PC 02-19-97 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
FEBRUARY 19, 1997
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Minutes of January 15, 1997 ............................................ A
2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................... B
3) Committee Reports ................................................... C
4) Citizen Comments ......................................... .......... D
PUBLIC MEETING
5) Subdivision #001-97 of Section 1-B at the Summit by Donald L. Bayliss for the
subdivision of a 2.9 -acre tract into four lots. This property is located at the corner of
Lakeview Drive and South Lakeview Drive, and is identified by Property Identification
Number 18 -A -28F in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Mr. Miller)......................................................... E
DISCUSSION ITEM
6) Discussion Regarding Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Commercial
Telecommunication Facilities
(Mr. Wyatt) ......................................................... F
7) Other
lLr. 11\ V 1Vlllr U 1 L' J
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 January 15, 1997.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back
Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Terry Stone,
Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours,
Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal
Counsel.
ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro District; and Vincent
DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director, Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; W. Wayne Miller,
Zoning Administrator; Eric R. Lawrence, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6,1996 AND NOVEMBER 20 1996
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, the minutes of November
6, 1996 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Marker, the minutes of November 20,
1996 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Sanitation Authority -12/17/96 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that work is scheduled to begin this month on the Miller Heights
water line; tests are continuing for lead and copper; lines are being repaired in Fredericktowne and a solution has
been reached for the houses on Westmoreland Drive that were having difficulties.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use Permit #017-96 of Charles W. Rose, Jr. to operate an automobile repair business without
body repair at 751 Frog Hollow Road. This property is identified as P.I.N. 22 -A -10B in the Gainesboro
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller said that public garages are permitted within the RA Zoning District with an
approved CUP provided that all repair work takes place entirely within an enclosed structure and all exterior
storage of parts is fully screened from view from any adjoining property. He reported that the garage and
driveway for vehicles awaiting repair is very well screened from adjoining properties by woodland.
Commissioners asked if the hours of operation should be made a part of the conditions on the
permit. Mr. Miller said that the staff did not feel there was a need to include the hours of operation as a condition
of the permit because the property was so well screened by woodlands.
Mr. Rose, Jr. was present to answer questions from the Commission.
There were no citizen comments.
The Commission felt that the establishment of the business would not have a negative impact
on the surrounding neighborhood.
Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #017-96 of Charles W. Rose, Jr. to operate an automobile repair business
without body repair with the following conditions:
No outside storage of parts or equipment shall be allowed.
2. No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be allowed to be located externally to the garage.
3. No inoperable vehicles, as defined by County Ordinances, shall be allowed to be stored on the property
3
at any time.
4. All repair work must be done inside the garage.
5. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
(Mr. Romine arrived at this point of the meeting.)
Subdivision Application #011-96 of Bass Hoover Elementary School to subdivide 33.796 acres, zoned RP,
into two lots consisting of 10.007 acres and 23.789 acres. This property is located at the intersection of
Aylor Road (Rt. 647) and Carolina Avenue and is identified with PIN 75-A-63 in the Opequon Magisterial
District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller said that the School Board wishes to divide off the 10.007 acres and transfer it to the
Board of Supervisors. He said that a use for the property has not been proposed. Mr. Miller added that no
concerns were raised by any of the reviewing agencies.
requirements.
There were no public comments.
Commission members felt that the application as presented met the subdivision ordinance
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Subdivision Application #011-96 of Bass Hoover Elementary School to subdivide a 33.797 -acre tract
into two lots consisting of 10.007 acres and 23.789 acres.
ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) Enhancement Project Funding Proposal to
establish an ISTEA Enhancement Program project for Frederick County to assist with the acquisition
of the Third Battle of Winchester site. This acquisition will secure one of the key sites of the historic
Opequon Battlefield, and will initiate Phase 11 of the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network Plan for
Frederick County and the City of Winchester.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt reported that the staff was approached by the Association of the Preservation of Civil
War Sites (APCWS) to assist in the preparation of a grant application for ISTEA funding that will be utilized
4
to acquire the Third Winchester Battlefield. Mr. Wyatt said that the Third Winchester Battlefield is one of three
core Civil War battlefield sites that is envisioned to anchor the Winchester -Frederick County Civil War Tour
Network. Mr. Wyatt said that a similar application was endorsed by Frederick County in 1996, however, the
application was not successful in securing ISTEA Enhancement funds.
Members of the Commission asked the staff if the total amount of funding available for 1997
was known. Mr. Wyatt said there was $7 million available for the entire State. Mr. Wyatt said that the ISTEA
application prepared is requesting slightly less than $2 million, which is the entire purchase price.
There were no citizen comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the
ISTEA Enhancement Project funding proposal to assist with the acquisition of the Third Battle of Winchester
site.
Rezoning Application #006-96 of H. Clay DeGrange Estate to rezone 51.0540 acres from RA (Rural
Areas) to B2 (Business General). This property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection
of Route 50 West and Route 37 and is identified with P.I.N. 53-A-68 in the Gainesboro Magisterial
District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Tierney said that following the Commission's tabling of this application at their November
6, 1996 meeting, the staff had numerous meetings with the applicant's representatives and a revision to the
application has been submitted. He said that the most fundamental changes in the application are that a traffic
impact analysis has been conducted, the proffer statement has been significantly revised, and an understanding
concerning the provision of sewer service has been reached. Mr. Tierney proceeded to review the revised proffer
statement and other revisions with the Commission.
Mr. Tierney said that in the final analysis, the question remains as to whether or not the impacts
projected by the applicant are accurate and assuming they are, whether or not the proffers and other efforts are
adequate to address those projected impacts. Mr. Tierney said that at this point, it is the staff's feeling that based
on the information provided, those issues have been appropriately addressed.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., Mr. Ronald Mislowsky, and Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G. W.
Clifford & Associates, design engineers for the project, were present to represent the applicant, H. Clay
DeGrange Estate. Mr. Maddox felt the two major issues were transportation and aesthetics and they planned to
address those through covenants, as well as specific items in the generalized master plan. He assured the
Commission that conservative figures were used in .calculating both.sewer and water use and the number of trips
per day for traffic analysis.
Mr. Mislowski explained how the transportation study was conducted for the project. Mr.
5
Mislowski said that he met with VDOT at every step throughout the design evaluation and confirmed each phase
with VDOT before proceeding to the next. He said that the methodologies used were all approved by VDOT.
Members of the Commission raised the following issues: 1) were the traffic counts taken while
the livestock market was in session and if not, could it be included; 2) two areas were thought to have short
queuing distances for traffic --south on Rt. 37 turning west and north on Rt. 37 turning west to Rt. 50 --the
concern was traffic backing up on Rt. 37 during intervals and peak hours; 3) the Comprehensive Plan advises that
intersections should not progress from Level A to Level C in a short time period; 4) whether the short entrance
spacing between Ward Avenue and the proposed Hardee's was taken into account during the traffic analysis.
Mr. Mislowsky responded to the questions raised. With regards to the livestock exchange, he
said that the traffic counts were analyzed during the peak traffic hour in this area from 4:30-5:30 p.m. and he
questioned whether the livestock exchange generated traffic during that time. Regarding queuing lanes, Mr.
Mislowsky said that both of the Route 37 off ramps have 400' of turn lane and had queues of 300'. He said the
model run indicated that 400' of turn lane was adequate for stacking. Regarding the issue of the interchanges
going from levels A to C, Mr. Mislowsky indicated that it will take some time for this site to develop. He said
he would be surprised if it would develop in five years, and felt it would more likely be ten. As far as the
proposed Hardees site was concerned, Mr. Mislowsky said that they conducted a traffic analysis for Hardee's
when it was under consideration and they did not revisit that site for this traffic analysis.
Other issues raised by Planning Commission members included: 1) was the Roundhill issue
concerning the extension of sewer and water addressed? 2) regarding the existing orchard on the hill to the
northwest of this site and other adjoining, existing farmlands --the concern was for chemical drift that will occur
and who will be responsible for placing a buffer; members requested that a 5'-10' berm with landscaping be
indicated on the MDP; 3) VDOT should be looking at the whole area, especially the Hardee's site, not just this
particular proposed use when examining traffic studies; 4) concern about the remaining 50 acres of the site that
is not requested to be rezoned; members felt that if this section of the site is planned for development, it should
be included in the traffic studies; 5) signs for this development are an important aesthetic issue and members of
the Commission wished to have the covenants explained to them regarding signs and what may be expected; 6)
buffering for the undeveloped 50 acres not proposed for rezoning.
Mr. Gyurisin explained the covenants regarding signs. He said that the applicants are very
concerned with the appearance of the site and the covenants indicate that signs should be uniform and consistent
with the overall development of the property. He stated that a board will be formed, made up of landowners and
possibly lessees, to enforce the rules and regulations for the site regarding such things as maintenance of
landscaping, screening, lighting, and signs. Mr. Gyurisin stated that all utilities will be underground and the site
will have curb and gutter. He added that there will be a 30' landscaped strip along Route 50, planted with the
intention of bringing attention to the development, not to hide it. Mr. Gyurisin next described other areas of the
site designated for landscaping and open areas.
Regarding the other issues raised by the Commission, Mr. Maddox stated that they will include
the existing orchard and farmland operations into the design features of this site. Mr. Maddox felt the remaining
50 acres was unmarketable at this point in time. He stated that the developer would need to plan for additional
traffic and make necessary improvements to Routes 50 and 7 before the remaining 50 acres could be developed.
He explained that the concept for the parcel under consideration is for a larger retail center, with pedestrian
walkways, and a motel complex. They anticipate submitting a MDP within six months.
Ci
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Robert B. Johnson, an adjoining property owner, said that he was present on behalf of
himself and on behalf of the Round Hill Fire Company. Mr. Johnson said that the Round Hill Fire Company feels
that the proffers were not sufficient for the preparation of equipment and supplies that will be needed for this
project. As an adjoining property owner, he said that his property has been in his family for over 75 years. He
conveyed two concerns: both he and his neighbors have been experiencing water in the basements of their homes;
and 2) his driveway will be about 90' from the exit/entrance of the proposed shopping center and he had concerns
about getting in and out of his driveway. Mr. Johnson requested that the DeGrange Trust give him a right-of-way
off of their main road through the buffer strip to his property for safety reasons.
With regard to Mr. Johnson's comments, Mr. Maddox said that VDOT requires that any
residential entrances be taken care of and access to Mr. Johnson's property will not be impeded as a result of this
project. Mr. Maddox said that the owner is willing to discuss this further, but would prefer to wait until the
proper zoning is established on the property. He added that cost sharing will more than likely be involved.
Mr. Thomas expressed concerns about the amount of traffic that would be generated; that partial
rezoning did not allow for the consideration of the future impacts from the whole property; the density of
development was too great for this area; the uses proposed would act as a magnet for even more development in
that area and the result would be that the character of Route 50 West would be forever changed.
It was noted by other Commissioners that the adopted Round Hill Land Use Plan designated
this area at the interchange of 37 and 50 for business development. It was also pointed out that the property is
located within the Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area. They felt the issues that
were raised at the previous meeting had been sufficiently addressed, but noted that they expected to see the design
features discussed included in the master development plan and site plan.
Upon motion made by Mr. Stone and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning Application #006-96 of H. Clay DeGrange Estate to rezone 51.0540 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to
B2 (Business General) by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE): Ours, Morris, Romine, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Stone
NO: Light, Thomas
(Mr. Ellington and Mr. Wilson were not present.)
DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ZONING_ ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR
ADULT CARE FACILITIES
Mr. Wyatt stated that during the November 20, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission heard
from Mr. Bruce Hedrick with Balanced Care Services who discussed Assisted- Living Care Facilities, which
is a range of use between an independent living facility and a convalescent nursing home. Mr. Wyatt said that
7
this use has been identified as a future need in Frederick County and has been researched by the Development
Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). He said input was received from the Department of Social
Services, the licensing agency for this type of facility.
The Commission felt this use should be permitted in the RP and B2 Districts because those
districts currently permit convalescent and nursing homes and day care facilities. It was also felt that allowance
of the use in the RP District should be through a conditional use permit and allowance in B2 as a by -right use with
guidelines.
Mr. Wyatt reviewed the proposed amendments to the Definitions, the RP (Residential
Performance) District, the Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, and the Supplementary Use Regulations.
Upon reviewing the draft proposal, Commissioners felt that it would be appropriate to delete
items C and D under the Supplementary Use Regulations. Regarding C, recreational amenities, they fclt the
market or the Department of Social Services should determine the types of provisions to be provided. Regarding
D, structure heights, Commissioners felt this item was repetitive because it was stated elsewhere within the
ordinance.
Commission instructed the staff to proceed with advertising the amendment with the changes
discussed.
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 1997-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR
FREDERICK COUNTY
Mr. Lawrence presented the 1997-1998 C.I.P. (Capital Improvements Plan) for Frederick
County as recommended by the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS). Mr. Lawrence
reviewed the proposed projects and costs with the Commission.
The question of liability regarding the skateboard park was raised. Mr. Cook, the Commission's
legal counsel, said that the County could be liable, if an injury occurred.
