Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19 Comments (2)EXHIBIT 1 -N bMt:N I hL EXHIBIT 2 Location Mar) — Photo Simi,latinnc HE EXHIBIT 3 L LaEN 38 -"BAR Poe ACCESS/ �..:. t`, :•... .I•y5 M�pp u tv.-s+J ' �� / / tfiL11Y EASEMENT TOPO IRAPHIC SUR :SET 5/8" REBAR, OR AS NOTED. /• � `J// ctravE TABLE 'FOUND 1/2' R �i7• CURVE CHORD BRG CHORD RADI PREPARED FOR EBAR• OR AS NOTED. / ARC DELTA :MATHEMATICAL POINT.■ / A7/ n`Cyl Ct 540' S0' 111, 17.12 35.00 17.30 26 19' 17- :FOUND MONUMENT, OR AS NOTED.% C2 SIT 39' 41-E 46.04 35.00 52.94 86. 40' 0T P.O.T. :POINT OF TERMINUS. ! / / S \ C3 S16 20' 212 73.11 55.00 79.97 83' 18' 46' P.O.B. ;POINT OF BEGINNING. / rpd \ \ C4 NIT 55. 52`N 11.97 25.00 34.69 79. P.O/ .C. :POINT OF COMMENCEMENT, 0 o� / 30. 30• d \ CS H16' 10' 59'W 88.67 65.00 97,57 86 00' 11' -;FENCE - :FENCE AS NOTED. :RECORD DESCRIPTION DATA, 1> / 7ya/ N40' S0' 01-E 31.50 65.00 32,13 28' 19' 17' / ' � �� / i /� / h'!� \ -0X :OVER HEAD UTIUTY LINES.c'm :WOOD UTILITY POLE. / / / / _ N/F FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA 4904 KRUPBBSIONAL CT, RAL8IGH, NC 27609 9 i / 9 � \ PIN M: 75 A 117A SITE: TASKER SITE#: VA034B I I \ ADDRESS: 107 EMORY CT 31'EPHENS CITY, VA 22855 m / FREDERICK COUNTY i / / - rk ! ,gRCe\ SURVEY MORK PERFORMED BY: N / /\\�1e' HARDWOOD JONA Il PYA / 1ti0. \�18" HARDWOOD Fr0/Bssiont l Land Surveying 7. - .\ 995 - LME TABLE \10505 L° fl d P1oce (919) 280-8189 ° \ I \ Robtgh NC 27613 FAX 995-9616 LME BEARING LENGTH f-4116 : `0b`9°O•^�°PA79Fo'°u'.c°rn FAIN C-2757 '10.1 LI SIT' 27. 31'w 109.24 SURVEYOR'S NOTES 750 \ L2 S59' 35' 532 32.99 1, BA99 OF gEAPoNG: VA SOC NORM ZONE NADE83 \ / L3 S54' 59' 391* 46.22 \ 2. NO SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION! WAS 1 L4 N63' 50' 511* 30.09 Bv7p IAUPER � SNOMNL/EREON ARE L"TEDIE ° AND ARE d 08SERYED ENCCNCE ONLY, UTIUTIES \ � / LS N54' S9' 392 32.49 ✓ / ��0, ? � ' my I / 3 TWS SUBOEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A STAKES PLACED AT CORNERS OF PROPOSED Ipt BOIMDARY SURVEY OF " PARENT PABCEL. / 60'X60' COMPOUND FENCE j [� 6' ORNMIENJ4 4. ALL SYMBOLS 441"1 H7iECN NOT / SCALE 0EP1C1ED TO i SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION / BGj HEREBY CERTIFY T0: G7�, 7• �OB LEASE A?EA <041� DELTA OAKS GROUP � •/ I x16 � � I � I CENTER OF PROPOSED MONOPOLE TOWER J MU P Y MATICS LAT: 39' 05' 06.64" LONG: -76 10' 45.40' GROUND ELEV: 729,3' I N / ONATHAN F. M LAND SUR �. �� AV6',i• .� "'-: 0. y16 DATE: H0 �C OUONATHAN / j r / F. MURPHY V \ 24' HARDwooDlr ! I i 40 License No, a \ ! J J L O 20 I w 60 2713 SHEET 2 OF 3 \ i f I / I BAR GRAPH I inch . 40 it. lgNo f VA0348 TASKER FINAL (2019).OWG •/ SURV6iOS EXHIBIT 4 Section,a), 1'09'ap for ASN 21119-A EA -4530 -WJE r� bks j f� 'gsc .rF:v y i" 1 s 1249-9-.� a 4 -.� °,. wry - { ►r. RVZz f46 Ar A j F„v k$•La i s (F 7 t) TSI < jj 20 1XV4 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT 5 Conditional Use Permit #08-19 for Tower Co. Public Comments Received April 6-8 Name Judy Peterson Magisterial District Opequon Comments I am opposed to the approval of this conditional use permit. I live in the neighborhood where this tower is proposed. I was also present at the planning commission meeting and heard many of my neighbors express their concerns with this proposed tower. A petition signed by over 200 people against this permit was presented to the planning commission. In light of the current social distancing and stay at home orders from our governor and the 10 person meeting restrictions in place, I do not think that it is appropriate for this hearing to take place on April 7th. It appears that Tower Company is trying to take advantage of the current health crisis to move forward with their application in the hopes that none of the opponents to their application will be present Name LARRY & JANICE ATKINSON Magisterial District Opequon Comments WE LIVE IN OLD DOMINION GREENS (ODG) SUBDIVISION. ODG HOMEOWNERS MET WITH TOWER CO. REPS SEVERAL WEEKS AGO; SUPERVISOR WELLS WAS IN ATTENDANCE. HE HEARD HOMEOWNER OBJECTIONS. AS I RECALL, A VAST MAJORITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS VOICED OBJECTIONS TO THE TOWER TOWERING OVER OUR COMMUNITY. MOST VOCAL WERE HOMEOWNERS WHO ACTUALLY WILL LIVE WITHIN A FEW STONE -THROWS OF THE PROPOSED TOWER SITE, AND WHO BOUGHT THEIR HOMES, NEXT TO SHERANDO PARK (at likely premium lot pricing) NEVER SUSPECTING THERE COULD EVER BE SUCH A TALL TOWER NEAR THEIR NEW HOMES. THIS TOWER HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN REJECTED BY OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (BOS) FOR A SITE NEAR THE BOWMAN LIBRARY, SO WHY WOULD OUR BOS NOW CONSIDER APPROVING THIS CUP REQUEST FOR A SITE NEAR OUR COMMUNITY. WHAT POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD WARRANT APPROVAL OF A SITE NEXT TO OUR COMMUNITY WHEN THE LIBRARY SITE DID NOT WARRANT APPROVAL THERE. IT HAS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SUERVISOR WELLS IS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE TOWER PLAN THAT WAS PROPOSED TO ODG HOMEOWNERS, SO WE HOPE THAT A MAJORITY OF OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL VOTE TO REJECT THIS CUP REQUEST FOR THE SITE NEXT TO THE ODG SUBDIVISION. Name Rian Watson Magisterial District Opequon Comments am opposing this 150 ft tower again due to the location of the construction of it. Right behind Old Dominion Greens practically behind neighbors yards and in a location where it can be seen from the new Sherando Park and surrounding neighborhoods would be an eyesore and decrease home values. I'm all for more cell service but please build a tower in a location that is farther away from residences not in the middle of them! There has to be a compromise. Again, I am opposing the construction of this cell tower in the location behind Old Dominion Greens. Thank you. Name Diane Pregot Magisterial District Opequon Comments I am very against the Shentel Tower right outside Old Dominion Green. I just purchased a home 2 months ago and I am concerned about the Physical pollution and property values. I am even more concerned with radiation potential and the possible link to Covid19 and 5G networks , if this is ever expanded in the future. I have attended two prior meetings againat this cell tower. . Name William E Landers Magisterial District Opequon Comments am against the CUP for the following reasons: Fact one is that this only benefits Sprint customers. Based on the meeting we had with the Shentel rep and lawyer, Sprint is the only company that will transmit at this tower so their hope is that other providers will jump into the space. Secondly this tower provides no benefit for those who have to see it from their backyard. The area that will benefit from the signal is near the Bowman Library. There have been other attempts to place a tower in the area of the Bowman library and that was clearly rejected by the citizens who live in that area. Third, the aesthetics of another tower in the area. I already have one tower that is in view of my backyard and taller than the planned tower. The tower will create more eye clutter for users of the park and during the fireworks displays at Fourth of July. Fourth, the Shentel team initially planned to have the tower lower than the documented 195 ft and it appears they are going back on their word. Fifth, you will impact property values in a premium neighborhood that borders Sherando Park. I am one of the residents that will see their home value drop if this CUP is approved. Lastly, the Shentel team is clearly taking advantage of the Covid situation to try and "slip" one in and avoid a public hearing. If this is passed or denied, I for one will be vocal with my dollars in the looming political season. Name Jon Travis Magisterial District Opecluon Comments Not so close to houses put over on the high school grounds nest to football field Name Shane Ranck Magisterial District Opequon Comments I, along with many others, voiced strongly against the placement of this tower directly behind Old Dominion Greens with many reasons as to why this is not needed and highly unnecessary at this location. The fact that this is being done when we can't attend in person due to uncontrollable circumstances is even more appalling, and down right frustrating. This is a high value neighborhood, and we have all made significant investments in our homes. We raise families here and enjoy our park community that we are so appreciative to have. Many of us chose to be here to move away from the "city life" of Loudoun and Fairfax counties to enjoy what we have here. You know for a fact that you would much rather be in a home with your family without a 150' obnoxious structure within view, whether it be from your backyard, walking through the park orjust simply pulling into the neighborhood. You don't need studies or fact checks to prove that. We haven't had mobile service issues, or internet issues, this entire time even with the stay-at-home mandates. I can attest that numerous other people are getting the same service and are working from home and doing homeschooling with no issues whatsoever relating to connectivity or performance. This is completely unnecessary and is setting a bad precedence for what this community, and county, is all about. There is plenty of land, plenty of open areas to do this in. You don't need to put this in the middle of a park and the back of a neighborhood. Businessmen and women are pushing this tower to make money, they don't care about the impact to the community. They don't care about who it will affect. They just want their money. Let alone the maintenance, or lack thereof I should say, for what is around these towers to begin with. You should 100% vote NO with absolute certainty that this is the right decision. Name David A. Zimmerman Magisterial District Opequon Comments First I wanted to say it is a shame to use the particular pandemic situation to have a hearing and the Governor of Virginia has mandated a Stay at Home order. This doesn't seem