there is a project for a Frederick Count-; School Transportation's warehouse. This would leave vacant the property at North Frederick Pike and Indian Hollow Road. Since this property is currently owned by Frederick County utilization could save tax dollars by not saving to procure proper= 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 5 Pase 1 r Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive plan? ,sth c Project consistent with established policies? I am of the opinion that this project contributes to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and it is consistent with established policies. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it elimi clear health or safety risk? nate a 0998-99 Capital [moro�,ements Plan Project Requests 6 Pa_e Legal Requirement: ®.�.. Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? This project is not required to meet a State or Federal mandate or any other legal requirement Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not meet the special need of some segment of population identified as needing assistance. This project will not provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County in my opinion. i Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? \t ould the project improve the tax base. reduce operating expenses, produce revenue. or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? It is difficult at this time to see if this project would encourage economic development. Again, it is difficult at this time to project any positive effect on the local economy. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 7 Pa,e6 Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? In order for Judge Wetsel's recommendations to be met, the relocation of the Frederick County Sheriff's Office would be necessary-- Public ecessary: Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? As of this date they have not been made aware of this project 1998-99 Capital improvements Plan Project Requests Pa,,e ., L 1998-99 DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST SUMMARY Department: Approved By: 1993-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests 9 FRAM s a - CC7UN 1y CF FREEER : CY. 1-540-667-037m MEMORANDUM July 15, 1997 1937. •?9 -19 YO: Edwin Daley, City Manager John Riley, County Administrator FROM: John E. Watsei, Jr•, Judge RE: Winchester -Frederick SIMOffice Space Requirements. �M�1y*�►'��1Mi4 ii*i►1/i***X *aid0 4*044L4* 44**40 22,06 x2se P.allea / The Judicial Center presently houses six city, six county,and on Office, the 26th District Juvenile probation Office, for which the e state required by law to provide office space, Since the Joint Judiciailoc niers are first occupied in 1984, the number of persons working in the offices Center was judicial center has doubled (1984 - 76 people, 1997 - 144 eo i es now a the Of this growth many of the offices have expanded beyond the capacity As a result space which they are now occupying. Consequently, the Frederic of the Commonwealth's Attorney has elected to leave the buildin County Space in the Judicial Center will be available for other users ab Noir office 1, 1997' County In order to assess the variouz requests which have been received additional space, SuryeyS were sent to all of the users in the judicial for The individual responses are attached as Exhibit B, and the Center, summarized in the table attached as Exhibit A. The most dramatic row results are been experienced by the Frederick County Sheriff's office an 9 th has Frederick County Sheriff needs more space is a dramatic understatement, d to say that the there is simply no further space available for them in the Judicial Ce but Priority has been given to the various courts and their clerks.udi Th Center. sequence of events, which has been a The logical Space utilization in the Judicial Center in futurethe fwou! far optimal be as follows; d appear to 10 1 7r �F3CN : CCUNTY 1 -5-+.�-oc7-•J3-, 1937, J9- 13 pha ne 1- The Frederick County Commonwealth's Attorney's office wil from the building on or about November 1, 1997. 1 move 2. The Winchester Commonwealth's Attorney's office will the space vacated by the Frederick County Commonwealthnd 's 3' Attorney's office, s 3• The Winchester City Sheriff will move into the space on first floor, Cameron Street comer now occupied byt he Winchester Commonwealth's Attorney's Office. stet 4. The General District Court Clerk's Office will expand into next to their office formerly occupied b the space Sheriff's Office. Y the Winches�er City While Phase One will require only very it would appear the least disruptive of daily operations f too maks to the building, in the hiatus between the exit of the old occupant and t e these changes he entry of the new occupant. The head of each department for which a move is contem 1 the city and county will need to coordinate with res ec p ated and structural changes and additional furniture needs, if any, p t to the needed Phase wo A. Ad togas! C r om The unfinished courtroom on the third floor should be finis courtroom meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities into a should also be wired to have the capability to electronicallyrecordes Act. [t and to permit witnesses to testify by video transmission. proceedings expansion of both the General District Court and the Juvenile and of the Relations District Court dockets, d Domestic those two courts, but there is not ralIs regulla lyways a third judge sitting in one of anticipated that the General District Court and the oJuvenileom for their use. It is Relations District Court dockets will continue to increase co and Domestic for additional courtroom space. Therefore, it is contemplated pounding the Head courtroom on the third floor will initially be used p d that the additional District Court and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District by the Genera( Court. 