Mr. Light was concerned that the cost of the C.I.P. had doubled in one year and he felt this "wish
list" was going to get the County in trouble with debt service. Mr. Light felt that governmental policy was needed
to restrict the total dollar volume in relationship to budget so that the County doesn't get into a bind with debt
service in the future. Mr. Light pointed out that there were no calculations with the C.I.P. as to its effect on real
estate taxes.
Mr. Light felt that the C.I.P. offered the ability to create avenues to spend money. He said that
according to his calculations, 50% of the total money and the county contributions in this proposal had to do with
recreations. He felt this was absurd; yet, because the Parks Department is significant in their ability to get
projects on the C.I.P., it becomes legislation after the Planning Commission votes on it. He felt there was nothing
to stop the School Board from asking for ten schools or the Parks & Recreation Department from asking for 15
ballfields. Mr. Light felt that the creation of a C.I.P. that showed debt service collaborated with a whole financial
policy within the County was needed.
8
Other Commission members viewed the C.I.P. as a gathering of information to begin the
budgetary process. They felt that the Board of Supervisors' Finance Committee was responsible for deciding how
much the County could afford in terms of projects. They looked at the C.I.P. as a wish list that did not bear
weight to the financial responsibilities of the County.
Chairman DeHaven instructed the staff to proceed with advertising for a public hearing.
DISCUSSION REGARDING STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT
LINE- LOTS
Mr. Wyatt stated that the staff received a request from Mr. David Shore, Broker, to amend
Section 165-65E of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Wyatt said that this section of the ordinance provides dimensional
and design standards for single family detached zero lot line developments. He said that Mr. Shore has requested
that the language prohibiting windows on the zero lot line side be eliminated. Mr. Wyatt added that the staff
polled members of the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) and they concur that the
requirement should be eliminated.
Mr. Wyatt said that this statement is redundant in our zoning ordinance because it is already a
building permit requirement. He said the building code states that openings shall not be permitted in exterior
walls of dwellings located within three feet of the property line. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that the ability
exists to request a modification of, or exception to, this requirement through the Building Official. He explained
that if the request is denied, an appeals process is available through the building permits system. Mr. Wyatt said
that if the request is granted, the individual runs the risk of having to go back through the variance process
because of the requirement in the zoning ordinance.
The Planning Commission was in agreement that the wording should be deleted from the zoning
ordinance and they instructed the staff to proceed with advertising for a public hearing.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND 1997 MEETING SCHEDULE
1997 Meetine Schedule
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have regular
monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. and work sessions on the fourth
Monday of each month, as needed, at 7:30 p.m. Both regular meetings and work sessions will be held in the
Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
0
Election of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Chairman.
The nomination of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. for Chairman was made by Mr. Marker and seconded
by Mr. Romine.
Motion was made by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Ours, and unanimously passed to close
nominations for Chairman.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Charles
S. DeHaven, Jr. as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year of 1997.
Election of John R. Marker Vice Chairman
Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Vice Chairman.
The nomination of John K Marker for Vice Chairman was made by Mrs. Copcnhaver and
seconded by Mr. Morris.
Motion was made by Mr. Thomas and unanimously passed to close nominations for Vice
Chairman.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect John R.
Marker as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year of 1997.
Election of Kris C. Tierney, Secretary
Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Secretary.
The nomination of Kris C. Tierney for Secretary was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr.
Moms.
A motion was made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Thomas to close nominations.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Mr. Kris
C. Tierney as Secretary of the Planning Commission for 1997.
ADJOURNMENT
10:00 P.M.
10
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned by unanimous vote at
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director
Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman
BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
(printed February 13, 1997)
. . . Application newly submitted=
REZONINGS:
H. Clay DeGrange Estate
(REZ #006-96)
Gainesboro 51.0540 acres from RA to B2
Location:
N.W. quadrant of Rt. 50W/ Rt. 37 Intersection
Submitted:
10/18/96
PC Review:
11/06/96 tabled; 1-15-97 recommended approval
BOS Review:
02/12/97
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Woodside H (MDP #007-96)
ewa
76, R -Z Ut"Llner-O'
West side of Double Church Rd. (Rt. 641), south of Rt. 277
intersection.
Submitted:
Location:
SW Comer of Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322) & Baker Lane (Rt. 1200)_
11/20/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
Submitted:
01/27/97
PC Review:
03/05/97
BOS Review:
E03/26/97 - tentatively scheduled
Woodside H (MDP #007-96)
Opequon 80 SF det. dwellings; 33.2856 acres
(RP)
Location:
West side of Double Church Rd. (Rt. 641), south of Rt. 277
intersection.
Submitted:
10/29/96
PC Review:
11/20/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
12/11/96 - approved
Admin. Approved:
01/24/97
SUBDIVISIONS:
The Summit; Section 1-B
(SUB #001-97) (No MDP)
Gainesboro
Subd. of 2.9 acres into 4 lots (R5)
Location:
Corner of Lakeview Dr. & South Lakeview Drive
PC Review:
02/19/97
B Review:
03/12/97 - tentatively scheduled
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Bass Hoover Elem. School
(SUB #011-96) (No MDP)
Opequon
Subd. of 10.007 ac. off of a 33.796 ac.
tract (RP)
Location:
Intersection of A for Rd. & Caroline Ave.
PC Review:
01/15/97
BOS Review
01/22/97 -approved
Admin. Approved:
01/23/97
Hill Valley, Sect. 1 thr. 4
(SUB #009-96)
Stonewall
49 SF Detached Cluster Lots on
26.1232 acres (RP)
Location:
So. of Shenandoah Hills on west side of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656)
Submitted:
11/22/96
MDP #001-96:
Approved on 09/27/96
Admin. A roved:
Pending
The Village at Sherando
Parcel #1 (SUB #008-96)
Opequon
Subdivision of one 1.14784 acre lot (B2)
Location:
Corner of Warrior Drive & Ivory Drive
Submitted:
11/20/96
MDP 11002-92:
Approved on 04/27/92
Admin. Approved:
02/06/97 - received recorded p lat
Greenwood Road
(SUB 11007-95)
Shawnee
Subdivision of 2.837 ac. into five lots
(RP)
Location:
W. Side of Greenwood Rd (Rt. 656) approx. 1,400' north of Senseny
Rd. (Rt. 657) intersection
Submitted:
07/22/96
PC Review:
08/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
09/11/96 - Approved
Admin. Approval:
12/27/96 - Plats signed; awaiting copy of recorded plat
Valley Mill Estates (SUB)
Stonewall
21 SF Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
No. Side of Valley Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
10/23/95
MDP 1/001-95
Approved 04/26/95
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting bonding, signed plats, & deed of dedication
Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB)
Back Creek
2 Ml Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres)
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
Submitted:
09/08/95
MDP 11003-87
Approved 07/08/87
Pending Admin. Appi
ig signed plats.
RT&T Partnership (SUB)
Back Creek ---Fl
Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2)
Location:
Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.)
Submitted:
05/17/95
MDP #003-91
Approved 07/10/91
L.PendingAdmin. Approval:
Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication
Briarwood Estates (SUB)
Stonewall
20 SF Det. Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
01/03/94
MDP X005-93
Approved 12/8/93
Pending Admin. Approval:
Being held at applicant's request.
Abrams Point, Phase I (SUB)
Shawnee
230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots (RP)
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
06/13/90 - approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting deed of ded., letter of credit, and signed 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: JI
Awaiting signed plat.
SITE PLANS:
Waffle House Restaurant
(SP #003-97)
Shawnee
1,659 sq.ft. restaurant on 0.37 ac. site
(B2)
Location:
980 Millwood Pike (Intersection of Rt. 522 & 50)
Submitted:
01/21/97
Approved:
Pending
Valley Proteins, Inc.
(SP #002-97)
Gainesboro
16,000 sq. ft. office bldg. on a 165 ac.
site (M2)
Location:
Intersection of Routes 608 and 679
Submitted:
01/15/97
Approved:
Pending
The Home Plate, Inc.
(SP #001-97)
Opequon
50,000 sq. ft. recreational facility on
1.1478 ac. site (132)
Location:
Comer of Warrior Rd. & Ivory Dr. in Stephens City
Submitted:
01/06/97
Approved:
Pending
FCarriebrooke (SP #057-96)
Shawnee
Offices on 2.5487 acres (132)
Location:
East side of Rt. 642 south of I-81/37/642 interchange
Submitted:
12/26/96
Approved:
Pending
Shenandoah Bldg. Supply
(SP #056-96)
Gainesboro
Warehouse on 5 acres (M1)
Location:
195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park)
Submitted:
12/16/96
Approved:
Pending
ALC, Inc. (Eastgate Comm.
Cntr. (SP #055-96)
Shawnee
Mfg./Office on 3.96 ac. of a 20.7559
1 ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
Eastgate Dr., Eastgate Commerce Center (off Rt. 642)
Submitted:
12/12/96
Approved:
Pending
Ft. Collier Industrial Pk.
Lease Bldg. #3 (SP #053-96)
Stonewall
140,880 sf warehse addition to Lease
Bldg #3; 5.753 ac. disturb. of 10.946
ac. tract
Location:
Brooke Road, Ft. Collier Industrial Pk.
Submitted:
11/22/96
Approved:
01/30/97
Virginia Apple Storage
(SP #050-96)
Shawnee
Warehousing on 10.2059 acres (Ml)
Location:
Southeast corner of Victory Lane (Rt. 728) & Independence Drive at
Westview Business Center
Submitted:
11/06/96
Approved:
U Pending
James Wood H. S. Athletic Fields
(SP #047-96)
Gainesboro New baseball stadium, softball field,
multi-purpose field (RA)
Location:
161 Apple Pie Ridge Road
Submitted:
10/21/96
Approved:
LPending
11 Toan & Assoc. (SP #046-96)
Gainesboro Kraft warehouse addition; 4.6 ac. of
13.8 ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
360 McGhee Road
Submitted:
10/18/96
Approved:
Pending
Winchester 84 Lumber
(SP #045-96)
Stonewall
Storage Shed; 1.19 ac. of a 4.98 ac.
tract disturbed (B2)
Location:
Rt. 839
Submitted:
10/14/96
Approved:
Pending
Miller Milling East Co.
(SP #043-96)
Stonewall
Bldg. Addition (mill) on 0.91 ac. of a
82.136 ac. parcel (Ml)
Location:
302 Park Center Drive; Fort Collier Industrial Park
Submitted:
09/23/96
Approved:
Pending
Frederick Veterinary Hospital (SP
#037-96)
Opequon
Veterinary Hospital on .50 ac. of a 2.05
ac. site (RP)
Location:
East side of A for Rd (Rt. 642); so. of Westmoreland Dr
Submitted:
08/21/96
Approved:
Pending
Hardees Mobile Oil Conven. Cntr
(SP #050-95)
Back Creek
Conven. Cntr/Rest. on a 1.0727 ac. site
(RA) (CUP #011-95)
Location:
Southeast corner of Rt. 50 W and Ward Avenue
Submitted:
12/20/95
Approved:
02/10/97
F#Kohl's Distribution Facility (SP
#03496)
Shawnee
Warehouse Distrib; 38 disturbed ac. of
53.27 ac. site (Ml)
Location:
Airport Rd (Rt. 645) in the Airport Business Center
Submitted:
08/02/96
Approved:
01/31/97
Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube
Service (SP #030-96)
Opequon
Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive -
1 Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2)
Location:
152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store)
Submitted:
07/03/96
Approved:
Pending
Stonewall Mini -Storage
(SP #028-96)
Gainesboro
Mini -storage on .25 ac. of a 2.56 ac.
tract (Ml)
Location:
120 Lenoir Drive
Submitted:
06/20/96
Approved:
01/23/97
Flying J Travel Plaza (SP #026-
96)
Stonewall
Travel Plaza on 15 acres (B3)
Location:
S.W. corner of the intersection of I-81 & Rt. 669
Submitted:
05/23/96
Approved:
Pending
Creek Center (SP #025-96)
Back Creek Museum on 0.485 ac. of a 3.210 acre
parcel (B1)
on:
FApproved:
8437 Valle Pike (Rt. 11), Middletown
tted:
k5/16/96
Approved:
Pending
AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP
#022-96)
Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a
0.916 acre parcel (RA)
Location:
3548 North Frederick Pike
Submitted:
05/08/96
Approved:
Pending
Dr. Raymond Fish (SP #023-96)
Stonewall Mini -Golf Facility on 5,000 sq. ft. of a
116 acre parcel (B2)
Location: "
S.E. Corner of 1-81/Hopewell Rd. Intersection
Submitted:
05/09/96
A roved:
Pending
American Legion Post #021 (SP
#018-96)
Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255
acre site (B2)
Location:
1730 Berryville Pike
Submitted:
04/10/96
Approved:
Pending
Dominion Knolls (SP #010-96)
all
180 TH on 20.278 ac. (RP)
Location:
tion of Baker Lane and Gordon Street
E02/21/96
Submitted:
A roved•
A roved:
wn by applicant on 01/27/97
D.K. Erectors & Main-tenance,
Inc. (SP #051-95)
Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on a 10
acre site (M2)
Location:
4530 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
12/28/95
A roved•
Pending
Wheatlands Wastewater Facility
(SP #047-89)
Opequon
Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (R5)
Location:
So. West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522
Submitted:
09/12/89
Note:
Being held at applicant's request.
