PC_01-07-98_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on January 7, 1998.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice- Chairman/Back
Creek District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone,
Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours,
Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto,
Winchester City Liaison, and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Michael T. Ruddy,
Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
• CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 1997
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Rominc, the minutes of November 19,
1997 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
L J
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 143
-2-
• PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use Permit #017 -96 of Denise McClearen for a Cottage Occupation to operate a dog
grooming business. This property is located at 4784 Front Royal Pike and is identified with P.I.N. 94A -1-
11-4 through -9 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
No Action
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, said that the applicant failed to post on her property the public
hearing sign provided to him; therefore, advertising requirements have not been properly met and the Planning
Commission will not be able to address this conditional use permit this evening.
Chairman DeHaven asked if there was anyone in the audience who had come specifically to
comment on this conditional use permit application. No one came forward to speak.
date.
Chairman DcHaven said that this conditional use permit will be readvertiscd and heard at a later
Conditional Use Permit 4020 -97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 125 -foot commercial
• telecommunications facility on property owned by the Estate of Charles K. Poole. This property is known
as the Bowling Green Site, is located approximately 0.25 miles east on Route 688 from the intersection
with Route 50, and is identified with P.T.N. 28 -A -165 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner 11, stated that the County adopted an amendment to the zoning
ordinance in April of 1997 allowing commercial telecommunication facilities with an approved conditional use
permit (CUP). Mr. Ruddy said that this amendment specified that the telecommunication facilities CUPS could
be approved provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of significant
historic value were not negatively impacted.
Mr. Willie Purtell, Vice President of Shenandoah Telecommunications Company (also known
as Shentel) and Mr. Leonard L. Grcisz, Project Manager of Shenandoah Mobile Company, a subsidiary of
Shentel, were present to represent the five CUP applications on the agenda. Mr. Purtell said that they are
requesting five towers at five separate sites, two of which are monopole towers, and three lattice -type towers.
Mr. Purtell said that all five towers will be built for one use initially; however, one tower will have two uses the
day it goes into service, and all the towers will have available space for additional leasees.
Beginning with the Bowling Green site, Mr. Ruddy stated that this will be a 125' monopole tower
meeting all the required setbacks and he proceeded to review the background information and review agency
comments. As there are no comparable facilities in existence within this search area, Mr. Ruddy said that it will
be acceptable for this facility to be permitted with the understanding that other comparable service providers be
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 144
-3-
• allowed to co- locate on the tower. Mr. Ruddy next read the staffs recommended conditions for approval.
In order to alleviate the possible future abandonment of telecommunication facilities, the
ordinance requires that procedures for guaranteeing the removal of such towers be established during the CUP
process. In addressing this issue, Mr. Greisz requested that the County not require a monetary guarantee, but
accept Shentel's business practice as the guarantee - -he said that it was Shentel's accepted and understood
business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose. Mr. Greisz said that they preferred not
to deposit a monetary guarantee because they are a small company and this would tie up their operating assets.
Addressing other matters, Mr. Greisz said that the landowner in this particular application has requested that
Shentel provide a separate site access to the tower.
Continuing with the discussion on tower abandonment, Chairman DeHaven stated that the
ordinance requires a guarantee, but it does not specify what form the guarantee should take. Jay Cook, the
Planning Commission's legal counsel, stated that the applicant should make an offer of the guarantee and the
deciding body would determine if it was acceptable. The staff believed that in the absence of a monetary
guarantee, whether it be a letter of credit, a bond, etc., the County did not have a guarantee that the tower will be
removed.
Mr. Purtell stated that towers arc valuable assets and they do not anticipate taking them down.
Mr. Purtell said that Shentel would give the county a written guarantee in the form of a letter stating that the tower
will be removed, and they would also accept a condition on their conditional use permit; however, if the county
was not satisfied with those guarantees, they would post a bond or a sinking fund. Mr. Purtell said that the cost
• estimate they were quoted for removal of a tower was $100.00 per foot; he said the average 250' tower also has
about 30' of steel below ground as well.
Mr. Greisz had also raised the issue of a landowner wanting to keep a tower up, for his personal
use. Members of the Commission suggested that the property owner be required to apply for a conditional use
permit, however, it was pointed out that there is no ordinance in place to cover the use of private antennaes.
Mr. Sager stated that the County is progressing with its Emergency Management System. He
inquired if the County would be able to use the tower service and at what cost, if there was a need to expand the
communications effort. Mr. Purtell said that there are government rates available to various agencies such as fire
and rescue, police, etc. that are substantially discounted off normal commercial rates.
