HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210106
Tom Clemens Vernell Doyle
Edith Wallace Ann Aldrich
Gary Rohrer Jeffrey A. Cline, BOCC Rep
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON COU NTY, MARYLAND
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 | Hagerstown, MD 21740 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
January 6, 2021, 7:00 p.m.
VIRTUAL MEETING ONLY
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
MINUTES
1. Minutes of the December 2, 2020 meeting *
OTHER BUSINESS
1. 11676 Hopewell Road – Section 106 Filing Notice – Proposed construction of a 195 foot
monopole extended to 199 feet on property located at the approximate vicinity of
11676 Hopewell Road *
2. Certified Local Government Response Draft – For review and comment *
3. Staff Report
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING MEETING
1. Wednesday, February 3, 2021, 7:00 p.m.
*attachments
The Historic District Commission reserves the right to vary the order in which the cases are called. Individuals
requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Washington County Planning Department at 240-
313-2430 to make arrangements no later than ten (10) days prior to the meeting. Notice is given that the agenda
may be amended at any time up to and including the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY
December 2, 2020
Due to current social meeting restrictions put in place by the Governor of Maryland because of the COVID-
19 pandemic, the Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on
Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. virtually using Zoom software. No physical meeting took
place.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commission members present were: Tom Clemens, Ann Aldrich, Vernell Doyle, Edie Wallace, Michael
Lushbaugh, Greg Smith, and Gary Rohrer. Staff members present were: Washington County Department
of Planning & Zoning: Jill Baker, Director; Jennifer Kinzer, Deputy Director; Meghan Jenkins, GIS
Coordinator; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant. Also present at the meeting Lloyd Yavener.
MINUTES
Ms. Doyle made a correction to the October 5, 2020 minutes. Ms. Aldrich made a motion to approve the
minutes of the October 5, 2020 meeting as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wallace and
unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Permit #2020-04285 – 4425 Main Street, Rohrersville
Ms. Jenkins presented for review a permit for a porch addition to the house located at 4425 Main Street
in Rohrersville.
Discussion and Comments: Ms. Doyle asked if the property is located in a flood plain. Ms. Jenkins stated
it is not located in a flood plain.
Ms. Wallace noted that the porch will be constructed of pressure treated lumber and asked if the porch
would be painted. Mr. Yavener, property owner, stated the pressure treated lumber will be used only for
the porch decking. The rails will be made from pine or mahogany and painted white to match the trim on
the house. The owners have not decided if they will paint the decking.
Ms. Doyle noted that the proposed porch does not match the shadow depicted on photographs of the
house. Mr. Yavener stated that the old porch was constructed with a cinder block foundation and was not
original to the house. Ms. Doyle asked if the railings would be behind the columns. Mr. Yavener stated
that the railings would attach to the sides of the columns.
Mr. Rohrer asked what the pilasters would be constructed of. Mr. Yavener stated the pilasters will have a
concrete core faced with brick on all sides and painted to match the house.
Ms. Jenkins noted that the porch was not referenced in the historic inventory as an architectural feature
of the house. Mr. Yavener believes the porch was probably constructed in the 1940s or 1950s. Ms. Wallace
expressed her opinion that originally the house likely had just a “landing” rather than a porch due to
architectural detailing present.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Rohrer made a motion to approve the permit as presented. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Doyle and unanimously approved with Mr. Clemens abstaining from the vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Staff Report
• Ms. Jenkins noted that staff reviewed the following applications in November: 1 ag certificate in
the Antietam Overlay zone.
• Ms. Jenkins reported that she attended the MAHDC annual meeting. New trainings will be offered
soon.
• Ms. Jenkins attended the first Battle of Falling Waters listening session hosted by Preservation
Maryland. They are currently exploring the obstacles that are preventing the Battlefield from
being recognized. A lot of good discussion between property owners and interested parties was
held.
• The MAHDC training for members was held on November 20th. The power point presentation will
be made available and distributed to members soon.
• Ms. Baker attended the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area meeting. This was a video presenta-
tion which is available on YouTube. There was a financial study regarding tourism completed that
included the entire Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area and all other Heritage Areas across the
State of Maryland. This data will be extremely useful in the future for preservation in the County.
• Proposed changes to the Demolition Permit Policy is scheduled to be heard by the Board of County
Commissioners on Tuesday, December 8th. Ms. Linda Irvin-Craig and Mr. Ralph Young of the HAC,
and Mr. Clemens will be presenting this information to the Commissioners.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Aldrich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Lushbaugh and so ordered by the Chairman.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________
Jill L. Baker, Director
Washington County Department of Planning
& Zoning
Federal Communications Commission
f W * r z Washington, DC 20554
cwt
Informational Notice of Section 106 Filings
Date: 12/09/2020
Reference Number: 1126238
To Whom It May Concern
Washington County Maryland Historic District Commission
100 West Washington Street
Hagerstown, MD 21740
The following new Section 106 filing has been submitted:
FILE NUMBER: 0009318122
TCNS Number: 222553
Purpose: New Tower Submission Packet
Notification Date: 7AM EST 12/04/2020
Applicant: Diamond Towers V LLC (22008041)
Consultant: Trileaf Corporation
Positive Train Control Filing Subject to Expedited Treatment Under Program Comment: No
Site Name: Halfway Substation
Site Address: 11676 Hopewell Road
Detailed Description of Project: Our client proposes the construction of a 195 ft monopole, extended to 199 ft located at the
approximate vicinity of 11676 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland 21740.