�echP #057-90)
Stonewall
MI Use on 11 Ac. (MI)
Location:
East side of Ft. Collier Rd.
Submitted:
10/25/90
Note:
Being held at applicant's request.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
10
Derek M. Heishman
(CUP #001-97)
Back Creek
Automobile repair w/o body repair
(RA)
Location:
187 Middle Lane, Gore
Submitted:
01/21/97
PC Review:
03/05/97
BOS Review:
03/26/97 - tentatively scheduled
11
VARIANCES:
Stan Paskel (VAR #001-97)
Shawnee
44.5' side yard for addition
Location:
1997 Senseny Road
Submitted:
01/21/97
BZA Review:
02/18/97
12
PC REVIEW: 2/19/97
BOS REVIEW: 3/12/97
Subdivision Application #001-97
THE SUMMIT, SECTION 1-B ADDITION
(Donald L. Bayliss)
LOCATION: The property is located at the intersection of Lakeview Drive and S. Lakeview Drive
at The Summit.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 18 -A -28F
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District;
Land Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District;
Land Use: Residential
SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of a 2.9 -acre tract into four lots
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
Inspections: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and
Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993.
Engineering site and foundation plans shall be submitted at time of building permit
application for Lots #29, 30, 31 and 32.
Fire Marshal: Approved by Fire & Rescue Department.
Engineering: See attached letter from Harvey Stawsnyder dated 10-6-95.
Department of Health - Office of Water Programs: See attached letter dated 7-7-96from
Douglas M Caldwell, P.E.
Department of Environmental Quality: See attached letter dated 7-9-96 from Donald G.
Kain.
The Summit, Sec. 1-B Addition
Page 2
February 8, 1997
Planning and Zoning: Section 1 B, Lake Holiday Estates subdivisionwas approved in April
1994 by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This request is for an addition
of four lots that adjoins and is to become a part of the Section 1 B. There are no new streets
required and water and sewer are available to these lots. The president of the Lake Holiday
Utility Company and the state DEQ have certified that sewer and water capacity exist to
accommodate these additional lots. Staff concurs with the Director of Public Works in
requiring detailed site plans for lots 29 and 32.
Staff Recommendation for 2/19/97: Staff recommends approval with the stipulation that all review
agency comments must be complied with.
File: K:\WP\CMN\COMMENTS\SUMMITIB.SUB
SUBDIVISION #001-97 PIN: 18—A-28F
The Summit
Date:
Applicant/Agent:
Address:
APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST
SUBDIVISION
FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA
Application # .001—q7 d
Phone :'T "A R % 7 -14 R!fid -a--57 rf—e -?'
Owners name:
Address:
S
Phone: L7Z /0 14r Q U �' r�— �S
Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority
stockholders:
��i'fJ� � f- • yC f5�'
Contact Person:
Phone: ,"- Vd
Name of Subdivision:
Number of Lots
Property Location: ro/2,cy
Z 15J
-7' 7A` SLIM/)', -
Total
IM/)',
Total Acreage 01 : ! A,
F 1AkIrz/Ir-- )
r S'
(Give State Rt.#, name, distance and direction from intersection)
Magisterial District CIAI IS
Property Identification Number= (PIN)) ���/� �- ( -F
9
Property zoning and present use: R-5 and vacant
Adjoining property zoning and use: R-5 / Residential
Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project?
Yes No g
If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of
Supervisors?
Yes No
What was the MDP title?
Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP?
Yes No
If yes, specify what changes:
Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) 17,401 square feet
Number and types of housing units in this development:
Number 4
Types_ Residential
4
.i
Mr. John C. Lewis, P.E.
Lewis & Associates
25 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Lake Holiday Estates Section 1B Addition
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear John:
COUNTY of FREDERIC
Public Works Departme
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.:
Direct
October 6, 1995 --
r
'J
703/665 -56 -
Fax: 703/678-06f
We have completed our review of the proposed four (4) lot subdivision located
immediately adjacent to the previously approved Lake Holiday Estates subdivision. Based on this
review, we recommend that a note be added to sheet 1 of 2 requiring the submittal of detailed site
plans for lots 29 and 32. The detailed site plans should be submitted with the application for a
building permit.
Our final approval of the subdivision addition will be contingent upon receipt of the
inclusion of the above comment on the revised drawings.
Sincerely,
�.
Harvey E S wsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director is Works Department
HES: rls
cc: Wayne Miller, Planning and Zoning
file
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
s p
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RANDOLPH L GORDON, MD, M.P.K Department of Health ROCKeRIDGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
State Health Commissioner OffJce of Water Programs 191 WALKER STREET
LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA 244.2431
Environmental Engineering Feld Office PHONE t540l 463.7136
FAX (om) 463-9892
Mr. R. Bradley Chewning, P.E.
Department of Environmental Quality
Water Regional Office
P.O. Box 268
Bridgewater, Virginia 22812
Dear Mr. Chewning:
7 June 1996
SUBJECT: Frederick County
Sewerage - Summit �---
Plans and specifications for the installation of a low pressure sewage collection system to serve Section 1B
Addition of the Summit, located in Frederick County, as prepared by Lewis and Associates, Land
Development Consultants, Winchester, Virginia, have been received by this Department. The plans include
Sheets 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 titled "Subdivision Design Plan for Lake Holiday Estates, Section 1B Addition" and
dated 8 September 1994. The specifications titled "Water and Sewerage System Report and Specifications,
Lake Holiday Estates, Section 1B Addition, Frederick County, Virginia" are dated 8 September 1994.
These specifications supplement those titled "Water and Sewerage System Report and Specifications, Lake
Holiday Estates, Section 1B, Frederick County, Virginia", dated March 1993, and approved by Department
of Environmental Quality memorandum dated 16 June 1993.
The project has been designed for an average flow of 2,000 gpd or an equivalent population of 20 persons,
with a peak flow of 5,000 gpd based on a peak factor of 2.5. The project will consist of the installation of
fifty (50) feet of 1 1/4 --inch diameter sewage force main, seventy-five (75) feet of 1 1/2 -inch diameter sewage
farce main, 346 feet of two (2) -inch in diameter sewage force main, and five (5) Model 210, Environment
One sewage grinder pumping stations. Each pumping unit will be capable of pumping eleven (11) gallons
per minute against system head.
A twelve (12) -month summary of operation for the Lake Holiday Estates sewage treatment works has been
reviewed. The review has indicated that the treatment facility will not be overloaded by these additional
connections.
A signed legal document from the owner of the treatment works and sewage collection system receiving flow
from this project has been received indicating the acceptance of the proposed flow.
The proposed wastewater pumping facilities have been designated Reliabiliry Class III.. The proposed
pumping facilities will meet the requirements of this reliability class. The Lake Holiday Estates Utility
Company will maintain the grinder pumps and force main.
Mr. R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. 2 7 June 1996
SUBJECT: Frederick County
Sewerage - Summit
The review of these plans and specifications has been confined to technical requirements and design criteria
as stipulated in the Commonwealth of Virginia Sevwrage Regulations.
In accordance with the Virginia Water Control Law, Code of Yrrg&da 1950, as amended, Title 62. 1,
Chapter 3.1, Article 4, Section 62.14.19, Paragraph 3, this letter report is to advise that the previously
described plans and specifications are technically adequate and recommended for approval by this
Department.
Issuance of a construction permit or any further action or decision is a matter for your office.
This office is forwarding, along with a copy of this letter, one (1) copy of the previously described plans and
specifications with State Health Department stickers indicating approval to Mr. Donald L. Bayliss and to
your office.
Notification of Department of Environmental Quality action should be transmitted to Mr. Donald L. Bayliss,
Lakeshore Development, 457 Back Mountain Road, Winchester, Virginia 22602; Mr. Carl H: Simms,
President, Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company, 231 Redland Road, Cross Junction, Virginia 22625; Mr.
John Lewis, Lewis and Associates, 24 East Piccadilly Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601; Mr. John
Trenary, Frederick County Building Official, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 5000; and
this office.
Enclosed are copies of the engineer's letter of retransmittal dated 11 July 1995, the pertinent pages of a legal
document dated 21 June 1995 indicating the Lake Holiday Estates Utilities Company's willingness to accept
sewage flow from this project, and a letter dated 4 June 1996 indicating that Lake Holiday Estates Utility
Company will maintain these proposed sewerage facilities for your information.
By direction of the State Health Commissioner.
Sincerely,
Cn:GINAL SIGNED BY:
Goua'.as IIS!. Caldweil, P.E.
�r Ronald E. Conner, P.E.
Engineering Field Director
BKH/bt
cc Lakeshore Development - Attn: D. Bayliss ✓
Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company - Atm: C. H. Simms
Lewis and Associates - Attn: J. Lewis
Frederick County Building Official - Atm: J. Trenary
Frederick County Health Department
VDH - Richmond Central
9sIM43.d=
COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Gauge Allen Thomas L. Hopkins
Governor Valley Regional Office Director
Becky Norton Dunlop Street ad*ess 116 North Main Street, Bridgewater, Virginia 22812'—:77. R. Bradley Chewning, P.E.
Secretary of Natural Resources Mailing address P.O. Box 268, Bridgewater, Virginia 22812 Valley Regional Director
Fax (540) 828-4016 (540) 828-2595
http://www.deq.state.v&us
July 9, 1996
Mr. Donald L. Bayliss
Lakeshore Development
457 Back Mountain Road
Winchester, VA 22602 `------ -
Re: Plans and Specifications for Sewage Conveyance Facilities
- Section IB - Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company
(Summit) STP - VPDES Permit No. VA0027642 - Frederick
County
Dear Mr. Bayliss:
The referenced plans and specifications are approved.
This action is in accordance with the enclosed memorandum
dated July 3, 1996 and a letter from the Virginia Department
of Health recommending approval of this project.
This document constitutes your Certificate to Construct as
required by Section 2.04.04 of the Virginia Sewerage
Regulations. As the owner of these facilities, you will be
required to comply with the following sections of the Virginia
Sewerage Regulations: Section 2.05 (Statement Required Upon
Completion of Construction) and Section 2.06 (Issuance of the
Certificate to Operate).
The Department of Environmental Quality approval does not
relieve you of your responsibility to:
1. operate the facility in a manner to consistently meet
the facility's performance requirements,
2. correct design and/or operation deficiencies, or
3. comply with all other applicable laws and regulations.
An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat
Mr. Donald L. Bayliss
July 9, 1996
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Kemper Loyd of
this office.
Sincerely,
jLa-a4'
L'-
Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Enclosure
lgg/61summit.ps2
cc: C.H. Simms - Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company
J. Lewis - Lewis and Associates
J. Trenary - Frederick County Building Official
VDH - Lexington
B.K. Fowler/Correspondence File
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE
SUBJECT: Plans and Specifications for Sewage Conveyance Facilities -
Section IB - Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company (Summit) STP
- VPDES Permit No. VA0027642 - Frederick County
TO: Water Permits Manager
FROM: C. Kemper Loyd
DATE: July 3, 1996
COPIES: VPDES Correspondence File
D. L. Bayliss - Lakeshore Development
C.H. Simms - Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company
J. Lewis - Lewis and Associates
J. Trenary - Frederick County Building Official
VDH - Lexington
Prject Name: Section IB Low Pressure Sewage Collection
System
Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company
Project,Scopg: Supplement to previously -approved plans and
specifications - installation of low pressure
sewage collection system (see attached VDH
letter) .
Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company (Summit)
STP
Previous plans and specifications for
Section IB Sewage Conveyance Facilities, dated
March, 1993, were approved by DEQ on June 16,
1993.
Virginia Department
Health Action: By letter dated June 7, 1996, the Virginia
Department of Health recommended approval of
the plans and specifications.
Staff Comments: The purpose of this project is to extend
service to a previously unsewered area.
The staff recommends that the:
1. plans and specifications be approved.
2. pump stations be designated as being subject to Reliability
Class III.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director ` -.
RE: Commercial Telecommunication Facilities Discussion
DATE: February 12, 1997
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
The Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and staff had an opportunity to discuss issues
associated with commercial telecommunication facilities during the retreat. The Board and
Commission felt that an approach should be developed to site these facilities. During the February
5, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a proposed approach to regulate the siting of
commercial telecommunication facilities. This approach would require a conditional use permit to
be issued prior to the location of new facilities, and would establish standards for the type of tower
that could be constructed, the method for screening the site, and bonding the removal of abandoned
facilities. The Planning Commission reached a general consensus on this approach and directed staff
to draft language that could be reviewed at the next commission meeting.
Included with this memorandum are the proposed amendments for Frederick County and existing
ordinances from other localities for the Planning Commission's perusal. Staff asks that the
commission consider this information for the purpose of discussion and provide direction for further
proceedings.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ARTICLE XXI Definitions
165-145. Definitions and word usage.