2 11 42,5w F.c Presently, none of the courtrooms meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it is contemplated that the new courtroom would be used by any of the courts when a person with a disability was involved in a court proceeding. Hopefully, this courtroom would be corn leted by January 1, 2000, at the latest, because the need is immediate, p When Justice Whiting vacates his office on the third floor, that area will be converted to use as a juror assembly and holding room- Space is needed where from twenty to sixty people can wait while juries are being empaneled, which can take as little as a half an hour, or as long as two thirds of a da in the instance of a y murder trail or a complex civil case. We novo use the unfinished third floor courtroom for that purpose, but when that courtroom is finished and in use, that space will not be available for use by the juryanels- A B Juvenile Ourt Clerk and Probation 0.ffice, There are several factors to be considered before extensive renovation is undertaken in the unfinished second floor space, now designated for a third courtroom on the second floor. The first is whether the Frederick County Sheriff will be leaving the courthouse within five years, because if that office is leaving, then the Juvenile Probation Office could move into the space vacated by the Frederick County Sheriff, and the Juvenile Cour Clerk could expand in o the space on the second floor vacated by the Juvenile Probation Office. This scenario would entail little If any renovation work to the second floor, unfinished courtroom. Another alternative is that the Juvenile Probation Office could be housed outside of the courthouse as is done in many localities. if the Frederick Sheriff is not moving out within the foreseeable future and the Juvenile Probation Office is to remain in the Judicial Center, then the unfinished courtroom on the second floor needs to be finished to accommo the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Clerk and to rmodate conference room for the Frederick County Commonwealth's AttoOvide a which they need under any scenario. rney's Office., The Juvenile Court, the Probation Office, and the Frederick County Commonwealth's Attorney's Office need to coordinate with the City andCounty to decide Upon a viable plan for the allocation and utilization of the existing spaCe now occupied by the Juvenile Court on the second floor and the renovation of the unfinished courtroom space on the second floor. 3 12 On iuslon The implementation of this pian should solve the Judicial Projected space needs for the next decade. I will be glad to meet Center's representatives of the two governments; t with you and questions which g ernments at your convenience to answer any heads would also ybeu may have. I am sure that the other judges and office glad to attend such a meeting. As a practical matter the Genera] District Court and the Juvenile have the direst needs with respect to additional saces Relations District Court their personnel are concerned. P nsofar as the courts and Thank you for your anticipated Cooperation. cc: James L. Berry, Judge Carle Germelman, Judge David Whitacre, Judge Robert Williamson, Sheriff of Frederick County Keller Nichols? Sheriff of the City of Winchester Mike Foreman, City Clerk Rebecca Hogan, County Clerk Larry gmbrogi, County Pau( ThompsonCommonwealth's Attorney Doug , City Commonwealth's Attorney Tucker, Juvenile Probation Office 13 _-- JOINT JUDICIAL CENTER SPACE REQUIREN1ElyT - Office S -November 1, 1997 Personnel Space 11equirefflents Circuit Courts 1984 1997 2002 Office/Clerical 3 3 3 Special Spaces None ADA Courtroom shared Win. Circuit Clerk with District Courts 5 5 5 None Fred. Circuit Clerk None 6 7 8 None Record Storage Room General District Court 8 Juvenile Court 11 13 3 Public Counter Space, File 4 6 Storage 9 3 win. Conference Room, File Commonwealth's Attorney 3 13 15 Storage 5 i Coper and Su Win. Sheriff PP y Room 4 5 5 None Fred. Sheriff None 32 78 91 2 Assembl Juvenile Probation y\Class room, Office 261h District 5 89 4 Storage room Fred. Coni.Attorney Conference Room, Storage f 8 10 Room Totals None 76 144 159 Conference Room _ CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA AN WINCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE DEPART-NENT 12 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET 340.667-7331 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 FAX: 540-722-4019 A/fLemorandum DATE: JUNE 12, 1997 TO: JOHN DANIELS, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL SERVICES FROM: WAYNE GRILL, MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR RE: JJC FLOOR SPACE USAGE t6 Please find listed below the breakdown of office space utilized in the Joint Judicial Center as per