The question of liability was raised and Mr. Purtell said that his company would be liable and
does carry insurance for that purpose.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Isaac Luttrell, adjoining property owner, stated that both he and his wife, who is a realtor,
were very much concerned about the obtrusiveness of viewing the tower from their home and they were also
concerned that the proposed tower location would affect their property value.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine,
is
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 145
�s
• BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #020 -97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a commercial
telecommunications facility, consisting of a 125' monopole tower equipped for operation of a wireless
communication services system, at the Bowling Green Ridge Site, with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co- locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable
rates.
3. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of
tower abandonment.
4. A minor site plan is approved by the County.
A shared entrance onto Route 688 is to be utilized. This will eliminate the additional entrance onto
Route 688 that is within close proximity to the existing entrance.
Conditional Use Permit #021 -97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 100' commercial
• telecommunications facility on property owned by Norman and Pansy Anderson. This property is known
as the Little Timber Ridge Site and is located on Route 610, approximately 0.38 miles south of the
intersection of Routes 50 and 610, and is identified with P.I.N. 27 -A -8 in the Back Creek Magisterial
District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, read the background report and review agency comments.
Mr. Ruddy explained that the zoning ordinance requires that towers of 100' in height be placed a minimum of
125' from any road right -of -way and 115' from adjoining properties used for purposes other than agriculture or
orchard. He continued, stating that the applicant has proposed two alternative tower locations on this site: Option
2 complies with the setback requirements for a tower of the size proposed, Option 1, the applicant's preferred
option, locates the tower directly adjacent to the adjoining Potomac Edison Company property. Mr. Ruddy stated
that the Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance, if it can be demonstrated that the
location is of equal or less impact.
Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager for Shentel, the applicant, was representing this
application. Mr. Greisz said that the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Norman Anderson, have requested that the
tower be placed next to the electrical substation, rather than in the middle of their open field. Mr. Greisz felt that
the location next to the electrical substation would mitigate the view of the tower somewhat by absorbing it into
the substation. Mr. Greisz requested that they not be required to provide screening. He said that vegetative
screening would probably be eaten because the site is within a pasture and board and fence screening would not
be worthwhile.
is
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 146
- 5 -
• There were no public comments.
Commission members were in favor of reducing the setbacks under Option # I in order for the
tower to be placed next to the electrical substaion, rather than in the middle of the open field.
Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 4021 -97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a commercial
telecommunications facility, consisting of a 100' monopole tower equipped for operation of a wireless
communications services system, and does also recommend reducing the required setbacks using Option #1,
which places the tower directly adjacent to the adjoining Potomac Edison Company's electrical substation. This
permit is recommended for approval with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co- locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable
rates.
3. An acceptable guarantee shall be established with the County for the removal of the tower within one
year of tower abandonment.
• 4. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County.
5. Screening any proposed accessory structures from the adjoining road right -of -way, as required by the
Zoning Ordinance, is provided.
Conditional Use Permit #022 -97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 350' commercial
telecommunications facility on property owned by Thomas and Nina Guthridge. This property is known
as the Hunting Ridge Site and is located on Turtle Drive, approximately 0.5 miles past the intersection
with Route 616, and is identified with P.I.N. 51 -A -67 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planncr II, read the background information and review agency
comments. Mr. Ruddy also gave the following information: the proposed tower location will be in compliance
with all of the setback requirements for the proposed facility; the opportunity for co- location was not available;
the applicant is proposing a 350' three -sided , self- supporting galvanized steel tower (lattice -type tower) equipped
for the operation of a personal communication system; the tower will be provided with a dual lighting system
which provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use;
and, an identified rural landmark, 34 -913, the Paul A. Sweeney Barn, is in the vicinity of this site, however, the
staff believes that the impact to this site is limited.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 147
• Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager for Shentel, was present to represent the application.
Mr. Greisz explained that their choice of a lattice-type tower over a monopole tower at this site was two -fold: He
said that the cost differential was $45,000 more for a monopole tower of this height and secondly, the lattice -type
tower would easily accomodate three or more providers.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak:
Mr. James Clark, representing his Uncle Paul A. Sweeney, an adjoining property owner, stated
that they are concerned about aesthetics, the effect on property values, and more importantly, access to the tower
site. Mr. Clark said that it was his understanding that the only access to this tower site was directly across his
uncle's property; and his uncle has granted access in writing to only one individual.