Commercial Telecommunication Facilities - a structure including the tower, antennas, panels,
microwave dishes, receiving dishes, equipment building, other transmitting and receiving components,
and other accessory structures, used for the wireless electromagnetic transmission of information,
excluding structures utilized as satellite earth stations and structures utilized for amateur or
recreational purposes such as ham radio or citizen band radio.
ARTICLE IV Supplementary Use Regulations
165-24 Height Limitations; Exceptions
B(1) The maximum height requirements shall not apply to the following:
0) Radio and television transmission towers and commercial telecommunication facilities.
165-48.6 Commercial Telecommunication Facilities
The intent of this Section is to ensure that the siting of commercial telecommunication facilities
occurs through the conditional use permit public hearing process defined in Article III of this Chapter.
The siting of commercial telecommunication facilities is intended to be inclusionary within the zoning
districts specified in this Chapter, provided that local zoning, land use patterns, view sheds, and
properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted.
A. In addition to the information specified in the Conditional Use Permit Application Package,
the following information shall be provided by the applicant:
1) A map depicting the area that can be served by each commercial telecommunication
facility.
2) Identification of all service providers and commercial telecommunication facility
infrastructure within a proposed service area.
3) Identification of all structures within a proposed service area which are 75 feet or
greater in height.
4) Identification of all public properties located within a proposed service area.
5) Statement from the director of the Winchester Regional Airport regarding impacts to
the airport co mu c tion and landing systems and the airport approach zones.
6) Analysis of alternative sites withhiia t)rol)osed serviee area, including statements
discussing which sites are not technically feasible.
7) Information demonstrating that the commercial telecommunication facility is in
compliance with the Federal Communication Commission's established ANSUIEEE
standards for electromagnetic field levels and radiofrequency radiation.
8) Information regarding attempts to collocate on existing commercial
telecommunication facilities within the proposed service area and the willingness to
allow for collocation space on the proposed facility.
B. The following standards shall apply to any property in which a commercial telecommunication
facility is sited, in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative
impacts to adjoining properties:
1) Setbacks for commercial telecommunication facilities as defined shall meet the
requirements of Section 165-24(6) of this Chapter. The Planning Commission may
reduce the required setback distance if it can be demonstrated that the location is of
equal or lesser impact to adjoining properties. Commercial telecommunication
facilities affixed to existing structures shall be exempt from setback requirements,
provided that they are located no closer to the adjoining property line than the existing
structure.
2) Monopole type construction shall be required for new commercial telecommunication
towers. The Planning Commission may allow lattice type construction for new
telecommunication towers that are utilized for collocation of service providers.
3) Advertising shall be prohibited in conjunction with any commercial telecommunication
facility.
4) No lighting shall be placed on commercial telecommunication facilities unless
mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications
Commission.
5) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be constructed with materials of a
galvanized finish or painted a non -contrasting blue or gray unless otherwise mandated
by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission.
6) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be adequately enclosed to prevent
access by persons other than employees of the service provider. Appropriate
landscaping an opaque screening shall be provided to ensure that equipment buildings
and other accessory structures are not visible from adjoining properties, roads, or
other right-of-ways.
k5 ,
NO
_� C)06f4,,
C�
TELECOMMLTNICATION ISSUES
(September 15, 1995)
Since 1983, Fairfax County has been reviewing and processing applications for
telecommunication facilities. These facilities usually consist of either antennas and related
equipment located on an existing building or structure or the erection of a monopole or to
equipment building of approximately 130 to 200 feet. Between 1983 and 1992, Onlytwelvetower and
telecommunication facilities were reviewed under the 456 Review process. However, over
Past three Years the number of cases and associated issues has ,over the
County is now faced with a siuse dramatzcallY tncreased and the
outstanding issues related to this topic which mayuserve Presented below is a listing of
and future directions. a basis for structuring needed actions
ISSUES RELATED TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
Background: Amendments to the Policy Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan w
in 1992 and provide the basis for evaluation of appliestions submitted under then were adopted
review process. The adopted Plan policies and objectives emphasize the use of CountyCounty's 456
Property for telecommunication facilities in order to encourageliowned
minimize the total number of locations re the collocation of facilities and
Property has not been feasible in required Countywide' However, the use of public
many areas targeted by the cellular companies and collocation
Policies can conflict with land use compatibility objectives.
1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends public use properties as appropriate
locations for cellular facilities but provides no guidance for determinin the
appropriate locations among these sites. g most
While the Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives support the location of
telecommunication facilities on public property, certain agencies are strop 1 0
the use of their property for such purposes. g Y pposed to
Public use sites are located in all
and provide different Opportunities� of the County, vary greatly in sizr mitigatinge and character,
properties are located m° c°and industrial areas acts on adjacent areas. Some public
heart of residentially developed areas, while others are situated in the
acceptability of facilities in different public use locations.
no Policies or standards to address
Some agencies have shown a reluctance to accept telecommunication facilitie
s on
Properties because of fear that it may create a negative association of uses with the their
N: 1 PD 1 Jt RSFD4,L 1 WPDOGS 1 Cy r WpD
1
public believes that the agency's facilities are a preferred location for monopoles.
2• The Comprehensive Plans lacks guidelines or criteria which may be used to
evaluate compatibility of proposed telecommunication facilities with the proposed site
the surrounding area. P and
The Comprehensive Plan states that telecommunication facilities should minimize
impacts on the character of public use sites and the surrounding area and the
appropriateness of the facility's design must be demo
the Plan lacks specificity on how to measure impact an e d bye applicant.Of de However,
evaluate appropriateness. Typical standards used to evaluate bui �g ell needed to
are not applicable due to differences in scale, bulk and mass. and imp..
It is difficult to assess the impact of a proposed telecommunications facility on
undeveloped or unplanned property and the relationship of telecomm
with the County's Plans for the site. Guidance is lackingf unplons facility
sites should be pursued or used for telecommunication how or if unplanned public
purposes.
3• The future site map in the Telecommunications section of the Com rehea iv
Plan is outdated and provides little or no guidance for determining appropriate p e
such facilities. Iocations
At the time of adoption of the current plan policies on telecommunication facilities
were only two cellular phone companies operating in Fairfax County.,there
facility needs of the County's Division of Communications, it wasTogether with the
approximately 21 total locations would need to be added to the then existint g cellulared in
that
facilities system in order to accommodate system demands.
These 21location are currently delineated on the Plan's telecommunications mageneral areas for
1992 the number of applications has risen p However, since
the County's market and the use of cellular ra at tallly as ore companies have entered
The current plan map for telecommunication facilities is no
g yhas dramatically
o increased.
needs and lacks details to aid review or provide guidance for site selection activities. rent
The County has requested that the cellular companies provide a map of their
Plans to assist the County in determining where there are common needs for long-range
and in developing a master plan for all facilities. To date, only one company has
antenna sites
Provided its plans to the County. The companies maintain that such o p range
difficult to develop beyond 2-3 g g plans are
Years and are based on the assumption that each of the
future sites identified will actually be approved and constructed at the location shown.
Rejection of any one site will likely
uire that
designed to be Placed in other differentlocaothe other sites be re -engineered and
H: 1 pn %XAjUMZ 1 WPDOCs 1 Cr.r . MPD
2
4. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the collocation of telecommunication
facilities on single sites to minimize the total number required C:oun
Policy can also create greater community concerns and more Opposition However, this
establishment. pposition to their
Tae collocation of facilities generally re
tower) be of requires that the support structure (monopole or
height to accommodate the additional provides at sufficient levels.
Such increases in height can have a negative impact on community response
in a greatervisual impact than that of single use structure. ,and results
Besides potentially adding to the height of the facility,
number of antenna mounts or platforms whimultiple use structures
ch -crease the bulk and require
establish a stronger visual impact. mass at its top and
P The Plan's collocation policy also can be interpreted
as promoting a concentration of telecommunication structures on a single site with a
substantial impact on the surrounding area. .
5. The County Attorney's office has issued an opinion that tempora
telecommunication structures are subject to 456 Review provision. Howey temporary
facilities have not been reviewed to date under this ever, temporary
temporary facilities, process and the Plan is silent on
The review of temporary facilities may re
sets them apart forpe q a different set of evaluation criteria which
permanent facilities. Currently the County temporary cellular sites and their review under Currently
Review Procedures application for eight
establishment of a review process and possible Plan direction. requires
6. Plan guidance is difficult to consistently interpret due to s ec' '
references in more than one section, lack of P ifcity and
The Policy Plan guidance for telecommunication facilities is included with
and Communication Services" section which contains the "nom'
electrical oansmission Lines and towers,substations,andradioon other services such as
Policies for these facilities are also beig used to evaluate apo communscauon towers.
telecommunication facilities and there is confusion about thea appropriate locations
for
interpretation. applicability and
While telecommunication companies are subject to 456 Reviewrovisio
classification as public service corporations, they are also viewed b man due to their
businesses. However, the Plan does not provide an exact definition of this tyy commercial
pe of land
N: 1 PDIXUSXIZZ 1 WPDOCS 1 r r WPD
3
use. In certain areas of the County where the Plan calls for the restriction of cornmerk.
uses, this lack of definition creates confusion as to how the telecommunications facility
should be evaluated.
ISSUES RELATED TO NEIGHBORHOOD COWATE1311M
Background: As cellular providers seek to cover the less urban areas of the
began to propose and erect sir County, they must
Plan provides little support
awes in residential areas. Currently,'the Comprehensive
Even when structures Prosed for commercial r determining d when sites in residential
areas are acceptable.
they can be hi or industrial areas or on public facility sites,
highly visible to residential areas which are '
Proximity. There currently is an absence of information or criteria a for'ud ately adjacent or in close
appropriateness is such proposals in residential areas and for consistently identifying and
the
evaluating impacts. g
1. The Policy Plan offers general guidelines for determining the potential impacts telecommunication facilities on residential areas there but there are no clear P cis of
how impacts can be measured. guidelines for
The visual impact of facilities on surrounding residential areas is the-
the evaluation process but is difficult to define or measure, rrmary concern in
2. The County Police Department has recently requested that all facilities. mo
than 100 feet in height be lighted in order to ensure visibility to police helico re
on night missions. Such lighting will make facilities visible throughout the data which are
s
Potentially raise additional objections and concerns from surrounding communities.
s.
Current County requirements are for structures more than 200 feet to be lighted '
conformance with Federal Aviation A in
County police will mean that virtually
mtrOnstandar�• The request received by
Standards might be necessary y
every monopole or tower must be lighted.
which
to sary to determine the most effective type of lighting to use
aximizes safety but minimizes off site impacts.
3• There is no documentation
adjoining property valves although that telecommunication facilities have an impact routinely on
which provides a correlation between facilities and roe y addr essed. Information
with a better method for evaluating overall impactsp P rty values would provide staff
A" facilities are increasing considered for residential areas, there are concerns about their
4
unpact on local property values. Currently staff has no i
making such a determination nformation or methodology for
and cannot adequately respond to the concern.
ISSUES RELATED TO FEDERAL AND STATE LANDS
Background: While much of the land in the County is in Federal and state o
Of these land holdings would provide excellent sites for telecommunication facilities,
wnership and many
lands to date has been Iargely limited by the individual agencies such as the rmy,use of these
Park Service and Virginia Department of Transportation. However recent initiatives Com' National
Federal level suggest that Federal properties may become more accessible i tiatives at the
facilities and benefit the network of cellular companies. However, the County's
or telecommuni�tion
and participation in the review of facilities proposed for federal lands is unclear.involvement
L The availability of Federal lands may limit the County's role in the rev'
individual proposals and be in contradiction to County Plans fors ecili yew of
p is areas.
On August 10, 1995, President Clinton authorized the
to develop in consultation with Administrator of General Services
appropriate access to federalPropertyagencies and departments, procedures to facilitate
Procedures for the siting of mobile services antennas. These
are to be developed within 90 days (November 10) and may have a significant
impact on site selection activities in the County.
The United States Postal Service also is Pursuing
for telecommunication facilities. Man Policies to make postal sites available
size and are located ' y Post office sites in Fairfax County are of small lot
in, or immediately adjacent to, residential areas. The role of the
County in reviewing proposals at these locations is also in question.
ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPLICATION SUBIYIISSION AND
REVIEW PROCESS
Background: Over the past two-year period staff has seen a
applications received from the cellular ind dramatic in in the number of
been found "feature shown„ b'• While numerous applications have previously
facilities are Y virtue of their location on existing buildings or structures, as
required farther from the urban core of the County, full 456 Reviews with
hearings are being required. Given the sensitivity of these applications public
from the community, additional procedures and submission re and the interest received
facilitate County review. requirements may be necessary to
L The County review presents alternative sites considered for a
heavily on the applicant for this information. More detail on alte Pr°p°sal but relies
rnahve sites considered
N: 1PaINsfuuy1Wpj;o S1�.rran
5
would enable staff to better evaluate projects and present findings to the public and
Planning Commission.