your request. Advise if you have any questions. • City Sheriff 575 sqft. • City Attorney 1,055 sgft. (1st floor) 1,112 sqft. (2nd floor) • City Clerk 1,978 sqft. Total City: tY' 4,721 sqft. • County Clerk 3,104 sqft. • County Attorney 2,016 sqft. • County Sheriff 1,855 sqft. (1st floor) 3,184 sqft. (basement) • County Sheriff 760 sqft. (new remodeled area in basement) ® Proposed 911 I am unaware of how space they are ninnning to utilize but there is approximate) 5 485 sgft available in the old maintenance / storage area Total County (not including 911 area): 10q 919 s ft. Other misc. areas: • Judges chambers (2nd. floor) 3,111 sqft. • Judges chambers (3rd floor) 4,737 sqft. O J&D Court offices 962 sqft. o Probation offices 644 sqft. • Courtrooms (2nd floor) 6,942 sqft. 15 • Courtrooms (3rd floor) • Justice Whiting's area • General District Court offices • Law library • Storage area shared by users • Lunch room • Holding cell area basement • Holding cell area 2nd floor • Holding cell area 3rd floor cc: Ed Daley, City Manager 6,942 sqft. 1,152 sqft. 1,848 sqft. 1,760 sqft. 1,882 sqft. 400 sqft. 736 sqft. 320 W. 320 sqft. 16 COUNTY of FREDERICK Parks and Recreation Department James M. Doran, Director 540-665-5678 M E TV To: Evan A. Wyatt, Assistant Director, Planning Department From: James M. Doran, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Subject: Indoor Pool/Field House Date: September 30, 1997 FAX: 540-665-9687 On numerous occasions, Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department has been contacted by individuals and groups expressing a desire for the development of an indoor swimming pool and field house. In fact, a community center was included in our 1987 Board of Supervisors' approved Master Development Plan for Sherando Park. In 1993, the Planning Commission initiated the idea of providing the county with an indoor swimming pool when they included the covering of the Sherando park swimming pool on the list of county projects (see attached memo). It was later determined that covering the pool would be cost prohibited. The need for additional indoor facilities for community use has been a consideration of the commission for over ten years, and the community center concept was revised in 1996 and included in the Parks and Recreation Commission's Capital Improvement program as a field house. The combination of interest expressed by the citizens and the Planning commission lead the Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission to establish a Field House Committee to formulate the basics for the development of these projects. As part of the initial planning, and after visiting several indoor pools, community centers and field houses, the committee proposed combining these two facilities into one and developing a facility that would include an indoor area large enough to accommodate multiple athletic courts, an indoor track, fitness areas, multipurpose rooms and an indoor swimming pool. The design of the facility would lend itself not only to athletic purposes but community use as well, such as hosting after prom activities, graduations, after graduation activities, dances, Apple Blossom activities, outdoor shows, home and garden shows, trade shows, etc. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Evan Wyatt Page 2 In its second phase of planning, the committee compiled a listing of organizations and groups that would potentially use the facility. One hundred forty-five local groups were mailed a questionnaire and asked to provide input regarding the potential development of the facility. The committee received a response from 53 organizations representing 41,855 people. It should be noted that the vast majority of the questionnaires were mailed to youth serving, professional and service organizations. The committee has yet to measure the potential positive impact a facility such as this would have on local businesses and their employees. Attached, you will find the questionnaire mailed to each organization and a summary of the responses received. I believe that this very preliminary study indicates that a field house/indoor pool facility would have a positive impact for the entire Winchester/Frederick County area. This project was presented to the Parks and Recreation commission by the Field House committee. In addition to the responses received through the questionnaires, the committee shared the following observations: A facility, as described would provide the additional space needed to house the growing demand for programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department. A field house would provide a facility that would encourage our diverse population to participate in activities together. It was noted that this may offer the unique opportunity of having the youth of the community and the adult population coexisting in a very positive and beneficial way. It was stated that a field house would strengthen the economic development viability of the area as a result of providing a quality of life asset that the Winchester/Frederick County area is missing. Evan, I hope this information answers the question asked by your commission; however, if you should have any additional concerns, please let me know. JMD/sm attachs copy: R. Hartman, Chairman, Field House Committee J. Vickers 61 COUNTY of FREDER