fair and probably should be relayed to the Governor himself. With that said I would like to offer my view of the proposed cell tower. It would be a shame to erect a 150' to 195' cell tower so close to the park where people are constantly walking and riding their bicycles. The designated area for the tower is diagonally behind my home. Close your eyes and picture this: An evening at home out on your deck having dinner with your spouse and children looking over the rolling his of the park. And in your direct site stands a 150' to 195' cell tower. I don't imagine any of you would find it to picturesque. understand Shentel has an issue with their service in the area due to an inferior product. I have Verizon and my phone works great inside and outside of my home. Of all the places in the area, I can't imagine that erecting this tower so close to a new subdivision and a beautiful park being the best fit for the tower. I hope you take everything and everyone that this will affect into consideration and not give way to the deep pockets of Shentel for future gain to the area. Thank you for your time in this matter. Kindest regards, David A. Zimmerman Name Justin Mistretta Magisterial District Opequon Comments Dear Board Members, I am a resident of Old Dominion Greens, the neighborhood that this tower would be next to and accessed through. I'm also a real estate agent. Over the fall and winter, I had two separate clients interested in buying/building in the neighborhood but were very turned off when I let them know the cell tower could be built. They have each bought/built elsewhere. I've also spoken with two local appraisers who both said they would take the tower into consideration by devaluing the properties closest to it and lessen the devaluation as they get farther away. I am confident from my personal experience that the cell tower would lower our property values. When complete (possibly in 2021) our neighborhood will be 207 homes valued from the low 300's to the mid 500's. Even a small % of devaluation could be tens of thousands of dollars for every owner, as well as a drop in property taxes collected. Shentel has shown maps of their coverage area and how this tower would assist them in providing service, but they have not provided coverage maps of their competitors. My family uses Verizon and we have no problem with service anywhere in Stephens City. If Shentel's argument is they cannot provide good service to their customers, then the free market allows their customers to shop elsewhere. I strongly urge the Board to deny the conditional use permit for this tower and ensure the values of the 207 properties in Old Dominion Greens, as well as other neighboring subdivisions, will not be reduced. Thank you for your time, Justin Mistretta Name Celeste Amatangelo Magisterial District Opequon Comments We fo not want this cell tower in our neighborhood. Besides being an eyesore, it will devalue our homes. A neighborhood is not the place for this structure at any height. Name Sarah and Gannon Nordberg Magisterial District Opequon Comments Good morning, Shentel has proposed a 200' cell tower that according to experts can reduce property values, increase traffic, and comes with potential health risks according to many experts. Our home is located nearby to the cell towers proposed location and we have 2 young children and are about to have a 3rd. The long term effects of residing close to cell towers, while speculated, is not completely known. I do not wish to have this added risk placed on my young family. We chose this neighborhood due to its close proximity to the beautiful Sherando Park and excellent school district. Placing a tower in it after we have lived here for 5 years against most residents wishes is not right! Please do not let this tower go up. I believe it would also dampen the perceived safety and aesthetic charm of Sherando Park. There were 3 other attempts to place this 200 foot tower and all 3 were denied due to the poor visual aspect of the tower and concerns over the environmental studies that were submitted. Nothing has changed with this new proposal and it has still chosen a poor location being on the border of a neighborhood with many young families and a well -liked and heavily used community park. My family and I are strongly against this cell tower! Thank you for reading. Sarah & Gannon Nordberg Name James Kveglis Magisterial District Opequon Comments Charles, Bob, David Allow me to introduce myself, my name is James Kveglis. I reside in Old Dominion Greens (ODG), Stephens City. In addition, I am also the Vice -President of the HOA at ODG. I am writing this morning to formally request a postponement of CUP #08-19 on the agenda for tomorrow night. The rationale behind this request is straight -forward. Many residents within ODG (252 signed petitions against) wish to attend but will not due to the request for isolation mandated at local, state and federal levels. We do not wish to have this lack of attendance viewed as a lack of interest. In fact, one might say your inboxes will be quite full. One would hope that all viewpoints are read, but that may be unrealistic. A wise man once said, "a voice heard is worth a thousand words", but it is not worth risking the lives of self, family and community. Simply put, the cell tower debate should be considered as non-essential topic as Virginians face a crisis like no other. It should be postponed to a later date when all voices can be heard. In closing, we thank you for your dedication to Frederick County and ask that you please consider this request for postponement until after we are past the COVID-19 crisis. Name Alejandra Mueller Magisterial District Opequon Comments Shame on Shentel for pushing this agenda during this time of uncertainty and sadness. I am opposed to this monstrosity being built so close to my home. Not only will it be an eyesore, but my property value will decrease significantly. Name Cort Maddox Magisterial District Opequon Comments Hello Supervisors, I will be at the meeting, but wanted to also use this porthole to pass along my 2 cents prior to the meeting. I have messaged all of you prior to their originally scheduled date and nothing has changed since that time. The same aspects apply regarding the space being surrounded by residential performing, which was the reason the tower was denied when it was presented to be at the library property on Tasker Rd. This is not the place for this tower and it will negatively impact property values. There are other spaces that could be used down White Oak or further down Tasker. Also, in the event that Shentel attempts to push the need for internet for home schooling or any other need during these trying times, I would state that we have had Nyerere and FIOS available here and even with most everyone home there has not been difficulty getting online and getting things done. I know this was a topic they attempted to use at the Planning Commission meeting. This will not add additional services to this area and we have not gone without during these trying times. Thank you so much for taking the time, please support a motion to deny. Name Mike Knotts Magisterial District Opequon Comments We purchased our home in Old Dominion Greens due to the quiet and picturesque rural setting. We are concerned with the potential impact the proposed tower will have on the rural views and on property values in our neighborhood. Please vote against this! Thank you. Name Dan Oman Magisterial District Opequon Comments I am sending this email to express my comments regarding the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #08-19 submitted by TowerCo in conjunction with Shentel. The attached is a copy of a letter that summarized the comments I provided to the Planning Commission on January 9, 2020 prior to the January 15, 2020 meeting regarding the proposed CUP. It was during this meeting that the Planning Commission voted 11-1 against approval of CUP #08-19. 1 find it a bit odd that that the County is holding a hearing on this CUP at this point in time, given the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on large gatherings imposed by our Governor. While I realize that the County has worked hard to provide additional meeting rooms so as to limit the number of people at the hearing, many of us have chosen for good reason to avoid any such unnecessary opportunity to come in contact with others that might be impacted by the virus. I can understand the need to meet regarding the County budget, etc., but holding a hearing regarding a CUP seems to me to be something that does not rise to the level of potentially jeopardizing individuals to the virus. I attempted to submit my comments on the County website, however I fear that my comments required too many characters and therefore much of what I wanted to convey was truncated. Shentel has definitely made one concession regarding the tower. They have reduced the proposed height from 195 feet down to 150 feet. While appreciate that change, the visual impact of this tower on the many Frederick County residents that utilize this portion of Sherando Park for mountain biking and hiking will nevertheless be significant. Think of riding your mountain bike in a nice wooded setting only to eventually be confronted with a tower that is as high as a 14 -story building. Residents of the Old Dominion Greens (ODG) Subdivision whose back lot lines are as close as 335 feet from the tower will find that their park view includes a 150 -foot eyesore. Many residents came to the January 15th meeting to express their objection to the permitting of this tower for that very reason. It would be one thing if they benefitted from the tower, but as can be clearly seen in Exhibit A of my attachment, this tower provides virtually no improvement in cell coverage for residents of ODG. Given that TowerCo admitted in a meeting with the residents of ODG that they had not exhausted all of the potential sites for the tower, perhaps it is time for them