Presently staff does not document that properties have been contacted or that there are
valid reasons for lease discussion being terminated. While such information would be
helpful to the process, it may be difficult and time consuming to verify.
The applicant presents its own listing of alternatives considered in the search area and
does not routinely Pursue alternatives that may be suggested b
process for coordinating and sharia y staff: Thi is no defined
and County. gin site selection information between the applicant
2. Prior' to the submission of an application to the County, there is little or no
contact between the applicant and the Community.
Many residents affected by recent applications have been concerned about the lack of
information given to them about the proposal and the amount of time they have to react to
it. Staff notifies residents of proposals approximately 30 days before the Plantun
Commission hearing date but many citizens believe this as • g
lmProvements are needed to ensure that the public is adequatelyinsufficient notice.
the site selection process with the applicant before the application s accepted bvthe d in
County,y
Some residents have stated that the verbal descriptions of telecommunications facilities
which are included in public hearing notices do not adequately describe the proposal.
3. The number of 456 Review cases for telecommunications is exceeding staff
capabilities for coordination and processing.
The current number of 456 cases received in a year for telecommunication pro osals is
far exceeding the total 456 Review caseload in past ° P
County is processing 35 to 40 cases per year and this amount likely re�rey, the
temporary facilities are also evaluated. Cases are increasing in complexity and time
ase as
Position. requirements but are being largely coordinated and processed largely by one staff
N: +PD IMARS LUZ I WPDOCS I CFZL. WPD
6
p�,i�u it FA 1 TI€;
Character end zt n* -
Objective 39: Cmsider established
destign and service arta standards when plaanmg new
Copy gages or mamttnan,cz famiitics.
Policy a. Provide one vehicle maintenance facility per every 1000 County vehicles.
Policy b. Provide screening and buffering around each facility in excess of Zoning
Ordinance requirements in order to miuimi7e
the impact of this use.
Policy c. Ensure that all facilities protect the water quality of nearby water courses by
Providing the most efficient stotmwater Best Management Practices (BMP's)
to control run-off from building and parking areas.
Policy d. Locate new facilities on approximately 20 acres.
OIMGY AND COMMUMCATION SERVICES
INTRODUCTION
Energy and communication services provided to County residents are viewed, for the most
part, as absolute necessities. Their presence is required for the development of land, and the
need for communication and energy facilities accelerates commensurate with development. As
the need for sites increases, so does the scarcity of appropriate land for construction of these
facilities.
Obje%. 40: Locue unify and similar
as uuobuinsi` cly as possible. � 9 � maximum service levels
Policy a. Avoid areas of environmental sensitivity.
Policy b. Co -locate facilities whenever feasible.
Policy c. Plan for existing and future needs of facilities in conjunction with emerging
development designs.
Policy d. Locate future substations on sites which shield nearby residences from noise,
while affording privacy and safety.
Policy e. When constructing
or planned utilitt or road rightderground s -of -way, preferably osion lines, locate. as n lines which
will least disturb future developmcnt of the site. hich
Policy f. Locate future above -ground transmission lines along railroad rights_ofa
wy,
'.where possible, and when inkeeping with adjacent development. Placement
of transmission lines should not compromise the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. Visual impact should be a key element in the
evaluation of proposed transmission line locations.
134
w"FUMOM Lulwa f M
!M&MALIDnim Awcon
% *4 10
C
LEGEND
�A it
Existing - ----- I
Transmission Corridor
Proposed
Transmission Corridor
Substations:
Expansion Existing Proposed
1* 0 0 . NORTH
NOVEC Subtd.,. 0 2 3 4 miles
Sowc vimin. P--wwr SCALE
and NortJyom
COLTNTY
ELECTRICAL SUPPLY FACILITIES
FIGURE
1
P IC FA i IT►c
Policy g. Regulate new development to minimize unnecessary human exposure to
unhealthful impacts of low level electromagnetic fields from electrical
transmission lines.
Policy h. Utilize existing communication towers for new communications equipment
whenever possible, to reduce the need for new towers. However, avoid
overloading existing towers with horns, dishes, and whip antennas.
Policy i. Locate communication towers in areas of commercial or industrial land uses.
Locate in residential areas only when other, more suitable land uses are not
available, and on parcels which afford natural screening adjacent to nearby
structures or planned land uses.
Policy j. Provide adequate acreage for expansion and maintain levels of screening to
accommodate expansion.
Policy k. Locate and construct antennas owned and operated by private corporations in
accordance with the same guidelines established in this Energy and
Communications Services Section".
QM Cter a_n�
Objective 41: Meet =rvice
ifies anr�mcn�ems with nim= m of
dKW facilities and ensure that
ed to minimize impacts on adjacent properties,
Policy a. Justify the need for the proposed facility. Specify alternative actions and
justify why the proposed location and type of facility is the least disruptive.
State why a new facility is necessary.
Policy b. Mitigate the facility's visual impact from adjacent development, unless the
adjacent development is industrial. Land with existing mature vegetation is
preferable, as are access roads which obscure entrances, berms which provide
screening, and slopes that provide localized lower elevations. Construct
transmission lines underground, whenever possible.
Policy C. Follow screening, buffering and barrier requirements, as outlined in the
Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance, and supplement these requirements where
appropriate.
Policy d. Provide sufficient setback to allow for vehicle stacking in addition to
provision of necessary right-of-way dedication and ancillary easements for
construction of road improvements.
Policy e. Utilize, as possible, the roof areas of existing structures as an alternative to
new communication tower construction.
Policy f. Grouping of communication towers in industrial areas or in remote areas,
when possible, may be appropriate in instances where few people are
impacted.
136
i
r
r,
r
i
1
I
Policy g. Conceal dishes and horns on rooftops by an architectural scorn which does
not interfere with transmission of the signal. Conceal wiring to rooftops
visible on building exteriors. Homs and dishes located on the ground should
be concealed with an additional vegetated screen.
Policy h. Design new buildings with appropriate parapet walls to accommodate
communication towers, and provide architectural screening accordingly.
Policy i. When retro -fitting to screen antennas, consider the architectural style,
-orientation, available rooftop space of a building, as well as the heights of
neighboring buildings.
Policy j. Provide safety measures in design and construction of towers. Provide a fall
radius of at least one third the height of guyed towers.
Policy k. Avoid interference with radio, television, and telecommunications receivers
of the public.
Policy 1. Assure that radiation levels from antennas, individually and commulatively,
will be maintained at acceptable levels.
137
GENERAL REGULATIONS 2-51-
2.514 Limitations on Mobile and Land Based Telecommunication Facilities
Mobile and land based telecommunication facilities shall be permitted by right
any lot in the following zoning districts when such use ism accordance with tlin
following limitations and when such use is not specifically precluded or regulated
by any applicable proffered condition, development condition, special permit or
special exception condition which limits the number, type and location of ani
and/or related equipment building. Further provided, however, such use shall be
�b �t coaforaaance with any proffered condition, development condition,
specialor exception condition.
1. Structure or roof top mounted antennas, with a related unmanned equip-
ment building:
A. Shall be permitted by right:
(1) In the R-12, R-16, R-20, R-30, PDH, PDC, and PRC Dis-
tricts when located on a multiple family dwelling which is
sixty-five feet or greater in height, but only in accordance
with the following provisions.
(2) In all C districts, I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts, and
in the commercial areas of PDH. PDC and PRC Districts.
(3) On an existing transmission tower in any district, but only
in accordance with the following provisions.
(4) In any zoning district on buildings and structures owned
or controlled by a public use or Fairfax County governmen-
tal unit, but only in accordance with the following prm-
sions.
B. In all of the above zoning districts, such antennas and related
equipment buildings may exceed the maximum building height
limitations, provided the use is in accordance with the following
Provisions.
C. Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet
in height or seven (7) inches in diameter and shall be of a material
or color which matches the exterior of the building or structure.
D. Directional orpanel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet inheight
or two (2). feet in width and shall be of a material or color which
matches the exterior of the building or structure.
E. Satellite and microwave dish antennas shall not exceed six (6) feet
in diameter and when building or rooftop mounted shall be located
or screened so as not to be visible from abutting public streets.
F. No commercial advertising shall be allowed on an antenna.
G. No signals or lights or illumination shall be permitted on an
antenna unless required by the Federal Communications Commis-
sion, the Federal Aviation Administration, or the County.
H. The related unmanned equipment building shall not contain more
than 750 square feet of gross floor area or be more than twelve (12)
feet in height.
I. If the equipment building is located on the roof of a building, the
area of the equipment building and other equipment and structures
Supp. No.30,1-26-93
2-3Oa
2-514 FAIRFAX COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
shall not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the roof areb
in accordance with the provisions of Par. 1A of Sect. 506 above.
Equipment buildings located on the ground shall meet the mini-
mus yard requirements of the zoning district in which located.
2. Monopoles, with a related unmanned equipment building, shall be permit-
ted by right in all C districts, I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4, 1-5 and I-6 Districts, and in
any zoning district on property owned or controlled by a public use or Fair-
fax County governmental unit, but only when in accordance with the
following Provisions.
A. The height of such monopole shall not exceed 199 feet, including
antennas.
B. Satellite and microwave dishes attached to monopoles shall not
exceed two (2) feet in diameter.
C. Monopoles shall be subject to the minimum yard requirements,
with the exception of the angle of bulk plane, of the zone district
in which located.
D. The related unmanned equipment building shall not contain more
than 750 square feet of gross floor area or be more than 12 feet in
height, and shall be located in accordance with the minimum yard
requirements of the zoning district in which located -
E. Transitional screening shall be provided in accordance with the
provisions of Article 13 for a light public utility use.
F. Unless otherwise required by the Federal Communications Com-
mission or the Federal Aviation Administration, monopoles shall
have a galvanized finish or be painted with a silver or gray finish_
G. Nosignal or lights or illmnination shall be permitted on a mono-
pole unless required by the Federal Communications Commission,
the Federal Aviation Administration, or the County.
H. No commercial advertising or signs shall be allowed on a monopole.
L If any additions, changes, or modifications are to be made to the
monopole, the Director shall have the authority to require proof,
through the submission of engineering and structural data, that
the addition, change, or modification conforms to structural wind
load and all other requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code.
3. Towers, with a related unmanned equipment building, shall be permitted
by right in the I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4, I-5 and I-6 Districts but only when in ac-
e= —1- with the following provisions.
A. The Zoning Administrator and the Office of Communications de-
termine that there is not an existing alternative structure which
will reasonably meet the engineering and service needs of the
telecommunications facility applicant.
B. The height of such tower shall not exceed 199 feet, including
antennas.
C. Satellite and microwave dishes attached to the towers shall not
exceed six (6) feet in diameter.
Supp.No.30,1-25-93
2-3Ob
ORDINANCE STRUCTURE, INTERpRETATIONS AND DEFINITIONS 20-300
AMUSEMENT MACHINES: Any mechanical, electronic, and/or cam operated
game and/or device for the amusement of patrons. This definition shall not be
construed to triodecoin operated music Players, coin operated mechanical kiddy
rides, or coin operated television.
ANGLE OF BULK PLANE: See BOK PLANE.
ANIMAL SEMTER As differentiated from a SENNEL as defined herein, any
place dated to provide for the temporary accOmnwd.ation of five (5) or more
common household pets which are stray or not wanted by their owner until appro-
priate disposition of such pets can be e$ectaated.
ANIMAL UNIT: A standard unit for comparing actual animal numbers far all
types of livestock An animal unit is based an the carrying capacity of an area of
land with respect to the environmental health, exercise and food requirements.
Using a head of cattle as a base, the number of other animals permitted is set
forth in a proportionate ratio.
ANDIALS: See LIVESTOCK; PETS, COMMONLY ACCEPTED.
ANTENNA Any structure or device used to collect or radiate electromagnetic
waves, including both directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes
and satellite dashes, and carni -directional animas, such as whips, but not in
siding satellite earth stations.
ARCHITECT: A professional who is registered with the State Department of
Professional and Occupational Registration as an architect.
AUTOMOBILE GRAVEYARD: Any lot or place which is exposed to the weather
and upon which more than five (5) motor vehicles of any, kind incapable of being
operated are placed, located or found.
AUTOMOBILE LAUNDRY: See CAR WASH.
AUTOMOBMF-ORIENTM USE: Any use of land not otherwise defined which
provides a service directly to a motor vehicle, or which provides goods or services
to the occupants of a motor vehicle while seated therein
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION: See SERVICE STATION.
A -WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (dBA): The momentary magnitude of sound
weighted to approximate the sensitivity of the human ear to certain frequencies.
When used by itself•, an A weighted decibel value describes either a sound at a
given instant, a maximum level or a steady state value. When combined with
Ldn, it summarizes those sound levels which vary over time.
BANS: See FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.
BANK, DRIVE-IN: See DRIyE-IN BANS.
BASEMENT: A portion of a building partly unde ym=d, but having less than
one-half (1/2) its clear height below the grade plane.
BINGO GAME or RAFFLE: Any activity as defined by Chapter 24 of The Code.