TC'K Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 MEMORAND OM To: Jim Doran, Parks and Recreation Director From: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directov</ Re: Addition of Pool Cover at Sherando Park to Capital Improvements Plan Date: January 25, 1993 This memo is a follow up to our conversation of last week concerning the Planning Commission's recommendation to add a twenty-ninth project to the CIP consisting of the covering of Sherando Pool to allow for year-round use. During our conversation, you mentioned several reasons why this may not be the most efficient way to meet the desire for an indoor swimming facility for the County. All the factors you cited made good sense, not the least of which was that the pool was not designed or built as a competitive lap pool and has no gutters. I believe that if the Commission was aware of this information at the time that they reviewed the CIP, they would have formed their recommendation differently. The mere fact that the Parks and Recreation Commission has been looking at the feasibility of covering the pool is in part a step toward fulfilling the Planning Commission's request. I would ask that you make the Parks and Recreation Commission aware of the Planning Commission's desires for a year-round pool to be included in the CIP. It would also be helpful if you could put together a memorandum to the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors pointing out the limitations of the Sherando Pool in terms of converting it for year- round use. You may also wish to fill them in on the status of your investigation into the costs and feasibility of covering the pool. I would be happy to include any pertinent information you have with the CIP materials when we forward them to the Board of Supervisors. It may be that the most appropriate way to proceed with this is for the Parks and Recreation Commission to look into, and develop a proposal for, the most efficient and cost effective way to provide a year-round pool for the County, taking factors such as location into account. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please let me know if there are any questions I can answer. KCT/rsa N(Mll 1,0LIdOun Sheet 1 i;Oic.,�lcr. VA 22()()1 P.O. Rox 601 Winchcs(cr. VA 2204; . 1 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ' Capital Improvements Program Questionnaire" Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool Facility Please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the enclosed envelope to the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department, Fieldhouse Committee, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 by September 5, 1997. 1. Name of Organization 2 Address 3. Telephone 4. Contact Person_ 5. How many people are in your organization or group? 6. How many people in your organization or group would benefit from the described Fieldhouse Facility? 7. What types of facility needs would best serve your organization? Athletic Court Areas Fitness Areas large Indoor Areas for Special Events Indoor Swimming Pool Indoor Track Other (Please describe in Multipurpose Rooms comments section below) 8. What time(s) of the year would your organization utilize the facility? - Winter ._Summer Year Round Spring all 9. What area of the county would the facility best be located to serve your organization? Northern Central Southern t, , 10. Would your organization require "any special facility or equipment needs? No Yes (If yes, please describe in comments section) 11. Would your organization be interested in having a member of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Commission's Fieldhouse Committee discuss the project with your organization? Yes No 12. Do you know of another organization or group that would like to receive this questionnaire or who would benefit from these facilities? (please list in comments section) 13. Comments (Please feel free to use back of this sheet or attachments): The following answers were given for the quesionnaire on the Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool Facility: When asked, What types of facility needs would best serve your organization? 36% Athletic Court Areas 62% Large Indoor Areas for Special Events 28% Indoor Track 67% Multipurpose Rooms 37% Fitness Areas 67% Indoor Swimming Pool 12% Other (which included: classroom area, indoor play area for children(similar to Jammin, Gym), ice skating rink) When asked, What time(s) of the year would your organization utilize the facility? 24% Winter 15% Spring 4% Summer 17% Fall 74% Year Round When asked, What area of the county would the facility best be located to serve your organization? 19% Northern 65% Central 24% Southern 2% Western 2% Eastern When asked, Would your organization require any special facility or equipment needs? 63% No 26% Yes (which included: ADA, Large meeting rooms, banquet facilities for 400 people, time- out room, basketball courts, platforms, outlets, full kitchen w/appliances and counter space, slide projector/screen, indoor batting cage) When asked, Would your organization be interested in having a member of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Commission's Fieldhouse Committee discuss the project with your organization? 