Site Coordinates: 39-38-10.7 N, 077-46-49.3 W
City: Hagerstown
County: WASHINGTON
State: MD
Lead SHPO/THPO: Maryland Historical Trust
Consultant Contact Information:
Name: Scott Emory
Title:
PO Box: 21286
Address: 8600 Lasalle Road Suite 301
City: Towson
State: MD
Zip: 21286
Phone: (410) 853-7128
Fax:
Email: r.rhoads@trileaf.com
NOTICE OF FRAUDULENT USE OF SYSTEM, ABUSE OF PASSWORD AND RELATED MISUSE
Use of the Section 106 system is intended to facilitate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable laws. Any person
having access to Section 106 information shall use it only for its intended purpose. Appropriate action will be taken with respect to
any misuse of the system.
Page 1 of 1 FCC 813
July 2018
QWASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, MD 21740.6003 P 240.313.24601 F: 240.313.24611 Hearing Impaired: 7-14
ZONING APPEAL
Property Owner: Potomac Edison Co Docket No: AP2020-029
Tax Dept Tax ID No: 24009718
800 Cabin Hill Drive
Greensburg PA 15601 Zoning: HI
Appellant: Diamond Communications LLC RB Overlay: No
820 Morris Turnpike Zoning Overlay:
Suite 104
Short Hills NJ 07078 Filed Date: 09/23/2020
Hearing Date: 10/14/2020
Property Location: 11676 Hopewell Road
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Description Of Appeal: Special exception to construct a 199 ft. monopole commercial communication tower with
equipment shelter, variance from minimum 199 ft. setback from the base of the tower to
57 foot 9 inches from northeast property line and 121 foot 9 inches from northwest
property line and a variance from required 398 ft. setback from overhead transmission lines
to 64 foot 1 inch
Appellant's Legal Interest In Above Property: Owner: No Contract to Rent/Lease: No
Lessee: Yes Contract to Purchase: No
Other:
Previous Petition/Appeal Docket No(s):
Applicable Ordinance Sections: Washington County Zoning Ordinance 19.3 (1), 4.22 Al, 4.22 A.3
Reason For Hardship: Strict compliance would unreasonably prevent the use of the property for proposed use
and render conformation unnecessarily burdensome.
If Appeal of Ruling, Date Of Ruling:
Ruling Official/Agency:
Existing Use: Power Substation Proposed Use: Power Substation with Communications Tower
Previous Use Ceased For At Least 6 Months: Date Ceased:
Area Devoted To Non -Conforming Use - Existing:
Proposed:
I hearby affirm that all of the statements and information contained in or filed with this appeal are true and
ca,(flt$RYN B. RATHVON
NOTARY PUBLIC
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV.7.2021
Appellant Signature
State Of Maryland, Washington County to -wit:
Sworn and scribed before
mommee)this L day of M�� 2Qz(L.
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, MD 21740-6003 240.313.24601 F:240.313.2461; Hearing Impaired: 7-1-1
AFFIDAVIT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 25.51(C)
Docket No: AP2020-029
State of Maryland Washington County, To Wit:
On 9/23/2020, before me the subscriber, a Notary of the public of the State and County aforesaid, personally
appeared Miller, Miller & Canby and made oath in due form of law as follows:
Miller, Miller & Canby will post the zoning notice sign(s) given to me by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with
Section 25,51(c) of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance for the above captioned Board of Appeals case,
scheduled for public hearing on 10/14/2020, and that said sign(s) will be erected on the subject property in
accordance with the required distances and positioning as set out in the attached posting instructions.
Sign(s) will be posted on 09/29/2020 and will remain until after the above
hearing date.
Miller, Miller & Canby
Sworn and subscribed before me the day and year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC I Notary Public
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 7.2021
Seal
My Commission Expires
Law Offices Of
MILLER,
CANBY
CLIENT FOCUSED. RESULTS DRIVEN.
200-B MONROE STREET, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850 P: 301.762.5212 F: 301.762.6044 WWW.MILLERMILLERCANBY.COM
All attorneys admitted in Maryland and where indicated.