BIRD UNIT: A concept similar to the ANIMAL UNIT,
a base. using the adu1- sicken as
BLOCK: That land abutting on one side of a street, extending tj 'he reams lot
lines, or for parcels of land extending through to another street; to A Line sway
betweeu `1 two (2) streets and lying between the two (2) nearest intersecting
and intercepting streets or between the nearest intersecting or intercepting street
and the boundary of any railroad right-of-way, park, school ground or unsubdi-
Supp. No. 30,1-2&93
20-9
FAIRFAX COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
for the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of human disease, per, injury, deformity or
Physical condition, whether medical or surgical, of two (2) or more non -related mentally
or physically sick or injured persons, or for the care of two (2) or more non -related
persons requiring or receiving medical, surgical or nursing attention or service as acute,
chronic, convalescent, aged, physically disabled, or crippled; including but not limited to
general hospitals, sanatorium, sanitarium, nursing home, intermediate care facility,
extended care facility, mental hospital, mental retardation facility, medical schools and
other related institutions and facilities, whether operated for profit or nonprofit, and
whether privately owned or operated by a local government unit. This term shall not
include a physician's office, first aid station for emergency medical or surgical treatment,
housing for the elderly, or a medical laboratory.
MIN! -WAREHOUSING ESTABLISHMENT: A building consisting of individual, sm
self-contained units that are leased or owned for the storage of business and househall,
old
goods, or contractors' supplies.
MINOR ARTERIAL STREET. See STREET, MINOR ARTERIAL.
MIXED WASTE RECLAMATION FACILITY. A facility for the removal and/or
reclamation of recyclable materials from solid waste.
r
OBILE AND LAND BASED TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY. Whip antennas,
nel antennas, microwave dishes, and receive -only satellite dishes and related
uipment for wireless transmission with low wattage transmitters not to exceed 500
tts, from a sender to one or more receivers, such as for mobile cellular telephones an4bile radio system facilities.
MOBILE HOME: See DWELLING, MOBS HOME
MOBILE HOME PARK Any area of fifteen (15) acres or more, however designated, that
is occupied or designed for occupancy by one (1) or more mobile homes. The term 'mobile
home park' shall not include sales lots on which unoccupied mobile homes, whether new
or used, are parked for the purposes of inspection and sale.
MODERATE INCOME FAMILY: For the purpose of this Ordinance, as defined by the
Fairfax. County Redevelopment and Housing Authority pursuant to applicable federal,
State or local laws and regulations.
MODERATELY -PRICED HOUSING UNIT. For the purpose of this Ordinance, as
defined by the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority, pursuant to
applicable federal, State or local laws and regulations.
MODULAR UNIT: See DWELLING, MODULAR UNIT.
MONOPOLE: A single, self-supporting pole -type structure, tapering from base to top
and supporting a fixture designed to hold one or more antennas. For the purpose of this
Ordinance, a monopole shall not be deemed to be a ti'aP—Rnission tower.
MOTEL: Sete MOTEL.
MOTOR FREIGHT TIAL: A building or area in which freight brought by truck is
assembled and/or stored for routing and reshipment, or in which semitrailers, including
tractor and/or trailer units, and other trucks are parked or stored.
Supp. No. 33, 7/31/95 20-26
C�
C�
MR
L"_� ' /JQS
T3E ORANG$ COUNTY C0XXUNICAT10Ns
TOWER ORDnMNCE: AN OVERY,EW
As emotions began to run high and controversies at
zoning hearings peaked, we all
realized it was high time to
Put our noses to the grindstone to
rework our a'1- .,-
and out-of-date tower regulations. t� vague
dedicated pWith the help of a
group of citizens, all serving on an ad hoc
committee and interested
in one perspective
with this issueor the other
, we were able to
create- a rather .L;;,- ue
approach to an interesting andcomplex zoning
problem that
many cities and counties are experiencing nation-wide.
The ad hoc
committee was composed of County staff
members, representatives of homeowners Of
and
the cellular telephone tower indust
zoning ordinance as an ordinance of aesthetics,1ewed this
with the
primary intent of protecting residential
property and the
secondary intent on preserving the beauty of the skyline.
Each member of the
group was dedicated to ensuring fairness
throughout the writing of the
text. "Give and -take" was
their motto. Many zoning categories "loosened
were -up" to
allow the industry flexibility (no
more Special Exception
approvals required for the land
use in commercial and
industrial zones). On the flip side, the
"toughened
committee
-up" the code by creating restrictive performance
standards (separation
distances residential
uses/towers and tower-tO-tower
separation).ween
The committee "left no stone unturned". Every aspect
was discussed in
great detail and included many talks on
... if this, then that...,,
scenario. This again to
was
ensure fairness on both sides, and to
also ensure to,the
best of their ability, that neither the County or it's
citizens would
not be left to deal with loopholes or
unenforceable provisions that
could .have been created by
such an ordinance.
Lengthy and comprehensive though it may seem, the
committee realized the subject
matter in and of itself was
fraught with many diverse and
complex issues. This
ordinance tackles these issues and provides, as well,
balancing act keen
a
that respects the sts Of both the
residents of Orange County ethe
and thatof
industry. communication ation
The ordinance, in it's draft form, was presented to the
Board of County Commissioners
at two advertised public
hearings this summer. It was adopted without
August 29,
1995. amendment on
ORIGINALITY
Streamlines the governmental approval process by providing tele`
guidelines and standards that allow for administrative approval while sz
preserving the public's due process rights and right -to -know.
Possessev-s vroactive approach that "coaxes" the industry into meet
the code requirements through flexible and incentive based perf ma
standards. In effect, the "stage has been set" to allow towers under ev
given circumstance without governmental "st_Tong-arming". This embodies
"partners in progress" vision promoted between Orange County, i
citizens, and the business community.
This was a county -wide initiative that focused on neighborhood/ indus-
involvement with Orange County staff. It's features were created based
this collaborative venture.
'_�!re Ttion for the entire code was based on -fairness, obje.ctiv:
and attention to detail. Great care was taken to ensure. equity G
maintained between the interests of the communication industry and t
residential population.
TRANSFERABILITY
The provisions of this ordinance can be applied to any urban
semiurban area of the United States. Although the numbers may need to
"juggled" to meet an individual community's needs or interests, t
underlying principles that are the foundation of this ordinance can
universally applied. The "backbone" principle is to protect residenti
lands while providing code flexibility to promote an industry who
services are needed and desired by the citizen majority.
'_'_ ZMENTATION
Industry representatives are working more closely with the Zoni:
Department staff to review potential zoning applications for tower siti
prior to formal submission.
Industry representatives are rethinking their strategies on existi,
and future zoning applications to ensure compliance with the new soc
provisions.
Industry represdntatives are filing zoning applications for co-locatic
with other companies versus individual user towers.
QUALITY
The committee went to great lengths and detail to ensure both "sides c:
the table" were happy with the many diverse provisions of this code. I.
order to accomplish this task, a great deal of time and cautious care wa
taken to think7 out all ramifications of any one proposed provision; eao
proposal "as analyzed to ensure the resulting effects would not jeopardiz
the public's interest nor the same of the industry's.
The zode is written to include clear, concise and understandabl
definitions; the use of charts provides a user-friendly format for a quic
eye -catch of one of sae most crucial provisions of the code; the ordinanc
contains a detailed submission requirement section strictly geared to thi
land use that will greatly assist the industry as well as the public, i
the understanding and application of the ordinance.
All of these traits, as well as the characterizations explained in th
above criteria, all contribute toward making the communication towe
ordinance the TOP quality project that it is.
COMPREHENSIVENESS
The ordinance promotes the goals and objectives of the County',,
Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the Plan encourages land us�l
requests to be compatible with the existing development the developmen'
tzaad in a given area. The Plan also specifies that performance criteri
may be placed on tower reauests to ensure compatibility. More importa ly,
it states that the disruption of residential areas by poorly lo�_tec
commercial activities shall be avoided. The Communication Tower Ordinance
contains criteria that achieves this goal; more importantly, it was
accamp3isi�ad as such with the joint cooperative efforts among the
neighborhood groups, the industry. representatives, and county staff.
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AT TTS MEETING
AUG 2 9
ORDINANCE NO.
Effective date: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ACTUAL LIST OF
9/8/95 PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL OR PROHIBITED USES
WITHIN ZONING CATEGORIES IN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF ORANGE COUNTY,
FLORIDA; AMENDING, THE ORANGE COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 38, ZONING; AMENDING SECTION 38-1,
DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS OF
COMMUNICATION ANTENNA, COMMUNICATION. TOWER,
AND VACANT LAND; AMENDING SECTION 38-77, USE
TABLE; AMENDING SECTION 38-79, CONDITIONS
FOR PERMITTED USES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS;
CREATING SECTION 38-1426, CONIIMUNICATION
TOWERS; PROVIDING FOR LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS,
APPLICABILITY, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
ORANGE COUNTY:
Section 38-1,
adding the
Orange County Code, Chapter
Definitions, is hereby amended
following definitions which
alphabetically inserted into the existing teat:
Sec. 38-1. Definitions.
38, Zoning,
as follows by
shall - be
Communication antenna shall mean an
antenna designed to transmit or receive
communications as authorized by the Federal
Communications Commission.
Communication tower shall mean a tower
greater than 35 feet in height and which
does not exceed 300 feet in height
(including antenna) which supports
communication (transmission or receiving)
equipment. The term communication tower
shall not include amateur radio operators',
equipment, as licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). Design
examples of communication towers are
described as follows: (a) self-supporting
lattice; (b) guyed; and (c) monoP ole
Vacant land shall- mean any real
property not containing an existing
principal land use. Those properties that
have active or unexpired building permits
for accessory uses only without a principal
land use, such as but not limited to,
fences, signs, septic tanks and wells, and
accessory and storage buildings, shall
constitute vacant land. However, properties
that have active or unexpired building
permits for a principal land use shall Il4
constitute vacant land.
section 2. Orange County Code, Chapter 38, Zoning,
Section 38-77, Use Table, is hereby amended in part by
amending the Communications Land Use Section of the Table as
follows, with the .new language being underlined and the
deleted language being struck through:
sic RCE RCE R— R— R— R—
Uses_ Per Zoning Code 6rouo Land
IAAAA
AAAA lAA J R_1 R
Cowunication Towers Coaawni— s 6 6 6 s s 6 6 6 6 6
cation
Towers
E a lce a 5 a .1 .1
—Monopole
Y
—2—
SIC Clus- RT RT P
1- 1-1 1-2 (See
R-L
Uses Per Zoning Code Grouo end Use JAC El _1 1 C_1 IA 1-1 1-�
Communication Tower
Caimuni- S S S S S S S S S S S S S' S
cation
Towers
1u MM
Lath ce
-O ], 135 1L7
Monopole1 ],fit 1 7
�
SeCtion 3. Orange County Code, Chapter 38, Zoning,
Section 38-79, Conditions for Permitted Uses and Special
Exceptions, is hereby amended by creating subsections 133
through 135, inclusive, which shall read as follows:
(133) See Section 38-1426,
Communication Towers.
(134) Not permitted in existing duplex
or single-family detached projects, or when
restricted to single-family or duplex uses.
(135) Permitted when within maximum
building height of zoning district; special
exception required when in excess of maximum
building height of toning district.
Section 4. Orange County. Code, Chapter 38, Zoning, is
hereby amended by creating Section 38-1426, Communication
Towers, to read as follows:
Sec. 38-1426. Communication Towers.
(a) Legislative findings, intent and
purpose.
-3-
The board of county commissioners has
on numerous occasions and with increasing
frequency been confronted with requests to
site communications towers. Prior to the
adoption of this ordinance no specific
procedures existed to address recurrent
issues related to siting communication
towers. Accordingly, the board of county
commissioners finds that the promulgation of
this ordinance is warranted and necessary:
(1) To direct the location of
communication towers in unincorporated
Orange County;
(2) To protect residential areas and
land uses from potential adverse impacts of
communication towers;
(3) To minimize adverse visual impacts
of communication towers through careful
design, siting, landscape screening, and
innovative camouflaging techniques;
(4) To accomodate the growing need for
communication towers;
(5) To promote and encourage shared
use/co-location of existing and new
communication towers as a primary option
rather than construction of additional
single -use towers;
(6) To consider the public health and
safety of communication towers;
(7) To avoid potential damage to
adjacent properties from tower failure
through engineering and careful siting of
tower structures.
(b) Applicability.
(1) All new communication towers in
unincorporated Orange County shall be
subject to these regulations and all other
applicable regulations. For purposes of
measurement, communication tower setbacks as
listed in subsection (d)(1) and separation
distances as listed in subsection (d)(2)
-4-
shall be calculated and applied to
facilities located in Orange County
irrespective of municipal and county
jurisdictional boundaries.