39% Yes 54% No The following are some of the various comments that were made: -If we were permitted to use the indoor pool, it would enable our volunteers to provide additional training opportunities in lifeguarding, water safety and swimming lessons. (American Red Cross) -Meeting/Conference Rooms; CLEAN doesn't sponsor events directly - but we are very supportive of this project. -Our students and staff, individually and collectively, would really benefit from such a facility - What a benefit to this community! (Grafton School) -A facility such as this could benefit the Sherifs Office, as well as the community, by providing a place for "in-house" training for the employees and also providing a place for Law Enforcement Officials to hold special programs for the citizens such as, Neighborhood Watch Program, Cadet Program Meetings, and Personal Safety Classes. The fitness facilities would greatly benefit the department by providing a place for officers, who are not able to afford the cost of the local gyms, to workout and stay fit. - The community as a whole needs a facility that can accomodate special events and indoor activities. (Robinson Elementary) - This would be great for After Prom Parties. (Sherando Warrior Club) - A facility of this type would be extremely beneficial to this area. It would also reduce the stress of scheduling use of the various school sites. (Indian Hollow Elementary) - NREP serves physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped students. - This would be a great facility for the citizens of Frederick County. (Bass Hoover Elementary) - We could use a place to hold meetings (15-20 people) and a large indoor area to hold special events - volunteer recognition (300 people). (Habitat for Humanity) 1998--99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia Project Name: Date Prepared: 07/99/97 Agency: Parksand Recreation Agency Contact Person: James Location of Project: Phone Number: 665-5679 Magisterial District: Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. The Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool project would be approximately 118,000 square feet and include an indoor area large enough to accommodate a 200 meter track and a minimum of four basketball courts. This court area would also be designed for utilization by indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis and badminton with the installation of in -floor sleeves and drop curtains or partitions. This area could also be used for special events such as dances, proms, music festivals, garden and home, outdoor, craft, antique, quilt, or boat shows. Thus providing a flexible facility for a multitude of activities to take place at one time. The facility would also house a fitness center, multipurpose rooms, office, storage, locker rooms and a 25 yard x 50 meter indoor swimming pool. This facility should be located on property owned or proffered to the county and would utilize approximately 10-12 acres with parking. 0 Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. The Parks and Recreation Commission is requesting that this project be funded and completed during the 1999-2000 fiscal year. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 W� Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. In previous years, the Fieldhouse and Indoor Swimming Pool were two separate projects, but citizen input and cost analysis has lead the Parks and Recreation Commission to recommend the two projects be combined into one. Project Priority: 5 If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: Previously listed as Priorities #6 and #8. Estimate Cost (in 1997 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FY 5 Planning, Surveying, & Design 500,000 500,000 Land Acquisition Site Preparation Improvements 800,000 800,000 Construction 8,230,000 8,230,000 Furniture and Equipment 500,000 500,000 Other (opening day collection) TOTAL I 10,030,000 I I I I 10,030,000 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page2 Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following.. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment X From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) This project has been projected on a development cost of $85 per square foot, based on discussions and information provided by various architectual firms. Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 1998 2nd FY 1999 3rd FY 2000 4th FY 2001 5th FY 2002 Beyond FY 5 TOTAL General Fund 10,030,000 10,030,000 Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fundraising TOTAL I 10,030,000 10,030,000 Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): Presently, there are no federal or state grant funds available for this project. As a result, this project would need to be funded through the County Capital Improvement Fund, through donations or by funds generated through the collection of proffers. If federal, state or other grant monies become available, they will be actively pursued by this department. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. 