to search for another location that would be closer to those that stand to benefit from the tower in the areas north of Tasker Road. Perhaps by locating a tower closer to the area of need, the tower could be shorter in height and thus even less obtrusive. Interestingly enough, two of the earlier sites proposed for this tower in these areas that stood to benefit from imnroved rell nhnnaroverage were flatly Yeierted. I am keenly aware of the need for critical infrastructure improvements if we are to be able to handle the anticipated growth of Frederick County. That said, the proposed site for this particular tower in the middle of a natural and recreational resource, just doesn't make sense. Clearly, the Planning Commission agrees with me given the 11-1 vote against approval of the CUP. I urge the Board of Supervisors to deny CUP 408-19. Name Ryan Pregot Magisterial District Opecluon Comments Why is this being completed at this time during the Corona Crisis? The entire communtiy is against this and we have stated this multiple times!!! The adverse health effects, real estate depreciation, and general eye sore all make this a horrible idea. No one is for this in a location so close to our community. Please don't do something shady and try to put this through during a time when no one can come in person to state all this rationale. Name Michele Bowers Magisterial District Opecluon Comments I highly oppose the cell tower addition to our neighborhood. For safety of my family and for property value of my home. Both reasons I moved to this location. I think it is terrible that this meeting is being held during this time when people are stuck in their homes. This is taking advantage of the situation. People of the community should have a say on what goes in their neighborhood and everyone here is highly opposed to this happening. Caring for your community and what is right should outweigh everything else. Family safety should not be something to gamble. I know I'm not ok with mine being risked. Name David Bowers Magisterial District Opecluon Comments am strongly opposed to the construction of the cell tower in our neighborhoods. Additionally, I find it convenient for those that are trying to get this pushed through to hold the meeting during times where we cannot meet in large numbers to share our displeasure with this proposal. Again, I vehemently disagree with the construction of this cell tower!!! Name Daniel Warniment Magisterial District Opequon Comments Thank you for taking the time to consider the following comments. I have two points for consideration. The first is for the Board. Is there any reason why the communities of Old Dominion Greens, Musket Ridge, the Camp, and others should be treated any differently than the communities that have come before us? Twice, Shentel and Towerco have requested to build this tower near other communities, and twice they have been denied. The reason for this denial was that the people who lived in these communities spoke out through this same process, and the Board heard their pleas and denied the permit. We are here to do the very same thing. We have broad support from our communities, we have many who have signed this petition, and we are unified in saying that we do not want this tower in our community. It may be tempting for the Board to say that since this is the third try for Shentel, that the tower has to go somewhere and it might as well be here. But it is not our fault that we are the third try. We should receive the same support from the Board as these other two communities, for exactly the same reason. You have supported them, now please support us. The second is if there is a gap in their network and this gap is over a densely populated area in which it will be hard to build one tower, why not use two towers on the edge of the area to solve the problem? There is a large amount of open land which could be used for a cell tower to the east of our community, such as the area around the Walmart at Tasker and 522, or on White Oak Road. Likewise, there is space around the water tower to the west on Tasker, or on the hill by 81. 1 would ask, has this been considered when trying to solve their problem, or are they so focused on only building one tower that they have not thought of other solutions for their customers, even if they cost more money up front? Name David A. Zimmerman Magisterial District Opequon Comments hope this email finds you well. My name is David Zimmerman and I'm a resident of ODG in Stephens City. My home is on Upperville Drive and the tower location is diagonally behind my home. I wanted you to know my thoughts about the tower. I for one believe that placing this tower is this location is unreasonable. Not only is this area home to a new subdivision with lots of families and children but there is a park with walking and bike trails to consider. There are lots of other locations that this tower would be better suited for. Imagine you lived in my home and walked out on the back deck to eat dinner with your spouse and children and you had to stare at a 150' to 195' single -pole cell tower. I can't imagine you would find this to be picturesque. It i� bad enough to look at the residence and abandoned cars and buildings that are currently on this property as it is. I hope you take everything into consideration and vote to deny the approval of this tower to be built in this location. If this tower is needed so badly for Shentel then they should look at locations that are not so close to a beautiful public park and homes. Personally I use Verizon as my network and my phone works well inside and outside. Shentel offers an inferior service compared to some. This shouldn't be the residents of Stephens City, Frederick County and those who use the trails at the parks problem. I would add that I'm familiar with Shentel and actually incorporated their fiber- optic network into our business. So this is not to bash them but to oppose the area in which they wish to erect the tower. Name Justin R. San Agustin Magisterial District Opequon Comments Please heed the recommendation of the Planning Commission. This tower most certainly does not fit with the character of the area. My bedroom window has a direct line of sight to this proposed tower; I would much prefer to not see this proposed tower when I wake up in the morning. Furthermore, there are other cellular carriers which have perfectly fine service levels in this same area, and manager to do so without erecting a tower right next to a subdivision such as Old Dominion Greens. Name Don Nerangis Magisterial District Opequon Comments am opposed to he proposed tower placement in the midst of several heavily populated subdivisions in Stephens City. I consider this to be a potential "eye sore" that will be evident to home owners whom have made a considerable investment in their homes. Secondly, why is there no availibility for a public hearing when scheduling this matter during the "Stay at home' State directive? Name Celeste Amatangelo Magisterial District Opequon Comments Please refuse this ! A cell tower does not belong in a residential neighborhood! There is so much open land here! Why is this even happening?????? Name David Jenkins Magisterial District Opequon Comments I am totally against a 195' monople tower in the Sherando/Dominion Greens area. Why would we want a 195' pole right in the middle of our nice neighborhoods with homes that we are proud of. It would be unsightly and detrimental to housing resale values. Canter Estates just went through this same thing, Why do you think we would want this in our neighborhood?! DO NOT PUT THIS UGLY POLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD! You are our elected representatives and should be looking out for us. Not the telecommunications companies that would have these ugly monstrosities everywhere if they could. If it goes through just remember that at election time! In this current atmosphere folks aren't too easy to get over on as they once were. We can make our voices heard at the polls. I will !!! Name Bradley Comstock Magisterial District Opequon Comments As a resident of Old Dominion Greens, I would be directly impacted by the installation of this cell tower, and as a Realtor", I know that will negatively impact my home value and ability to sell in the future. I am asking that you not grant this conditional use permit. Having lived in this community for more than 5 years, I have never had any issues with cell phone access or signal strength anywhere in the neighborhood or my home. I would ask that Tower Co. try to look at some locations maybe slightly further away where growth is anticipated that could triangulate and still cover this area, then let new home buyers decide if they want to purchase next to a cell tower or not, rather than forcing a tower on current residents who have already spoken out so loudly against this. If you vote for this, you are voting for a corporation, not for the residents of the Opequon District who have voiced very loudly that they do not want this. Furthermore, this vote is taking place during a time when our voices cannot be heard in person, which is disrespectful to the residents who live here and are directly impacted. I ask that as you decide how you will vote on this matter to please consider how you would feel if someone came and installed a cell tower in your backyard without your permission. Name Tiffany Salvaggio Magisterial District Opequon Comments 98 % of the community do not want a Cell Tower at 107 Emory Court. The Cell tower will decrease property values more than already projected due to COVADI9. We will be hit with another 20 % decrease in home values with a cell tower and could see a total of 30-40 % depreciation with a cell tower and COVADI9. This community can't take a drastic 2 -sided monster hit. Shentel has a hidden agenda because it will cost them less money to provide a power source with this current proposal. There is no reason for them not to find an open