Mr. David Campbell had questions on the applicant's attempts at co- locating on an existing
tower. Chairman DeHaven explained that the ordinance requires the applicant show evidence of their attempts
to co- locate on existing facilities within their search area; however, in all of the applications but one, there were
no existing towers.
With regard to property access, Mr. Greisz said that a title search was done when they entered
the lease agreement with the property owner and they were assured of an adequate easement. Chairman DeHaven
stated that resolution of the conflict may be a civil matter.
Mr. Purtell said that they would prefer to lease space on an existing tower rather than build a
• new tower because of the large capital expenditure required to erect a tower. He stated that when construction
of a new tower is required, they will pay the additional expense to make it strong enough to accommodate other
users.
Members of the Commission asked if water tanks or power transmission towers, etc. were
considered as possible sites within the search area. Mr. Purtell said that they are requesting five tower sites
within Frederick County; however, they will probably end up with three times that number of sites, but they won't
all be towers. He said that they are already co- located on other company's towers and water tanks.
Members of the Commission expressed dissatisfaction with the construction of a lattice -type
pole in this location rather than a monopole- -they preferred a monopole tower because it would be less obtrusive
on the landscape. The issue debated was whether it would be better to have one lattice -type tower,
accommodating several users, or two or more monopole towers, accommodating just one or two users on each
tower.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #022 -97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 350' commercial telecommunications
facility, with a waiver of the monopole -type construction requirement, on property owned by Thomas and Nina
Guthridge, known as the Hunting Ridge Site. A 350' lattice -type tower is recommended for approval with the
following conditions:
E
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 148
-7-
• 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co-locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable
rates.
3. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of
tower abandonment.
4. A minor site plan is approved by the County.
This CUP was recommended for approval by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE) Thomas, Romine, Marker, Light, Morris, Copenhaver
NO: Stone, Ours, DeHaven
(Note: Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.)
® Conditional Use Permit #023 -97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 300' commercial
telecommunications facility on property owned by Linwood and Elizabeth Ritter. This property is known
as the Sherando Site and is located approximately 3/4 mile south of the intersection of Routes 277 and 636,
and is identified with P.I.N. 86 -A -209 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, read the background information and review agency
comments. Mr. Ruddy stated that the proposed tower will be in compliance with setback requirements; no other
comparable FCC license holders in the search area have existing facilities constructed. He said that the proposed
structure is a 300' three - sided, self - supporting galvanized steel tower equipped for operation of a personal
communication system. Mr. Ruddy said that the tower will be provided with a dual lighting system which
provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use. He
added that it was the applicant's contention that the height of the proposed tower would make monopole
construction cost - prohibitive.
Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager for Shcntel, stated that two services will be installed
on this tower immediately, making it a co- located site. Mr. Greisz said that they are building the tower to
accomodate numerous other providers because this is a fast - growing area within Frederick County.
Commission members inquired if the water tower at Kemstown was considered as a site. Mr.
Greisz said the Kernstown tower was not available for use during a previous search and, as a result, they
constructed a tower on the Heckman property. He stated that the Hock tower will not serve the area they are
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page l49
® immediately seeking. Mr. Griesz said that they are currently negotiating to use the nearby CFW tower site, but
they will need this additional site as well.
Commission members raised the issue of constructing a lattice -type tower so close to the park.
The applicants explained that many more users could be accommodated on a lattice pole; and since this was such
a rapidly growing area, it may be better to use the lattice tower and, hopefully, reduce the number of towers that
would be placed in this area.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak:
Mr. David Campbell stated that he was in the engineering field and he believed a monopole
tower could be structurally built to accommodate as many users as required. Mr. Campbell said that
telecommunications businesses were making more than enough profit to build structurally sound monopole towers
to hold as many users as needed.
Ms. Virginia Bums introduced herself and her mother. Ms. Burs said that they own property
across from Sherando Park, which they were planning to develop for residential use. She felt the tower would
be an eyesore and would be detrimental to their plans for their property. Ms. Bums said that Shentel asked about
putting the tower on her property about a year ago; they did not want it because they were concerned how the
tower would affect the aesthetics of the area and people's desire to buy land here and build.
Members of the Commission had several concerns about this tower location: 1) the safety issue
• of a lattice -type tower in close proximity to the park because the tower was climbable from its base; 2) their
belief that monopoles could be engineered to accommodate additional service; and, 3) because this area of the
county is rapidly growing, the preference was for monopole construction. Other members of the Commission
stated that given the choice of one lattice-type tower or three to four monopoles, they would prefer looking at only
one tower.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Morris,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to erect
a 300' commercial telecommunications facility, using monopole -type constuction, on property owned by Linwood
and Elizabeth Ritter, with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co- locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable
rates.
3. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of
tower abandonment.
4. A minor site plan is approved by the County.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 150
• The vote on approval of this CUP was by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE) Morris, Marker, Romine, Ours, DeHaven, Copenhaver
NO: Light, Thomas, Stone
(Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.)
Conditional Use Permit #024 -97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 200' commercial
telecommunications facility on property owned by Wayne and Julie Smith. This land is known as the
Parkins Mills site and is located off Route 642, approximately 3/10 mile past the intersection of Squire
Lane and Knight Drive, and is identified with P.I.N. 76 -A -98 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, read the background information and review agency
comments. Mr. Ruddy stated that the ordinance requires that towers 200' in height be placed a minimum of 215'
from adjoining residential or vacant properties and 225' from any road right -of -way. He said that as presented
by the applicant, the proposed tower location does not comply with the setback requirements because a setback
is required along the 30' road right -of -way access casement running through the property. Of the eight
is comparable license holders in this area, none have constructed telecommunication facilities within the search area.
He said that the tower will be provided with a dual lighting system which provides red lights for nighttime and
medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use. Mr. Ruddy said that the applicant is
requesting a waiver of the monopole -type construction requirement for a lattice -type tower. He added that an
identified rural landmark, the Clem- Haines House, is in the vicinity of this site, however, the staff believes that
the impact to this site is limited.
Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager for Shentel, stated that the height of the tower, in
addition to their interest in constructing a tower that is readily modifiable for subleasing, would be best
accomplished with a lattice-type structure. It was also the applicant's contention that the height of the proposed
tower would make monopole -type construction cost - prohibitive.
Regarding the issue of setbacks, Mr. Greisz said that the property consists of a large 98 -acre
parcel which contains a small subdivided five -acre section with an access road. Mr. Greisz said that both parcels
are owned by Mr. Wayne A. Smith and his wife, Julie C. Smith. He explained that Mr. Smith has requested that
Shentel locate the tower as close to his access road as possible, and not place the tower in the middle of the field.
Mr. Greisz said that Mr. Smith would lose about 200' X 12' of pasture area. if the tower was placed further
toward the center of the property, because of the road that would need to be constructed to the tower. Mr. Greisz
believed that both the site and the landowner would be better served by placing the tower near the existing access
road. Mr. Greisz said that the other disadvantage of moving the tower back toward the center of the larger tract
is that the terrain drops off roughly 18' -20', lowering the overall height of the tower. He said that at some point
going down the tower, the signal will be lost and that movement in itself may cause them to lose a potential user
site. In addition, if they extend the tower an additional foot, the airport will require the tower to be lighted.
is
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 151
-10-
• Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak:
Mr. Christopher A. Bunker, adjoining property owner, believed the cost differential between a
lattice tower and a monopole tower was minimal and he recommended the applicant use a monople -type structure.
Mr. Bunker was concerned whether or not the air waves produced would interfere with his television reception
because the service in his area was already limited. He asked what type of guarantee would be required
specifically to remove the tower after it was no longer in use. Mr. Bunker said that the applicant stated there were
no available sites in the "search" area, and Mr. Bunker wanted to know if sites in the "general" area had been
considered by the applicants. Mr. Bunker was also concerned about the long -term aesthetics of the area.
Mr. David Campbell, area resident, stated that he received notice of the public hearing on
December 26, 1997 and he didn't feel this was enough time to review the proposal. Mr. Campbell also felt that
a number of area residents were not given notice of the public meeting. He stated that Shentel's proposed tower
access is a private road serving 12 families; he was concerned about maintenance of the road, which the residents
had built and maintained for their own private use. Other issues raised by Mr. Campbell were: 1) a monopole-
type tower should be constructed because it was visually less obtrusive in a residential area; 2) use of the
"search" area as compared to the "general" area; 3) assurances concerning the removal of the tower; and 4)
request for some vegetative buffering and screening.
Mrs. Christine L. Bunker, adjoining properly owner, inquired how it is determined when a tower
has been abandoned and if the company using the tower goes bankrupt, how will they be responsible for taking
the tower down.
• Mr. and Mrs. F. Wayne Wright, adjoining property owners, were opposed to the tower for
aesthetic reasons.