(2) Those facilities which would be
considered communications towers but for the
fact that they are in excess of 300 feet
shall be required to obtain a special
exception and comply with the setback,
separation distances from other uses,
separation distances from other
communication towers and notice requirements
as set forth in subsections (d)(1), (d)(2),
(d)(3) and (d)(8), respectively. For
purposes of implementing subsection (d)(2)d
to towers in excess of 300 feet in height
the separation distance required is limite-d
to a maximum of 900 feet.
which (3 are 1 not n un to t
attach dcommunication
towers shall comply with subsection (g).
(4) All communication towers existing
on , 1995 (the effective date of
this ordinance) shall be allowed to continue
their usage as they presently exist.
Routine maintenance (including replacement
with a new tower of like construction and
height) shall be permitted on such existing
towers. New construction other than routine
maintenance on an existing communication
tower shall comply with the requirements of
this section.
(5) Communications towers and
communication antennas shall be regulated
and permitted pursuant to this section and
shall not be regulated by or subject to
Section 38-79, Conditions for permitted uses
and special exceptions, subsection (61),
pertaining to public and private utilities.
(6) For purposes of implementing this
section, a communication tower that has
received County approval in the form of
either a special exception or building
permit, but has not yet been constructed,
-5-
shall be considered an -- existing tower so
long as such approval is current and not
expired.
(7) For purposes of implementing this
section, an AM array, consisting of one or
more tower units and supporting ground
system which functions as one AM
broadcasting antenna, shall be considered
one communication tower: Measurements for
setbacks and separation distances shall be
measured from the outer perimeter of the
towers included in the AM array. Additional
tower units may be added within the
perimeter of the AM array by right.
(c) Permitted Uses and Special
Exceptions.
The allowable use of communication
towers as either permitted uses or special
exceptions in the several zoning districts
shall be as set forth in Sections 38-77 and
38-79 of this Chapter.
(d) Performance standards.
(1) Setbacks.
a. Communication tower setbacks
shall be measured from the
base of the tower to the
property line of the parcel
on which it is located.
Communication towers shall
comply with the minimum
setback requirements of the
district in which they are
located and the major street
setbacks outlined in Article
XV of Orange County Code,
Chapter 38, Zoning. In
cases where there is a
conflict between the minimum
setback requirements and the
major street setbacks, the
greater setback shall apply.
b. For towers located in
Planned Developments
:Si
(P -D's), the setback
requirements for the parcel
upon which the tower is
located as required by the
P -D shall apply.
C. In cases where there are
non -conforming residential
uses on non -residentially
zoned property, a 50%
reduction of the side or
rear yard setback opposite
the non -conforming
residential use may be
Permitted by the zoning
manager, except if the side
or rear yard proposed for
reduction is adjacent to
residential land use.
(2) Separation from Off-site uses/
designated areas.
a. Communication tower
separation shall be measured
from the base of the tower
to the closet point of
Off-site uses and/or
designated areas as
specified in the table set
forth in subsection (d)(2)d.
b• Separation requirements for
communication towers shall
comply with the minimum
standards established in the
table set forth in
subsection (d)(2)d.
C. Separation distances may be
reduced by the Zoning Manager
when notarized written
consent is obtained from
those affected property
owners within the applicable
separation distance.
d. Communication Tower
Separation From Off-site
Uses/Designated Areas.
-7-
Off-site Use/Designated Area I Separation c
Single-family or duplex
residential unitsl
200 feet
or 30(
height of
towel
whichever
is
greater
Vacant single-family or duplex
200 feet or 300
residentially zoned land which is either
height of
tower
platted or has preliminary subdivision
whichever
is
plan approval which is not expired
greater
Vacant unplatted residentially zoned lands3
100 feet or 100'
height of
tower
whichever
is
greater
Existing multi -family residential
units
100 feet or
100®
greater than duplex units
height of
tower
whichever
is
greater
Non -residentially zoned lands or non-
residential
None; only
set -
uses
backs appl•-
1 Includes modular homes and mobile homes used for livin
purposes.
2 Separation measured from base of tower to closest buildin
setback line.
3 Includes any unplatted residential use properties without
valid preliminary subdivision plan or valid developmen
plan approval and any multi -family residentially zoned lane
greater than duplex.
(3) Separation distances between
communication towers.
a.' Separation distances between
communication towers shall be applicable for
and measured between the proposed tower and
those towers that are existing and/or have
received Orange County land use or building
permit approval after 0 1995 (the
-8-
PROPOSED
TOWERS -
TYPES
effective date of this ordinance). The
separation distances shall be measured by
drawing or following a straight line between
the base of the existing tower and the
proposed base, pursuant to a site plan, of
the proposed' tower. The separation
distances (listed in linear feet) shall be
as follows:
EXISTING TOWERS -TYPES
MONOPOLE 75 FT I MONOPOLE LESS
IN HEIGHT OR. THAN 75 FEET IN
LATTICE 51000 51000 11500
750
GUYED 51000 51000 11500
750
MONOPOLE
75 FT IN
HEIGHT 11500 1,500 1,500
OR 750
GREATER
LESS
THAN 75 750 750 750
FT IN 750
b. The
communication Stowers to as distancesset We
forth in
.subsection (d)(3)a shall not be applicable
to those communication towers located within
the following designated "Broadcast Areas"
in which tall (i.e. in excess of 300 feet)
television towers presently exist and within
which it is deemed appropriate and desirable
for future communication towers to locate:
(i) Northwest 1/4 of section 13,
Township 22 South, Range 32 East Orange
County, Florida (less the West 33 feet
for right of way). Containing 164.807
+ or - Acres.
om
(ii) From a point on the West line
of the SW 1/4 Of Section 2, T225, R32E,
120.55' S 1" 17' 27" E from the W 1/4
corner of Section 2-22-32, Run S 89'
53' 00" E 1886.68' to the point of
beginning; thence S. 89' 53' 00" E
1020.00', thence N 390 40' 00" E
624.75' to the center of
"Chuluota-Christmas Road," thence along
the center of said road S 64' 59' 00" E
287.46' to the P.C. of a curve concave
to the Southwest and having a radius of
1101.80', thence Easterly along the
area of said curve 199.46' thru a
central angle of 10' 22' 20", thence
along the center of said road S 54' 37'
10" E 318.37', thence S 44' 50' 00" W
1093.72', thence S 40' 12' 00" E
1088.73', thence N 89* 53' 00" W
694.60', thence N 10 03' 00" W 650.55',
thence N 89" 53' 00" W 1320.00', thence
N 1' 03' 00" W 880.00' to the point of
beginning.
Containing 46.04 acre subject to
right-of-way over the Northeasterly
30.00' for "Chuluota-Christmas Road"
and subject to easements and
restrictions of record if any.
(iii) Begin at a point where the West
line of Section 11, Township 22 South,
Range 32 East, intersects the North
Right of Way line of Road No. 420,
proceed North along the West section
line to the NW corner of Section 11,
continue North along the West line of
Section 2 fora distance of 3529 feet
from the point of beginning, thence
East for a distance of 1881 feet;
thence South for a distance of 2200
feet ; thence West for a distance of
1716 feet; thence South for a distance
of 1320 feet to North Right -of -Way line
of Road W 165 feet to the point of
beginning.
The proximity to other existing
communication towers shall be a factor
considered and addressed during the special
exception hearing for any proposed
-10-
communication tower located within the
boundaries of a designated Broadcast Area.
Those communication towers located within a
Broadcast Area shall be considered existing
towers for purposes of distance separation
measurement by proposed_ towers located
outside the above -designated Broadcast Areas.
(4) Method of determining
communication tower height.
Measurement of communication tower
height shall include antenna, base pad, and
other appurtenances and shall be measured
from the finished grade of the parcel.
(5) Illumination.
Communication towers shall not be
artificially lighted except to assure human
safety or as required by the Federal
Aviation Administration. At time of
construction of the communication tower in
cases where there are residential uses
located within a distance which is 300% of
the height of the tower from the tower, dual
mode lighting shall be requested from the
FAA.
(6) Finished color.
Communication towers not requiring FAA
painting/marking shall have either a
galvanized finish or painted a
non -contrasting blue, gray, or black finish.
(7) Structural Design.
Communication towers shall be
constructed to the EIA/TIA 222-E Standards,
as published by the Electronic Industries
Association, which may be amended from time
to time, and all Orange County
construction/building codes. Further, any
improvements and/or additions
antenna, satellite dishes, etc.) to existing
communication towers shall require
submission of site plans sealed and verified
by a professional engineer which demonstrate
compliance with the EIT/TIA 222-E Standards
-11-
r
in effect at the time of -said improvement or
addition. Said plans shall be submitted to
and reviewed and approved by the Orange
County Building Department at the time
building permits are requested.
(8) Public Notice.
For purposes of this ordinance, any
special exception request, variance request,
or appeal of the Zoning Manager's decision
regarding this section, shall require public
notice to all abutting property owners and
all property owners of properties that are
located within the corresponding separation
distance listed in subsection (d)(2)d.
(9) Public Information Signage.
a. Within twenty (20) days after
final approval of a special
exception, variance, or
appeal of the Zoning
Manager's decision by the
applicant regarding this
section, the communication
tower owner/operator shall
cause to be placed on the
parcel signage designating
the site as a future
communication tower site.
b. One four (4) foot by four (4)
foot sign shall be placed
along each right-of-way
frontage bordering the parcel
within a distance such that
the copy is visible and
legible from the
right-of-way.
C. Each sign shall be weather
durable and include in
addition to the designation,
the company name of the
communication tower
owner/operator, and a phone
number and contact person
from whom additional
information may be obtained.
-12-
d. Appropriate Orange County
building permits shall be
obtained prior to
installation of the signage.
e. Such signage may not be
removed prior to the start of
construction of the
communication tower but shall
be removed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of
completion for the
communication tower. If the
approval listed in subsection
(d)(9)a expires or otherwise
becomes void the signage
shall be removed immediately.
f. Other than the above
requirements, such signage
shall be exempt from all
.other provisions of the
Orange County Code regarding
outdoor signs.
(10) Fencing.
A chain link fence or wall not less
than eight (8) feet in height from finished
grade shall be provided around each
communication tower. Barbed wire shall be
used along the top of the fence or wall.
Access to the tower shall be through a
locked gate.
(11) Landscaping.
The visual impacts of a communication
tower shall be mitigated for nearby viewers
through landscaping or other screening
materials at the base of the tower and
ancillary structures. The following
landscaping and buffering of communication
tower shall be required around the perimeter
Of the tower and accessory
except that the standards may be structures,
eby
the Zoning Manager for those sides of the
proposed tower that are located adjacent to
undevelopable lands and lands not in public
-13-
view. Landscaping shall be installed on the
outside of fences. Further, the use of
existing vegetation shall be preserved to
the maximum extent practicable and may be
used as a substitute of or in supplement
towards meeting landscaping requirements.
a. A row of shade trees a
minimum of 8 feet tall and a
maximum of 10 feet apart
shall be planted around the
perimeter of the fence;
b. A continuous hedge at least
30 inches high at planting
capable of growing to at
least 36 inches in height
within 18 months shall be
planted in front of the tree
line referenced above;
C. All landscaping shall be of
the evergreen variety;
d. All landscaping shall be
xeriscape tolerant or
irrigated and properly
maintained to ensure good
health and viability.
(e) variances.
Any request to deviate from any of the
requirements of this section shall require
variance approval from the Board of Zoning
,Adjustment.
(f) Abandonment.
In the event the use of any
communication tower has been discontinued
for a period of one -hundred eighty (180)
consecutive days, the tower shall be deemed
to be abandoned. Determination of the date
of abandonment shall be made by the Zoning
Manager who shall have the right to request
documentation and/or affidavits from the
communication tower owner/operator regarding
the issue of tower usage. Upon such
,abandonment, the owner/operator of the tower
-14-
shall have an additional -one -hundred eighty
(180) days within which to: (i) reactivate
the use of the tower or transfer the tower
to another owner/operator who makes actual
use of the tower, or (ii) dismantle and
remove the tower. At the earlier of one
hundred eighty one (181) days from the date
of abandonment without reactivation or upon
completion of dismantling and removal, any
special exception and/or variance approval
for the tower shall automatically expire.
(g) Communication antennas.
Any communication antenna which is not
attached to a communication tower, shall be
a permitted ancillary use to any commercial,
industrial, professional, institutional, or
multi -family structure provided:
(1) The communication antenna does not
exceed more than twenty (20) feet above the
highest point of the structure; and
(2) the communication antenna complies
with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
and
(3) the communication antenna complies
with all applicable building codes.
(h) Co -location of communication
antennas. To minimize adverse visual
impacts associated with the proliferation
and clustering of communication towers,
co -location of communication antennas by
more than one carrier on existing or new
communication towers shall take precedent
over the construction of new single -use
communication towers as follows:
(1) Proposed communication antennas
may, and are encouraged to, co -locate onto
existing communication towers. Provided
such co -location is accomplished in a manner
consistent with subsections (h)(2) through
(h)(4), then such co -locations are permitted
by right and new or additional special
exception approval shall not be required.
-15-
(2) Type of construction.
A communication tower which is modified
or reconstructed to accomodate the
co -location of an additional communication
antenna shall be of the same tower type as
the existing communication tower.