field away from communities to build this cell tower. It may cost them more money, but this is the real power play by Shentel to build a cell tower for less and have a large community with Sherando Park population suffer. Name Steven Salvaggio Magisterial District Opequon Comments Hello, First, I wanted to thank the members of the Board of Supervisor's for taking the time during this National Pandemic and listening to me and my neighbor's in the community. Shentel's proposal to erect a cell tower at 107 Emory Court by Sherando Park and neighborhood of the Old Dominion Greens community is a very bad idea that will cause even greater home depreciation due to COVID-19. If allowed to erect a cell tower, not only greater home deprivation, but exposure to potential dangers of radiation becomes a threat. I have over 34 years in the U.S. Army with a signal background where I deployed to various countries throughout the world installing and operating satellite and tactical communication systems. There was a reason why we told our soldier's not to be in front of a satellite dish when radiating and transmitting a signal. There are hidden and unknown studies not being reported on the effects of radiation from cell towers. This cell tower proposal by Shentel is not only an eye sore, but is located where hundreds of people live, walk, run and play every day. The power requirement alone to power the amps for antennas to transmit and receive will be very dangerous for the human population. There will be 50-100 dishes and antennas hanging off this proposed tower and let's not forget the equipment required for the 5G network that hasn't been determined yet. In fact, there is no difference between Shentel's proposal that was voted down near the library that the board disapproved, "Resident's don't want a Cell Tower'. BLUF: -98 % of the community do not want a Cell Tower at 107 Emory Court. The Cell tower will decrease property values more than already projected due to COVADI9. We will be hit with another 20 % decrease in home values with a cell tower and could see a total of 30-40 % depreciation with a cell tower and COVADI9. Name Dena Ciepley nn701G*Prial D:str:rt Opequon Comments Hello- I am writing to you in hopes of denial of the tower. Besides the eye sore, I live right next to the gravel road that all the construction and maintenance vehicles would be using. Also the tower would be directly behind my house. I have two small children and we purposely purchased in our quiet court for their safety and fun. I am worried tremendously about their safety with the extra traffic, and the lack of knowledge of their are long term health affects. I am a cancer survivor and would not wish that upon anyone. I am also in fear of what it would do to the value of our home. I feel that Shentel is taking advantage of the social distancing and virus by putting this back on the docket. Horrible timing. I beg with you that all of our letters are just as important as if we were standing there. Please deny them. I have received 5 different letters from 5 other homeowners all in denial of this. I am trying to find email addresses so I can forward them on. Thank you for your time and PLEASE deny this. Name Kevin Ciepley Magisterial District Opequon Comments It will be an eye sore — we will have to look at it day in and day out Home Values will decrease as others (Realtors) have addressed Possible Noise — Shentel will probably say that their equipment doesn't make noise but can they say the same about the other carriers that will lease off of this tower? NO — if so they are just speculating Health Issues — its been said that there isn't enough research done to say one way or another that cell towers cause health issues. I plan on living here for the next 25+ years. I don't want to find out later that the tower was the reason for poor health for myself and/or my family The owner of the land doesn't live there, he rents the property. He doesn't have to look at it unless he is there for his landscaping business which he can go home from when he done for the day. We paid for a premium lot when we moved to this community to enjoy the openness, the park, the trees, etc. If passed, we would have to look at this monstrosity. We bought in a court so our little girls (twin 3 year olds) can play without any traffic. If passed, there will be more trucks to and from the cell tower along with the owners landscaping business trucks. Shentel will say that there will be 1 extra vehicle a month for maintenance and upkeep (12 more vehicles) but what they aren't saying is that it will be 4 times the amount of vehicles when there are 4 carriers. This just went from 12 more times to 48 more times when there are 4 carriers leasing space on this tower. Shentel has stated at a previous meeting that they will buy tress to try to block some of the visibility of the tower. The trees would have to be huge to block something like this. They also stated that they would lower the tower down to 150 feet but I have heard that they are going back on their word and it would be up to 195+ feet. The pictures don't show what we (homeowners) will see. The pictures are taken from outside of the neighborhood except for 1 picture. Name Nick Pitsch Magisterial District Opequon Comments ARE YOU KIDDING! A Public Hearing on a Strongly Opposed 195'(150') Commercial Telecommunications Tower in the midst of the Worldwide COVID-19 Pandemic and under Stay -at -Home Orders from Federal and State Governments? I'm sure TowerCo, Shentel (T-Mobile/Sprint), and Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. will be petitioning for a delay of this Public Hearing in the interest of the safety and health of our community. Obviously I am against the CUP proposal to install this structure towering over our community. At the Planning Commission Hearing in January only ONE person spoke in favor of the tower, and he lives in the Gainesboro District! Where are all the T- Mobile/Sprint (Shentel) customers that are receiving lousy service? Why is an "ORDINANCE" for an approved "Conditional Use Permit #08-19" already drafted and included in the agenda package, while a denial would need to come back to the next Board Meeting? Is the Staff pushing for approval of this CUP? Does the Staff or Board own any shares of T -Mobile, Sprint, Shentel, or TowerCo? We hike down the easement crossing the Old Dominion Greens HOA "Open Space B" (which contains the 20' residential drive easement to the Landgrant Land Property) several times a week on our way to Sherando Park. A sign was posted here prior to the Planning Board hearing. Nothing has been posted on this property for the last two months announcing this Public Hearing. Doesn't the Petitioner have a legal obligation to post public notice? Please follow Public Opinion, not corporate greed, and VOTE THIS DOWN! THANK YOU. Name Michael and Ashley Hicks Magisterial District Opequon Comments We do not want a cell tower constructed in our back yards. There is enough data to show this has long term adverse health effects. We want ourselves and our children to grow in a safe and healthy environment. A shorter tower does not resolve the issue. Name Todd Unrath Magisterial District Opequon Comments am strongly against constructing this telecommunication tower by Shentel. I currently live on Emory Ct and the cell tower would be in direct line of site from the back of my house. Not only would this negatively adverse my property value greatly, but it could cause health issues associated with the frequencies being trasmitted by the tower especially to my young children. In the era of 5G there are numerous studies that cite probable health risks associated with the increased data speeds that would be associated with a tower like this. Collectively the Old Dominion Greens HOA has voted against this proposed tower as well as the individual homeowners within the community. There is nothing positive about this proposed tower only negative so it should be common sense to deny the permit for this tower. I am sure there are other farms in the area of White Oak road that might want the financial gains this tower could bring to an individual homeowner with property without the negative impact to our community. I am also truly troubled with the timing of this meeting knowing that the Governor of this state has issued a shelter in place decree due to the ongoing pandemic that has claimed thousands of lives yet Shentel is trying to push their agenda. To disregard what is currently going on in our country to push their agenda in such a dark time currently speaks volumes about the companies current lack of commitment to the community and only foreshadows their ill intent to future endeavors like this! Again this project should not proceed and I am voting NO to the construction of this tower and any future variances of this tower in the proposed location! Name Angelia LeMay Magisterial District Opequon Comments My husband and I live on the culdesac which backs to the property in question. Our property is adjacent to the drive of the property in question. There are several small children on our culdesac and they enjoy being able to play and ride their bikes/tricycles on the sidewalks. Without this structure being put up, there are already many dump trucks, tractors and large equipment that come in and out of the drive many times a day. They are constantly having to stop or kids are having to scatter to get out of their way. If this structure is allowed to be built, there will be even more. The safety of children is my greatest concern, but there is also the concern for our property value. This structure, even at 150 feet will be a huge eyesore and will no doubt decrease our property value. This is a very residential area. At the meeting that we attended with Shentel, their lawyers and members from the community, Shentel said that it was needed to provide Sprint customers with better coverage. We know many people in this neighborhood and the adjoining