4.2 Since it's inception, the Parks and Recreation Department has relied solely on the use of the county public schools to house our programs. This arrangement was adequate when the department first started out, but now the department offers over 750 programs annually and at this same time, space within the schools is more difficult to secure. This has created a situation where the department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the county residents. Additionally, there are no indoor pools in Frederick County, by constructing the indoor pool in conjunction with the Fieldhouse facility it would permit the department to meet citizen programming demands, provide an instructional facility, as well as provide the area with a facility that would attract new businesses to the community. This facility would be available to all area residents. Please describe the need for this project. As stated above, the Department and the community have outgrown the use of school facilities for programming. In the past four years, the Department has experienced a fifty four percent increase in program offerings. The construction of this project will provide a facility the Department will be able to offer year round recreational programming to the residents of Frederick County. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool facility should be located in an area convenient to the major transportation corridors of the county on a county proffered site. However, as an alternative one of the two county regional parks could be used to house the facility, since these locations are already identified as centers for recreation programs and activities. Additionally, locating the facility on property already owned by the county would reduce development costs. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? The Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool project meets the following County comprehensive planning goals: • Contribute to the physical, mental, and cultural needs of the community, its economic and social well-being, and its sense of civic pride and social responsibility through a complete program of parks and recreation. • Provide recreational programs and activities based on identified needs and available funding. • Continue to develop the County's regional parks as a major source of recreational facilities and activities. Support a business climate conducive to economic activity and orderly economic growth. • Provide support to travel and tourist related activities. The project meets policy recommendations for the development of parks and recreation facilities and programs, as well as supporting economic development in the county through the support of businesses and the travel and tourism industry. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? The Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool project addresses the need for an indoor recreational facility in Frederick County. The construction of this facility will provide the community with a public facility that could be used for not only recreational pursuits, but rehabilitation and wellness programs. In addition, the development of project would assist in reducing the overcrowding in the school facilities and provide a new outlet to expand the existing scholastic activities programs within the schools. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 Legal Requirement: Mon Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other le requirement? g The project is not mandated by state or federal requirements, but is in compliance with the adopted County Comprehensive Plan for recreational facility development. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? In initial stages ofpianning, the Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool project is projected to potentially serve over 150 community organizations and groups. This assistance would be provided in either facility or programming provisions within the facility. There is currently no other similar facility located within the County. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Studies have shown that the provision of park and recreational facilities and programs are a primary consideration when locating or expanding business development within a community. The financial investment in recreation projects and services pay dividends throughout the community equating to a higher return than the original outlay. Parks and recreation services contibute to the physical and mental well being of the citizens, provide for a more productive work force and preventative health services, as well as serving as a catalyst for the tourism and travel industry. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 6 Coordination with other projects:: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? The Fieldhouse/Indoor Pool project is not dependent upon another project, however, in previous years they were identified as two separate projects. Designed as one facility, development and construction costs would be reduced considerably as opposed to being developed separately. Public Support: Are county residents fuIIy informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The Fieldhouse/Indoor Swimming Pool project has been identified by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the County's Capital Improvements Plan. A Parks and Recreation Commission sub -committee has been formed to determine the final size and content of the facility. In addition, the Commission has prepared a user survey to solicit input from community organizations who would benefit from the facility. 1998-99 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 7