Mr. Donald Strosnider, adjoining property owner, stated that the road to the proposed tower has
only a 20' easement to a certain point and then goes into a 30' easement. Mr. Strosnider inquired if the applicant
would participate in the upkeep of the road. He also had questions about the removal of an abandoned tower.
Mr. Ted Hagen, adjoining property owner, recommended the use of a lattice tower; he said that
he would rather see one lattice tower than a proliferation of monopole towers. Mr. Hagen said that the residents
along the road contribute to its maintenance and he inquired if Shentel would provide some support to
maintaining the road.
Mr. Leonard Greisz returned to the podium to address some of the concerns raised. Regarding
the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) issues, Mr. Greisz said that their signal is sanctioned and
controlled by the FCC; they are required to use radios that do not interfere with other airwaves and if there is
interference, they need to correct the interference. As far as television signals, he said that they can co- locate on
a cable T.V. tower and there is no interference. Regarding the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)
notification, Mr. Greisz said that all five sites are currently being reviewed for height, whether they pose an
obstruction to an airport facility, or whether they present flight path interference. The local Winchester Regional
Airport has also looked at all five sites. Mr. Greisz said that after they get FAA certification, the site is then
registered with the FCC.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 152
-11-
• Proceeding to the issue of the search area, Mr. Greisz said that their first and foremost concern
is providing radio and wireless signals to their customers; therefore, they place sites where a signal is needed- -this
creates their "search area." He said that because they need to have a signal at a certain location and because of
the cost involved when a tower needs to be constructed, they will try to get additional revenue off the tower by
structurally engineering it to hold other users. He also explained that if any part of the tower or antennae exceeds
200', the FAA requires the structure to be lighted.
Regarding the road, Mr. Greisz said that when they have finished building at the site, the road
will be in better shape than it exists in now. Mr. Greisz said that this is a fairly rough road and it will be leveled
and the potholes will be filled. He said that Shentel will only visit the site about once or twice a month by way
of a van-type truck. He added that their title search has not encountered any restrictive covenants on the rights
of the landowner to enter the site.
Mr. Morris said that he was willing to waive the setback requirement based on the use of a
monopole antennae.
Mr. Thomas moved to recommend approval of the application with conditions as stipulated, a
waiver of the setbacks, and a waiver of the monopole requirement. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine,
but failed by the following vote:
YES (FOR APPROVAL) Thomas, Romine, Light,
NO: Stone, Ours, Marker, Copenhaver, Morris, DeHaven
• Mr. Morris next moved to recommend approval with conditions as stipulated and a waiver of
the setback requirement only. This motion was seconded by Mr. Marker, but failed by the following vote:
YES (FOR APPROVAL) Marker, Morris, DeHaven, Copenhaver
NO: Stone, Ours, Thomas, Romine, Light
Commission members stated they would rather see one lattice tower rather than several
monopole towers. Other Commissioners believed that using a lattice tower would not make a difference as far
as how many towers would eventually be placed in an area and that a monopole was not nearly as obtrusive
visually as a lattice tower. Other Commissioners believed that the issue here was the quality of life for the
residents of the area. It was also noted that towers can't be isolated and they need to be placed in populated areas,
where the customers are.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Rominc,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #024 -97 with conditions as stipulated, with monopole -type tower construction, and
waiver of the setbacks.
YES (TO APPROVE) Romine, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Morris
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 153
-12-
• NO: Stone, Ours, Thomas
(Note: Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.)
ELECTION OF OFFICERS & MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 1998
Election of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
by Mr. Thomas.
Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Chairman.
The nomination of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. for Chairman was made by Mr. Marker and seconded
Motion was made by Mrs. Copenhaver, seconded by Mr. Thomas, 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 1998.
•
Election of John R. Marker, Vice Chairman
Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Vice Chairman.
The nomination of John R. Marker for Vice Chairman was made by Mrs. Copenhaver and
seconded by Mr. Ours.
Motion was made by Mrs. Copenhaver, seconded 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 1998.
Election of Kris C. Tierney, Secretary
•
Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Secretary.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 154
-13-
The nomination of Kris C. Tierney for Secretary was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr.
Marker.
Motion was made by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously passed to close
nominations for Secretary.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Mr. Kris
C. Tierney as Secretary of the Planning Commission for 1998.
1998 Meeting Schedule
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 worksessions on the fourth
Monday of each month, as needed, at 7:30 p.m. Both the regular meetings and the worksessions will be held in
the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester,
Virginia.
• ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned by unanimous vote at
10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C.
Charles S. Deliaven, Chairman
(Jr.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 155