neighborhoods who use Sprint and they have all said that they already have great service. This is not a need, especially in a residential area. There is plenty of county land on White Oak that this tower could be placed. Sincerely, Angie LeMay Name Brian Kelley Magisterial District Opequon Comments I do not wish to have a cell tower adjacent to our neighborhood and very visible from my house and many others on Upperville. This is not what anyone was considering when they purchased there home here. If resources in adjoining neighborhoods are affected by lack of services, then property should be looked at over by the Camp neighborhood near White Oak Rd. I understand ShenTel has been shut down in other areas over the years, including near the library, which would have seemed to be further away from any housing than it is currently being proposed. I don't understand the reasoning behind for not considering Sherando Park for this situation. It is land owned by the county and you would be able receive revenue from ShenTel for the use of park property. I know there is a need for these services but has anyone looked at White Oak Rd where there is less development. Someone there may be interested in receiving revenue on their piece of property which is still away from housing developments. Another suggestion would be to consider the new Aylor school property tucked away in a corner of that property somewhere. Name Wayne and Carolyn Benson Magisterial District Opequon Comments Some studies show just living within a quarter mile of a cell phone antenna or tower you may be at serious harm to your health by exposing your to hazardous from electromagnetic frequencies. Some studies also show radiation from cell towers our children may develop leukemia three (3) times the rate of children living seven (7) miles away. There should be a law the county must inform every current resident or perspective buyer befor a lease or the sell of property for a tower. Many of you must have children or grandchildren that live in the area. Would you approve this tower close to them? Some studies show living just a quarter mile form a antenna or tower may cause serious harm to our health by being exposed to Electomagnetic frequencies. Also some studies show radiation from the same our children my develop Leukemia three (3) times the rate of children living seven miles away. We vehemently disagree of the proposed tower due to the many health risks to our families and the community. Name Deborah Gregory Magisterial District Opequon Comments Please do not let them do this. It would be detrimental to our property values, thus the tax base upon which the county survives. The entire tenor of the subdivision would be changed. We all bought into this developing subdivision as a safe place free from eyesores, and I believe that we have the right to have that peaceful enjoyment continue. Name Dan Oman Magisterial District Opequon Comments In addition to my opposition to the proposed CUP #08-19 (which I have outlined in an email to the members of the Board of Supervisors), I wish to express my displeasure at the decision by TowerCo and Shentel to force this meeting to occur during the imposition of Executive Order #53 by the Governor. This is NOT an emergency and it is obvious the the parties to this CUP are clearly trying to take advantage of a situation in which the public is concerned with protection of its own health and the health of others in the County (especially those of us over 60 years of age). Name Brock Neal Magisterial District Opequon Comments I'm sure you are receiving several negative comments about the tower. This is something the community of old dominion greens does not want, including myself. Here are my arguments. 1) drop in house prices for the community. Having a tower is unsightly and lowers demand of those houses, thus lowering value. 2) latency issues. As someone who uses sprint and Comcast, I've had zero issues. I have had to work from home during the pandemic and still no issues. 3) health reasons. Although this isn't proven on either side, adding a cell tower is giving the perception that you are wanting us to use our cell phones more, which does cause issues. It's also not proven (in the US) because it hasn't been study over a long period of time. Don't make us the guinea pigs. 4) lastly, and most importantly, this tower has been proposed in different places. Normally this wouldn't be an issue; however, the reason for previous denials was solely based on the level of concern and disapproval from the community. If you pass this and tower is built, this would be obvious discrimination against our community. I'm sure there would be many people who would agree and lawsuits could arise. Thank you Name Debra Oman Magisterial District Opequon Comments I respectfully request that the supervisors vote NO to the proposed cell tower. This tower will not benefit the area that will be most impacted by it visually (ODG and Sherando Park). It doesn't seem fair that the areas that will benefit have had the ability to turn down having the tower in their own back yard. My understanding is that the reason it needs to be so tall is that it will benefit an area far from its actual location. I can already see one huge cell tower from the back of our house - do I really have to look at two? Our planning commission voted overwhelmingly against this tower. What is the point of a planning commission if the supervisors disregard their recommendation? This current COVID-19 crisis will pass but the blight on the view from our neighborhood and our beautiful Sherando Park will last forever. Please vote NO. Name Steven Schultz Magisterial District Opequon Comments Board of Supervisors, Please vote NO on the conditional use permit for this tower. Please take the time to physically go and look at where they want to build this tower. It is in a highly inappropriate residential area. This permit was voted down 11-1 by the Frederick County Planning Commission on January 15th of this year, and for good reason. I live in the neighborhood behind Old Dominion Green and you will be able to see this tower from my neighborhood. It will also detract from the new outdoor fitness area that Frederick County just built at Sherando Park. The residents of Stephen City do not want or need this tower. The cell service in the Stephens City area is excellent, even Sprint. If Shentel genuinely cares about expanding service to areas that do not have service, then why don't they build this tower West of 81? 1 hope the timing here is not to take advantage of a crisis when they know people are distracted and are less likely, or not allowed to show up to the public hearing like we all did in January. Please vote NO. Thank you Name Michael Perritt Magisterial District Opequon Comments As a resident of the nearby proposed cell tower I along with every one of my neighbors oppose construction of the tower. The thousands of residents of Old Dominion Greens and nearby communities staunchly opposed it in February at the monthy public hearing. There was a large presence of us that spoke and our message was clear. Now that we are in a middle of a pandemic and should not leave our homes due to the commonwealths stay at home order, the CDC and WHO guidelines Shentel and the BOS decide to bring this to a vote. It is appalling that Shentel would do this and even more so the BOS is possibly going to pass this resolution. This is 100% a move by Shentel to avoid the severe opposition that it has already received. While much has been said recently about giving better internet access to the western part of the county this cell tower will do nothing for them. All the coverage maps from the major carriers Verizon, T -Mobil, ATT etc. coverage maps are excellent in this area. Countries have began banning the implementation of 5G towers (this one will be) due to health concerns. There are many other areas in Stephens City with potential area to build a cell tower which are not next to young communities with children. Much has been said recently about the BOS looking out for themselves, their business interests, and re- election. A cell tower in the middle of a residential area is an eye soar and poses a health risk. Ask yourself if you would approve a cell tower right in the middle of your community or out your back window. Please show the tax payers you do care about them and their children and vote no. Name Eileen Horner Magisterial District Opequon Comments Please do not approve this request. This will have a negative impact on property values in addition to being an eyesore from surrounding homes that we have put a lot of equity into. In addition, in light of the Covid19 situation, internet communication is being put to the test and is sufficient in this area. Please find a less populated area for the cell tower. This is a very inopportune time to make this decision. Name Karen Siler Magisterial District Opequon Comments The proposed tower would be built in the vicinity of my home. When I look out my front door, I would see it. I purchased my home in ODG subdivision for its beauty, walking trails. Public park access was very appealing. Now, if approved, I would see this unsightly tower from my property just a culdesac over from my home. My property value would certainly plummet. Why build it so close to housing developments? We have wonderful internet and cellular service. Wouldn't this tower be more useful in a rural area rather than here? I am concerned that this is just a money grab by the company seeking the permit to build the tower. This is horrible timing, as the nation faces the pandemic and is suffering from its effects on society as well as the economy. Again, we have children home from school using an e -learning model. We have no problem connecting to the internet, nor do we have any cellular service issues. We, the residents of Stephens City, homeowners in the Old Dominion Greens subdivision and constituents of the Opequon District have already made it