(3) Height.
a.. An existing ' communication
tower may be modified or
rebuilt to a taller height,
not to exceed twenty (20)
feet over the tower's
existing height, to
accomodate the co -location of
an additional communication
antenna.
b. The height change referred to
in subsection (h)(3)a may
only occur one time per
communication tower.
C. The additional height
referred to in subsection
(h)(3)a shall not require an
additional distance
separation as set forth in
either subsection (d)(2)d or
(d)(3). The communication
tower's premodification
height shall be used to
calculate such distance
separations.
(4) Onsite location.
a. A communication tower which
is being rebuilt to
accommodate the co -location
of an additional
communication antenna may be
moved onsite within (50) feet
of its existing location.
b. After the communication tower
is rebuilt to accommodate
co -location, only one tower
may remain on the site.
-16-
C. A relocated onsite
communication tower shall
continue to be measured from
the original tower location
for purposes of calculating
separation distances between
communication towers pursuant
to subsection (d)(3). The
relocation 'of a tower
hereunder shall in no way be
deemed to cause a violation
of subsection (d)(3).
d. The onsite relocation of a
communication tower which
comes within the separation
distances to residential
units or residentially zoned
lands as established in
subsection (d)(2)d shall only
be permitted when notarized
written consent is obtained
from those affected
residential property owners.
(5) Commercial or Industrial Zoning,
limited exemption from separation
requirements.
A communication tower which co -locates
two or more communication antennas and which
is located in a commercial or industrial
zoning district as a permitted use pursuant
to Section 38-77 shall be exempted from the
separation distances between communication
towers as set forth in subsection (d)(3)
from only those other towers that are
located in either a commercial or industrial
zoning district as a permitted use. A
communication tower permitted under this
subsection is still required to comply with
the separation distances set forth in
subsection (d)(2)d.
(i) Certification of Compliance with
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) NIER
Standards.
-17-
Prior to receiving final inspection by
the Orange County Building Department,
documented certification shall be submitted
to the FCC, with copy to the Orange County
Zoning Department, certifying that the
communications facility complies with all
current FCC regulations for non -ionizing
electromagnetic radiation (NIER).
(j) Nonconforming Uses.
Notwithstanding subsection (f) above,
bona fide nonconforming communications
towers or antennas that are damaged or
destroyed may be rebuilt without having to
meet the separation requirements specified
in subsections (d)(2)d and (d)(3). The
type, height, and location of the tower
on-site shall be of the same type and
intensity as the original facility
approval. Building permits to rebuild the
facility shall comply with the then
applicable building codes and shall be
obtained within one -hundred eighty (180)
days from the date the facility is damaged
or destroyed. If no permit is obtained or
if said permit expires, the communications
facility shall be deemed abandoned as
specified in subsection (f).
(k) Location of communication towers
on County owned property.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing
provisions of this section, if a
communication tower is to be located on
County owned property the tower shall in all
cases be subject to a special exception
hearing.
(1) Application submission
requirements for special exception,
variance, appeal of zoning manager decision,
and building permit requests.
The following information shall be
submitted concurrent with special exception,
variance, appeal of zoning manager decision,
or building permit applications. The
application may utilize any combination of
-18-
site plans, surveys, maps, technical reports
or written narratives necessary to convey
the following information.
(1) A scaled site plan clearly
indicating the location, type and height of
the proposed tower, on-site land uses and
zoning, adjacent land uses and zoning
n adj.acent to other
municipalities), he adjacent roadways, proposed
means of_ access, setbacks from property
lines, elevation drawings of the proposed
tower, and any other proposed structures.
(2) A current tax map and aerial as
provided by the Orange County Property
Appraisers Office showing the location of
the proposed tower.
(3) Legal description of the parent
tract and leased parcel (if applicable).
(4) If not within the subsection
(d)(2)d separation distance from residential
areas, approximate distance between the
proposed tower and the nearest residential
unit, platted residentially zoned
Properties, and unplatted residentially
zoned properties. If within the subsection
(d)(2)d separation distance requirements,
then exact distances, locations and
identifications of said properties shall be
shown on an updated tax map.
(5) If within the subsection (d)(3)
separation distance from another tower, then
the exact distance, location, and
identification of other towers shall be
shown on an updated tax map. The applicant
shall also identify the type of construction
of the existing tower(s) and the
owner/operator of the existing tower(s), if
known.
(6) A landscape plan showing specific
landscape materials.
(7) Method of fencing, and finisheu
color and, if applicable, the method of
camouflage and illumination.
-19-
(8) A notarized letter signed by the
applicant stating the tower will comply with
all EIT/TIA 222-E Standards and all
applicable Orange County Codes.
(9) A statement by the applicant as to
whether construction of the tower will
accommodate co -location of additional
antennas for future users.
(10) In addition to the above, all
communication towers/antennas shall comply
with the commercial site plan. review
requirements set forth in Chapter 30,
Article VIII, of the Orange County Code.
See ion 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall beco
effective pursuant to general law.
PHC667 07/24/95 -20-
4A,(-rt,�,e-1 N `4
,lOq h'
S Glq
l�f,L VIL<AC_ CLE !
95NOY-B . Q �qL E N
PUBLIC NOTICE 9' 38
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Harri-
son, at its meeting to be held at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, November
15, 1995 at the Municipal Building, 1 Heineman Place, New York will
hold a public hearing pursuant to Sections 261, 264 and 265 of the
Town Law, upon a proposal to amend the Town of Harrison Zoning Ordi-
nance of 1974 (recodified in 1966), (i) amending Article I, Section
235-4 entitled Definitions; (ii) amending Article V, Section 235-17,
entitled Special Safeguards and Conditions for Specific Uses, adding
T. Cellular Telephone Facility; and (iii) adding Cellular Telephone
Facility to Residential Districts - Table of Use Regulations and
Business Districts - Table of Use Regulations; all as follows: (new
matter in "Quotes„).
Section 235-4. Definitions.
"PUBLIC UTILITY - Persons, firms or corporations supplying
gas, electricity, water, power, transportation or land line
telephone service to the general public. For the purpose of
this ordinance, cellular telephone facilities shall not be
considered a public utility, and are defined separately.
CELLULAR TELEPHONE FACILITY - Persons, firms, or corporations
suYplying cellular telephone. service operating between duo -90u
MHz; including all equipment, apparatus, facilities, and devices
used in the supplying of cellular telephone service.”
Section 235-17 - Special conditions and safeguards for specific uses.
"T. Cellular Telephone Facility
(1) The applicant shall submit a safety analysis of the
electromagnetic environment surrounding the proposed
site. The safety analysis shall be prepared by a quali-
fied electromagnetic engineering specialist, or health
professional
qualified to produce -such analysis. The safety analysis
must demonstrate that the general public exposure limit
of non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) emanat-
ing from the antenna not exceed 550 microwatts per
square centimeter.
(2) The safety analysis described in Section T(1) shall be
updated on an annual basis to demonstrate that the
cellular telephone facilities contained comply with
NIER standards. Said safety analysis update shall be
prepared by the applicant's expert, and shall be submit-
ted' to the Planning Board each year the cellular tele-
phone facility operates on the date of plan approval.
Any specific conditions set forth in the granting of the
Special Exception Use Permit relative to the safety and
operation of the cellular telephone facility shall be
individually addressed.
(3) The applicant shall deposit with the Town a fee to be
established by the Planning Board to offset the expense
of verifying the annual safety annual analysis update.
This fee shall be deposited in a separate escrow account
to be drawn upon only for the purposes of verifying the
report. This fee shall be submitted at the time the
annual safety analysis update is submitted. Any portion
of the fee not used to pay for the retention of an
expert by the Planning Board shall be refunded to the
applicant.
(4) Each site plan
submissio:_
for a cellular
telephone
facility should include a
completed Visual
Environmental
Assessment. Form (Visual
EAF), and if
applicable, a
landscape plan_
addressing
other standards
listed in this
section, with
viewpoints
particular
identified
idetified
attention to
visibility from
treelines,
in the Visual
EAF, existing
and
proposed elevations.
(5) A report shall be submitted, prepared by a licensed
Professional engineer which, in the case of a tower, de-
scribes the tower height and desigm, includin_ a cross
section of the structure; demonstrates the tower's
compliance with applicable structural standards; and
describes the tower's capacity, including the number and
type of ante=as it can accommodate. In the case of an
antenna mounted on an existing structure, the report
shall indicate the existing structure's suitaa�lity to
accept the antenna, and the pro -nosed method Of affixing
the antenna to the structure.
Complete detai'_s of all
fixtures and couplings, and the precise point of attach-
ment shall be indicated.
(6) The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed site is
the most appropriate site within the immediate area for
the location of the cellular telephone facility. The
applicant shall, therefore, submit a study as part of
the Special Exception Use Application comparing all
Potential host sites within an approximate 1/2 mile
radius of the subject site (areas where cellular tele-
phone facilities are prohibited need not be consid-
ered). This study should include a description of the
surrounding sites, and a discussion of the ability or
inability to host a cellular telephone facility. Rea-
sons for excluding a site from consideration would
include (but not be limited to):
(a) Unwillingness of the owner to entertain a cellular
telephone facility proposal.
(b) Topographic limitations of the site.
(c) Adjacent impediments that would obstruct adequate
cellular telephone transmission.
(d) Physical site constraints that would preclude the
construction of a cellular telephone facility.
(e) Technical limitations of the cellular system.
(7) The shared use of existing towers and antenna facilities
shall be preferred to the construction of new such
facilities. The applicant shall submit an adequate
report inventorying existing towers and antenna sites
within a reasonable distance frcm the proposed site
outlining opportunities for shared use as an alternative
to the proposed use. The applicant must demonstrate
that the proposed tower or antenna cannot be accommodat-
ed on an existing approved tower or facility due to one
or more of the following reasons:
(a) Unwillingness of the owner to entertain a Cellular
Telephone Facility proposal.
(b) The planned equipment would exceed the structural
capacity of existing and approved towers and facili-
ties, considering existing and planned use for
those facilities.
(c) The planned equipment would cause
interference with other existing or planmed alp equip-
ment, which cannot be reasonably prevented.
I
(d) Existing or approved towers or facilities do not
have space on which proposed equipment can be
placed so it can function effectively and reason-
ably.
(e) Other reasons make it impracticable to place the
equipment proposed by the applicant on existing and
approved towers or facilities.
(f) The proposed co -location of an existing tower or
antenna site would be, by virtue of the require-
ments in this section, considered a prohibited use.
Approval of a proposed antenna to share an existing tower or
facility shall be conditioned upon the applicant's agreement
to pay all costs of adapting an existing facility to a new
shared use. These costs can include structural reinforce-
ment, preventing transmission or receiver interference,
additional site screening, and other changes required to
accommodate shared use.
(8) Cellular telephone facilities shall be separated from
all residential dwellings by a distance of no less than
500 feet.
(9) Towers over 100 feet in height shall be inspected annual-
ly by a licensed professional engineer, and a copy of
the inspection report submitted to the Tow: Building
Inspector. Any work to or repair of the tcwer s:SII
comply with all applicable code requirements, and a
Permit shall be obtained to conduct such work.
(10) All towers and antennas shall be sited to have the
least possible practical visual effect on the env;ren-
ment. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless
Otherwise required by the Federal Aviation A::ministra-
tion or other federal, state or local authorit•_:. Towers
and antennas shall be of a galvanized finish, cr painted
gray above the surrounding treeline, and gray or green
below the treeline.
(11) Where a cellular telephone facility abuts res'-dential
or public property, the following vegetative screening
shall be provided. One row of native evergreen shrubs
or trees capable of forming a continuous hedge at least
:five feet in height within two years of planting shall
he provided to effectively screen the tower base and
accessory facilities. Additional screening may be
required by the Planning Board to screen porticos of the
tower from nearby residential property or important
'Views.
4
(12) Continued violation. Each day that a violation of
Section 235-17T continues shall be considered a separate
Offense."
RESIDENTTnr• DISTRICTS - TABLE OF USE REGULATIONS
R-2.5 R-2 R-1 R-1/2 R-1/3 R-75 B GA MF
"Cellular Telephone
Facility* X X X %
X X X X X"
"* Cellular Telephone Facility shall be considered SE Uses in areas
defined as "Parks" and ■open Space/Recreation" in the Master Plan
IIpdate."
BUSINESS DISTRICTS - TABLE OF USE REGIILATIONS
•""
PB NB CBD SB -0 SB -1 SB -35 SB -100 M1=R GC
"Cellular Telephone
Facility* X X X SE
SE SE Si X X"
Cellular Telephone Facility shall be considered SE Jses in areas
defJ-ed as "Parks" "
IIpCate."
and Open Space/Recreation" in the Master Plan
A" -• PERSONS HAVING AN INTEREST IN T"'E MATTER ARE INVITED TO
ATTEND AND BE HEARD.
BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF HARRISON.
Norma Brunner Ponce
Town Clerk
Dated: November 2, 1995
5