clear that we do not want this tower built here. We do not suffer from poor or lack of service; we enjoy the scenery that the tower would spoil and obstruct and we do not want our home values to plummet. Please build the tower somewhere else. We have spoken. Name David A. Zimmerman Magisterial District Opequon Comments I wanted to bring one more thing to your attention. Shentel's disregard for the safety and welfare of the citizens in Frederick County. The fact they are unwilling to reschedule the meeting tomorrow night just proves their lack of morality. The fact they are unwilling is a direct violation of their own policy referring to Covid-19. Here is the information that comes directly from their website. "Shentel has limited all non-essential travel, in-person meeting and large employee events or gatherings to reduce the risk of exposure" Honestly, this is something everyone should be concerned about. This just shows they are willing to "Never let a crisis go to waste" to further their financial gain while saying the heck with the safety of those opposed and who wish to be present at the meeting. Nothing like stacking the deck against the citizens of Frederick County during a National Pandemic, while the State of Virginia is under a state of emergency and we have been mandated to shelter in place. Please ask yourself, do you actually believe the hot air they are blowing about providing better service for their customers. If that was the case they would consider people like myself and the hundreds that want the opportunity to attend the meeting. ask that you take this into consideration when making your decision. Once again thank you for your time on this matter. Name Leo Horner Magisterial District Opequon Comments I am a resident of Old Dominion Green and I am concrened about the negative effect that a 150 foot Eyesore of a cell tower will bring to our neighborhood. I attended the previous meeting and several arguments were made that were misleading by Shentel. The area is served by a cable provider and most homes get their internet service through cable. The phone company argued that they would be bringing a wireless service to the area which is not necessary as a majority of the homes use their wireless computers and tablets through the cable provider. The negative effect on our future real estate value and the eyesore that it will create in Sherando Park must be considered. There are other undeveloped areas where a tower would have little to no impact on our homes as well as the asthetics of having an eyesore that will be visible from 3/4 mile away in every direction from the proposed location. I therefore, request that this permit be denied. Name Robert Britt Magisterial District Opequon Comments was at the first meeting where this was shot down. Now they are trying to loophole the system while people are distracted by health concerns. Again, we do not need this tower in our area. We have verizon wireless for phones and comcast xfinity for internet. This is a stunt to overturn your decisions you made back in January. I would be appalled. The gains of the few that this would provide service to does not outweigh the negative impact this will have on present and future homeowners. Once this tower is up, what would stop them from putting up 6 more. Eventually they will try to put 5G on this tower, which is currently under investigation in Brussels and Geneva for health issues. See https://buncranatogether.com/home/2019/5/9/both-brussels-and-geneva-ban-rollout-of-5g- for-health-reasons-and-call-for-investigation?fbclid=lwAR3QNzOEIjNeCERSFxcgCFgX4oH9KnrtYVEkLrM76QYcGl- EtMDLBCaMrxQ. Also if you view the interactive map of service providers updated 2020, you can see that providers are there where this tower would be. https://broadbandnow.com/Virginia/Stephens-City?zip=22655. In conclusion, this is not a critical infrastructure need for kids and businesses except for those who deem to profit from it. Kids in the area have broadband for schools and businesses have it also, just not with Winchester Wireless. So this covers the need (or lack of need) for extra wireless providers. My house faces the direction in which this tower would be erected. I speak fora lot of Old Dominion Greens families when I say that this will in no way benefit us. It will be a negative impact on our property values and our safety. Now we can add the potential health reasons that may come in the future. I personally would group cell towers in with high voltage transmission lines and their ability to radiate potentially harmful radiation levels. Thank you for the opportunity to write on this issue, and to speak on 4/8. Robert Britt Name Adam and Jennifer Thomas Magisterial District Opequon Comments As residents of the Old Dominion Greens (ODG) neighborhood, we oppose the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would enable a tower of any height to be erected near ODG. We ask that the Board of Supervisors vote to deny the CUP #08-19 request for Tower Co. We purchased our home approximately five years ago and made the decision to move into this county and high-priced neighborhood based on multiple factors including unobstructed mountain views. Far cheaper home options were available in the Frederick County and Winchester area. Our family ultimately purchased a home in the ODG neighborhood because we were sold on a rural lifestyle experience. We currently don't have any issues our cellular or high-speed Internet service. If our cellular service ever becomes an issue, we would prefer to switch cellular carriers rather than having a tower of any height built near the neighborhood. We sincerely hope that the Board of Supervisors will consider our opposition of this CUP when casting their votes and that they place the concerns of ODG residents above the wants of Tower Co. Submitted April 8 Name MARK LENTZ Magisterial District Comments would like to see the CUP go forward due to the need capacity for 5G as wells as new housing growth in the area. If you take the amount of new proposed single family and multi -family building permits we will need the capacity. Also with the agreements with Shentel, I am sure there well be a fee base for the county as well. WIN-WIN Name David and Carolyn Park Magisterial District Opequon Comments My wife and I live in The Camp and are both against the plan for Tower Co./Shentel to place a communications monopole at 107 Emory Ct. There seems to be no reason why a cell tower cannot be placed in a non-residential location away from established neighborhoods, except that installing in the middle of a residential neighborhood meets supplier convenience and cost of servicing in increasing market share. The proposed site location couldn't be more objectionable to property owners in our surrounding densely -populated subdivisions. Prior to introducing this installation and location, no owner would have willingly invested in their properties with plans for a future cell tower in their backyards. Any new tower proposal should consider installation placement on commercially -zoned property and not in the middle of an established residential neighborhood also surrounded by other established neighborhoods Is there not a commercial property in the surrounding area where a 150', minimally -obtrusive trnAiarrlPcian rnulrl hp nlarari to cprwiro thA nron of rnnrarn7 U/h" ,'+ rho r,o+;+i.,r fir,J +, location for installing its 150' monopole design? Could the envisioned monopole be an attractive, flagpole design on its location flying a lighted American Garrison Flag? It seems obvious to us after this that better, farther - reaching signal could be configured at less -intrusive commercial locations, ensuring consumer -friendly aesthetic tower designs could have been considered in planning for service needs. Thank you for considering our views and opposition to the current Tower Co. plan at 107 Emory Ct. We trust that the previously expressed will of both area neighbors and the Planning Commision in opposition is ratified tonight by our Supervisors. Name Ella Unrath Magisterial District Opecluon Comments am against building the tower in our neighborhood, ODG. I am against building any 5G towers in Winchester. Name Don Nerangis Magisterial District Comments Hello: I wish to express my displeasure with the proposed 195 foot monopole tower to be built at 107 Emory Court in Stephens City. The proposed location is in the midst of the most heavily populated area of Stephens City and close in to subdivisions whose owners (along with other nearby residents) have made sizable investments in their homes to have the proposed "eye sore " put in place. I own a home in the Musket Ridge subdivision directly adjacent to Dominion Green. My wife and I and family have resided in Stephens City for many years. I would believe that Shentel could find a more appropriate location. It is also of note that Shentel would not allow postponement of this hearing in light of the state restrictions relative to the Coronavirus matter. Does Shentel consider itself to be considerate of the Stephen City residents or hell bent on building this pole? Please acknowledge. Name Jerry & Norma Begley Magisterial District Opequon Comments Hi Bob, We are against the location of the tower behind Old Dominion Green subdivision! We realise that cell towers are needed, however there must be a better location for this one. My understanding is that both the Parks and Rec. and the Planning Commisions have recommended against this location. PLEASE vote NO! Thank You! Norma & Jerry Name David Sparkman Magisterial District Red Bud Comments The school shutdown has shown how ill-prepared we are in the county to use telecommunications in education and in working from home. We need better internet in the community for the children and our workers, and 50 foot towers won't do it. Pass the permit and quit trying to shut down the future of our county. Ann PW111--s From: Jim Kveglis Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 6:27 AM To: Ann Phillips; Charles Dehaven Jr.; Karen Vacchio; Robert Wells; Robert Wells; jjanney@winchesterstar.com Subject: '[External]'CUP 08-19 Tower Co Attachments: REJECT CUP 08-19 OLD DOMINION GREENS TOWER.docx All, Many thanks for reading the attached. I have previously sent a request to postpone this hearing on the above stated CUP. It is simply a very bad time to push through a topic when the local, state, and federal agencies are advising us to stay home and avoid contact with others. Seems like a very opportunistic approach by some if this topic remains on the agenda. It would be best to postpone which will allow all parties to voice their concerns versus sending Emails. Thanks in advance for all which you do. Stay safe. Regards, Jim & Joan Kveglis Date: April 6, 2020 Re: Shintel/Tower Co. Cell Tower— CUP #08-19 Dear Board of Supervisors, I am writing you to request your vote to deny the acceptance of CUP #08-19 from Tower Co. My apologies for sending my thoughts in advance as I, like many of the residents of Old Dominion Greens (ODG), are following the Governor's mandate in isolation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Any lack of participation at the Public Hearing should not be viewed as a lack of involvement on our behalf. In fact, we have a signed petition of over 250 local residents against this CUP. The timing of this meeting seems opportunistic to say the least. Below are some thoughts to consider: 1) The Tower is to be erected in a property adjacent to ODG, a recently developed community with 207 residences and homes valued at $375,000 to $550,000. These homeowners made a choice to make this community their home, which did not include a 150' cell tower in their backyards. If the Cell Tower was built prior to development, then the choice would have been for them to make, not someone else. 2) There are multiple health and home devaluation concerns regarding cell towers. Shintel will state no health risks. yet the American Cancer Society and NIH studies were inconclusive but mention there are risks from long term exposure to RF radiation. Inconclusive doesn't means there are no health concerns. There just isn't enough historical data to confirm. With 5G entering the picture, placing a cell tower so close to a community is deeply concerning for the residents. As for Devaluation of homes, documentation of a price drop up to 10% is found in multiple surveys and published articles. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers cell towers as "Hazards and Nuisances" and these towers must be declared in any home appraisal. 3) The Frederick County Planning Board, overwhelmingly voted and denied this request after hearing from both parties. Now that we are in a crisis and residents are being asked to stay at home, we would expect Shintel to use the crisis as an opportunity to gain more support from outside the area. We would hope that the BoS will not view this as a "here and now" situation as this result will be here much longer than COVID-19. 4) The BoS has previously denied a similar CUP near the library in 2017. We would ask that the Board remain consistent in their viewing and approach therefore denying the request. In closing, we understand Shintel's desire to serve the community. We do not dispute the need to advance and expand technology but we should not be asked to risk our health/safety and devaluation of homes for the sake of convenience. We merely ask them to find another suitable location away from any established community where the negative impact can be mitigated. Many thanks for your time in hearing us. Regards, James and Joan Kveglis January- rs, 2020 Mir. Kevin VV. Kenney, Cnaii man Frederick Count"V Punning Commission 107 North Kent -erect bslinche.ste:r. VP. 22601 l ei f 1: i'. Kennev: i am writhag this lever because my business trauei schedule will not aliow nye to attend the 3anl,•ary 1,:h Piannir ? �UmrniSfiiJii rnec ting where one of the items of business will be the cunsidet ati� rn or a C'orirlitioile'l Use Permit (CUP) t, A9 for the proposed ;hentel/Townr%o Ceii Phone 7 ovver to be looters' on, the £_anagram 'stenos LUC property at 107 Ensor l' Court. %ep re:se ntativ= s of Shentel -,ne- TowerCcl made a presentation to the Girl Dominion Grcens ('UG6) Iionlee.viners Association (HOA) on Januaiy 7 h at the -Bowman Library. While I appreciated their willingness to share information with the property owners roost affected by the proposed cefi tower, I teas disappointed in their iiess than, forthright discussion of the facts associated with the uenef is of the proposed tower which I will discuss in mor_ detail below. Basc,,d on the inforrni'tion presented at the January 7th information; meeting, I reaspectflu ly wish to exp!ess my opposition to the approval of the CUP fcPl the Sher?tel Cell Phone Tower at this location. My reasons for recommending disapproval are as foliovvs: 1. At the informational meeting residents of Gild Dominion Greens (ODG) were told by a representative of Shent'el that the neve tower was necessary to improve reception foo residents of OUG that rurrently have Sprint cell phone service (note: Shentel represents Sprint locally). I reviewed a Carrent Coverage graphic that was presented at the meeting (see Exhibit A). Illustrated or, that graphic is a yellow, search circie and purple outlined Prea vvhich was designated as the "Arca to improve` (i.e., the area that needed improved cell phone coverage;. Close examination of the designated "Area to Improve:" indicated that the entire CIDG subdivision= is foctt:ed outside of that area. This basically r ieFns treat reside., is of ODG already have good cel; phone_ coverage (ever. Sprint customers) and the proposed tower is of no s�ifcant benefit to residents of our subdivision. Unfortunately, residents of ODG are going to have' to live With the visual inn pact of the proposed 195 -foot tower for as loop, as they live her_ even though the tower is not needed to irnprove current cell phone coverage in Qac. As ptsr`:-af itf seal& efforts, Shentel approached the Wakeland hfianor 1100 seekir;g appreval to locate the propos d -, ci' wItfun their ne'ighbcrhvsod. The Wakeland Manor Subdivision is completely yAthir. tile• identified "A; em to imprcvc" and stood tc ealn from unproved cell service if the tower was sited In their, neoghborhoo . Aswe learned in the informational meeting, the Wakeland Mz,nor i 1C)A der led e.ccess to build th(,- toveer In their subdivision. It is inferesting that residents that 5=c oh tc benefit the most, chose not to a llotiy construction of the cell tower in Lr)-( ir "backyarci." tcp,.Vt'r, the 6o` "whir) Lif: r any. VVE wee tc:ld islet till; S.i -e twi4 riot aihn co due tL' the se r ti1'r, . environment in the immroediate proximity (i.e., the pond located immediately behind the library). If locating r tower such as this is 'inappropriate at the Sovwrnan Library where a small water feature is located, does this not call into question why it should be located on a small parcel of Iar,d co.mnlols:, vorrmendr-r, b the She. Park i., clo-se proximity to liking i`iiieta. r ! e.ll! !, WINIPel.- traii, and wooded ureas? SNent.el provided five photo simulations of how the proposed tower would of pear at different locations. Only one of the siroulations illustrated the visual impact of the proposed touter from the ODS Subdivision (see Fxhibii R). The visual impact of the proposed tower frorn the other vi :R.rpuintu not within the ODG SubdiOsion are far less obtrusive. The visual impact On properties in ODG Is clearly significant as the cell tower will ire a mlrimuns of 335 fMet frons the back lot lines of hornets alorip Emory Court and Upperville Drive. Homes in CDG Subdivision can already see one cell tower justi—Af Spotswood Court to the south. Is it fair tl3at Ove should have to be visually impacted by another tower, even though it provides no benefit to the residents of cue subdivision? S. The proposed location is surrounded by Sherandc Garr land. If the proposed site for this tower was on park land as opposed tr an island within the park, we would not be, considering a CUP for the tower. l reached out to jascn Robertson ofthe Fredenck County Parks ?: Recreiatior Department and learned that the Department was "...concerned with the aesthetic imp; ct of the proposed cell tower CUP based on its location. The property vith the proposed tower is bordered on all sides by park land and is an open area where planned park devciopinent will be in vie'iv of: the proposed tower site. (source: comments on the proposed CUP by the Parks &; Recreation Department)." Siting such a tower within the park alters the enjoyment of this major recreational resource within Frederick County. The first two considerations associated .with §165-103.02 of the Ffederick County Zoning Ordinance that require the Frederick County Board consider when approving a CUs' are: a. Ty e coSiditlOn�r UCf sflall �Ut tend tt� i S1an•E'' tli0 Cl 2Cc r E'ar! ^� E*� G,b1ilZe:i ateerr Uf developmcnt of the area of the proposed use. b. The conditional use shall be in harmony with and shall not adversely a fect hc- use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Clea,rly the proposed Shentei 195 -foot monopole cels phone tower will change the character of 5herandc Pati and the Old Dominion Greens Subdivision. It also is clearly not in harmony with the parr•, nor the adjacent subdivision. Walking through wooded pathways or taking advantage of the rnountain bine tr4 ils in the vicinity of the proposed tower clearly will impact, the. €njoyment of these recrep tional features. Neighbors in the ODG Subdivision vjiw, from the bNcl< porches have views of the Blue Ridge Mountains and Massanutten Mountain will now also get tete adders impact of a lighted 195 antenna array, even though it provides no benefit to cell phone users of any carrier that live in the neighborhood. At the inforr~ aeinnai meeting held on lanu7.ry 7t", one resident asked representatives of what they vAl rho: if the CLJIP iS not Cranted. The response v.e received was, `WeT keep Cleat -IV all the potential sites for -the proposed tower vwithin the oesign radius have nut h± n ?L«IIJa�Pf., Given the above, it is totally appropriate for the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to reject CLP #08-19 for the Landgrant Lane LLC Property and encourage Shentel to search for a more appropriate site where those that benefit from the installation of the tower, also are given the opportunity to share the visual impact of its installation. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely Dan Oman CC. Mr. Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman, Frederick County Planning Commission Mr. Robert Wells, Frederick County Board of Supervisors (Opequon) Old Dominion Greens HOA Officers Exhibit . Exhibit B ?redui c]k Cou city 111, F,oarcl of sucervisjrs RE: Cont-ditiorsal s- Permit: 408.49 for TowEv Co. Dear Sirs,',`vlavlarrx, ram-, c n o user and res*de=,1i of Stephens City, in a Property e4jacent to the proposed cel;. tow. -r ioczl cn. it is my desire that the Board of Supervisors deny the request for this cell phone tower. are: at least these +EVVe reasons: 1. It; x nut u eded, CeJl phone reception is already excellent in. this area. 2.. It it, of. pian€ed. T' e constriction of a high tower in the pnidst of the public; park (Sherando Pan'-) z � residers.tial zone, (Old. Dorninion peens) world be an eyesore and mar the beauty of our county and lower our property vailles'. Thank youfor your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Robert Gregory Cavin, Ph.D. April 6, 2020 Frederick County VA Board of Supervisors RE: Conditional Use Permit #08-19 for. Tower Co. Dear Sirs/Madam, I am an owner and resident of Stephens City, in a property adjacent to the proposed cell tower location. It is guy desire that the Board of Supervisors deny the request for this cell phone tower. There are at least these two reasons: 1. It is not needed. Cell phone reception is already excellent in this area. 2. It is not granted. The construction of a high tower in the midst of the public park (Sherando Park) and residential zone (Old Dominion Greens) would be an eyesore and mar the beauty of our county and lower our property values. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Janice J. Cl er Ph.D. April 6, 2720 T o Whom it May Concert), ij'Innoplsitio7l „ te-ecava unc4tors t`ie-or :: ai g nearSheiardo Park & Ole .. On`' kt.'n` {Grecri.s �:"he tcvtTer vre jtr d `€I"ci.SiCeiiv 1"xe i i. riny ibacky'ar s,. Rather thara loc-hinL evi, rn -y kit -ch ri v, -,'O dow i:di see tlli: 'b adds' "niv- trees in, spring a c`?.ang'ing leaves of lith, the 1-;ea'uty ser ueriitT of thw i'lerica.ndica h Va1.l.eywould.:e- i,: ken ove- by this eyese-re. I have ,ar''.so .''ead (if instances -vv Aej-e tov rt sie0 as tiiese" i od uce hu-inu ting or beeping noises so lovri th=at people rho I v�:, rri%les �'+ ay ,Y�or em are (.fist' it bed. Surely sR' I eo!,?e kna ch closer to the tawtar,. c.s niv house -Mal Lt.,, TFdoul('i be ext ernely* 1FIlGtlrtErektx a.FCe i)31 the .+:. _ £ 'rrr tC1 F, gki C�>: s i Teti 313C1 t IC tCd, br dais':'. Be ICt s' t ze aesthesic issues with the tower 1 anl- riot willing to put my fainfly s tie It -I at I'i.s�: I lave t}ir( e VUungv children, and we pl.^ail on rel!naining in this house unail they: are, grown and bring our g] i elk- [ildren to v- sit. Leng -terlt2 health ha 7ardls of living near teles -O mnunitatios towers are uniun)wn a': this point, Results of studics perforn-o.edl so for are inconclusi-ve and further research is befrtg conducted. This resew ch could irlvo!ve aly chaildren should the tower he erected in the proposed locaticrrt,, and 1 ani coniaol,etely against this idea. We m=oved to this conim-unity into a hoMe tl"tat we love and want to grow old ih,: We would like our ye&r°s here to he filled with pleasar)' rne�rnories of hea:!_rb l� happiness a -cher *har shrouded in the shadow of an. ugly cell towel- and looming heU,i' h issues. ask you to please vote cg.,anist the building of tl'.e telecoII2i1'iT. nicattlons ;:ower. in Old Dominion Greens lso�,sirrg Azi divi4icFa. The Iiea- th of our children isn't worth it, '11iarx . 3 i , Crystal L. Dunn Patricia Gaston 04/06/2020 To Whom it May Concem, iii n writing to voice my rCirEcprri o c;- the pipcer dent of a cell phorie tower dose 4;o my perOpE r! v I worry rot only by the uns1g=atIy s1de *0a TIaAng a toviier in Front of my hcmc, 6-ut 1 i iaac two oth.e concerns i wou[d like brought to your a `ien0o'n. The re currenf-sy s5 a t€ ernen-aous annvun rd concern about the health dangers iAss cizted with 1t'('iti`i in c[.3 ,P f is 7�l ;, co - G%i% tower {d t � that a h • "��' ^ `- r e��. '�ali, sir '2et'1 �CR is �a (���':" t?i fes. 1 �F11 �'� arP rl'Ir,i t12� i�et�� is ii$£hLia�1'ti, but gk en tllc= amrent i_ ajecto. } lise are Being as a nation v4th the COv d j41+:,.fBdernic; i am strongiV opposed to put -Ung nr;F families health in any jeop;Di h v without solid clam,, [ also have concerns about anv increaseu veh;6e to ffic invoive d. with keeping the tower serviced. i ask that you seek another location for the tower and will Join with other concerned residents tv p evcc our faroll!ies and our neigfxborhood. Patricia Gaston Ronan and Pam O'Donoghue 04/06/2020 T o Vt(h c m 1 t Ma v Cc F. -i cer n, I a Fri rrr tial':u vi;dre n -or cot, cern over thc-. Macement cif a cell! phane towerbehillci ourp-operty,. I vjai i), rito'.ordy by the viisight!vside olf havirte,7, tovvler Out - the back- of ou," hoale but I have twuothei, concerns I wou I d like I xrouphic tc yri I I r a tt�etlt;o; I T liet e --urrently iMiv tremcndous arpiount ofconcern tzbout tFe healit, dEM1,19eFS ZSW62,ted wf-ILh being in d 0 -s -a proxv r, ity to cell tolqf esped a 11 r,' when -156- is a part. of k. I am avv�x 1F, that: 4 C.jUS:AM, but Riven the current, trajnncrory we arc-, facing as a natio.-: th with the Coeid pander nic, I pq, stro, pjy oppsedtop,rtt?nEniy/amities hetiti,iin'.n,eje�:)pat,dywiti,louts,-Iiinriat,;7. 1p1sahals Orc e v,- ab _rr 0 any increarzed VehirfQ -baffic involved Oorith keening the tower serviced. I ask that you seek vmolher iocatil-10, for thetowcrall ,.:J ME join %Adth other concerned rss,,denLs to py-otect.. 01W families ands out neighbcrhoo'. Sincerely Before and After Proposed Cell Tower Pictures Inside and Outside of 105 Emory Court Reasons we are against the Proposed Cell Tower • It will be an eye sore — we will have to look at it day in and day out • Home Values will decrease as others (Realtors) have addressed • Possible Noise — Shentel will probably say that their equipment doesn't make noise but can they say the same about the other carriers that will lease off of this tower? NO — if so they are just speculating • Health Issues — its been said that there isn't enough research done to say one way or another that cell towers cause health issues. I plan on living here for the next 25+ years. I don't want to find out later that the tower was the reason for poor health for myself and/or my family • The owner of the land doesn't live there, he rents the property. He doesn't have to look at it unless he is there for his landscaping business which he scan go home from when he done for the day. • We paid for a premium lot when we moved to this community to enjoy the openness, the park, the trees, etc. If passed, we would have to look at this monstrosity. Reasons we are against the Proposed Cell Tower (cont.) • We bought in a court so our little girls (twin 3 %2 year olds) can play without any traffic. If passed, there will be more trucks to and from the cell tower along with the owners landscaping business trucks. • Shentel will say that there will be 1 extra vehicle a month for maintenance and upkeep (12 more vehicles) but what they aren't saying is that it will be 4 times the amount of vehicles when there are 4 carriers. This just went from 12 more times to 48 more times when there are 4 carriers leasing space on this tower. • Shentel has stated at a previous meeting that they will buy tress to try to block some of the visibility of the tower. The trees would have to be huge to block something like this. They also stated that they would lower the tower down to 150 feet but I have heard that they are going back on their word and it would be up to 195+ feet. Reasons we are against the Proposed Cell Tower (cont.) Shentel has showed pictures and graphs at previous meeting and will probably show these at the next meeting. These pictures and graphs don't show what we will see. The graphs are for Sprints network only. These graphs show how bad Sprints network is not all carriers. All of the people I've spoken to that have Sprint as their carrier state that they don't have poor service and can't understand why Shentel wants to put up a tower. ® The pictures don't show what we (homeowners) will see. The pictures are taken from outside of the neighborhood except for 1 picture. Reasons we are against the Proposed Cell Tower (cont.) • The following slides are pictures taken from inside and outside of my house (105 Emory Court). The proposed cell tower will be directly behind my house. • I'm not technical enough to put together slides like Shentel's but with Microsoft Paint I feel this will give you an idea of what it will look like with the tower behind my house. • when looking at these pictures, I would like for you to imagine that this is your house that you bought not even 2 years ago with your spouse and 2 small children. • PLEASE — vote against the cell tower going up behind my house, our neighborhood, and your community. Front of 105 Emory Court From Side of House on Gravel Access Read From Path From Path Looking at Back of 105 Emory Court Below Living Room Window ar A Nh... Between 103 and 105 Emory Court Between Wouse.,% Outside of Bedroom Window �, no me k Ulm =fill= Looking out of Family Room Windom✓ Please Vote NO!!! PLEASE the cell —vote against tower going up behind my house, our neighborhood, and o UI r community.