PATRICK C. MCKEEVER
JAMES L. ThOMPSOSCHUMANN
DONNA E. MCBRIDE (DC)
GLENN M. ANDERSON (FL)
SOO LEE-CHO (CA)
LEWIS R. S. KLINE N
JODY S. KLINE
SEAN P. HUGHES (DC)
DAVID A. LUCAS
DIANE E. FEUERHERD
IOSEPH P. SUNTUM
CATHY G. BORTEN (DC)
MICHAEL G. CAMPBELL (DC, VA)
CHRISTOPHER L. YOUNG (VA)
CALLIE CARNEMARK (VA)
ROBERT E. GOUGH
JAMES T. ROTH
sohuthe s(7a mmeanby cam
September 23, 2020
Washington County Board of Zoning Appeals
80 West Baltimore Street
Hagerstown, MD 21740
RE: Diamond Communications LLC —Commercial Communications Tower facility - I 1676
Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, MD 21740
Dear Ms. Rathvon:
Please find the attached Special Exception and Variance Application submission package on
behalf our client, Diamond Communications, related to its partnership with Potomac Edison (a First
Energy company). Included in the package please find the following items:
1. County Special Exception and Variance Applications- (9) copies
2. Supplemental materials for the application- nine (9) copies
3. Filing fee checks of $500 and 300, made payable to Washington County Treasurer
Thank you in advance for your assistance on this matter. Should you have any questions or need
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
MILLER, MILLER/ 8y.lrgNBY
eah P. Hughes
Cc: Scott Von Rein, Diamond Communications
Law Offices Of
MILBY
MM&
CLIENT FOCUSED. RESULTS DRIVEN.
200-B MONROE STREET, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND20830 P:301.762.5212 F:301.762.6016
WWW.M)I,LERMILLERCANBY.COM
All attorneys admitted in Maryland and where indicated.
PATRICK C. MCKEEVER
JAMES L THOMPSON
DONNA E. MCBRIDEDC
( )
GLENN M. ANDERSON (FL)
SOO LEE-CHO (CA)
LEWIS R. SCHUMANN
JODY S. KLINE
SEAN P. HUGHES (DC)
DAVID E. LUCAS (DC)
DIANE E. FEUERHERD
JOSEPH P. SUNTUM
ROBERTE.GOUGH
CATHY G. BORTEN (DC)
MICHAEL G. CAMPBELL (DC, VA)
CHRISTOPHER L. YOUNG (VA)
CALLIE VA
( )
1. ROTHARK
JAMES T.
sphu2hesc1mmcanbyciam
September 15, 2020
Washington County Board of Zoning Appeals
80 West Baltimore Street
Hagerstown, MD 21740
RE: Diamond Communications LLC —Commercial Communications Tower facility -I 1676
Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, MD 21740
Dear Board of Zoning Appeals/County Staff:
Please enter the appearance of the Miller, Miller & Canby and myself as attorneys in the
Diamond Communications Special Exception and Variance applications for a Commercial
Communications Tower facility at an existing Potomac Edison (a First Energy company) substation
facility, 11676 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, MD 21740. We will be assisting our client, Diamond
Communications, which is an agent of and has a master agreement with Potomac Edison (First Energy) to
assist with these sort of uses at the power company's properties.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
MI/j.LER, MILLE & CgANBY
ea P S
Sean P. Hughes
Cc: Scott Von Rein, Diamond Communications
Ex. I
COMPLETED AND SIGNED
APPLICATIONS (SPECIAL
EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE)
�: Washington County
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
e0 West Baltimore street Hagerstown, MD 21740 240.313.2460 240.313.2461
7-1-1
W W W. WASHCO-MD.NTr
Appeal for Special Exception
Appeal is hereby made for a special exception under the Washington County Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Location 11676 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, MD 21740
Appellant's present legal interest in above property: (Check One)
Owner (Including Joint Ownership) X Lessee _ Contract to rent/lease
Contract to Purchase _ Other
Use Proposed: Commercial Communications Tower
Zoning Ordinance section and subsection(s) providing for proposed use: 19.3(11 4.22.4 22 A & B
If filing functionally similar to a principal permitted use or special exception use, please list the use and
describe the use similarities:
any previous petition or ap
_ Yes X
If yes, give docket number(s):
to
Additional comments, if any: This Is a Potomac Edison (First Energy Company) substation
ApplicantLessee has not been involved in or aware of any prior petitions or appeals for
Property to the Board.
I hereby certify that I have, to the best of my knowledge, accurately supplied the information required for the
above referenced appeal.
Signature of Appellan
OFGtcE.: SZO tu0¢6.ts TWE, 6YE Io4
MAIL: 30 C144TN40. I≥D Oi4tf 606
e'0im iM SHORT HILLS, NJ 0'}6'}$
Address of Appellant
This appeal form is to be used to assist the customer in gathering the information necessary to
submit an application. However, the application shall be processed in person.
Revised January 29.2015
S WashingtonCounty
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
80 Wes BalHmareSmeet Hagersto.vn. MD 21740 240.313.2460 240313.2461
7-1-1
W W W.WASHCO-MD.NET
Appeal for Variance
Appeal is hereby made for a variance from a requirement of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance as
follows:
Location 11676 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown MD 21740
Appellant's present legal interest in above property: (Check One)
— Owner (Including Joint Ownership) X Lessee _ Contract to rent/lease
Contract to Purchase _ Other
Ordinance section and subsection from which the variance is desired:
x.q
the particular requirement(s) from which a variance is desired in that section or subsection:
a see attached detailed ernlanatlnn -----
Describe the nature and extent of the desired variance from Ordinance requirements: listed above:
Please see attached detailed explanation on se arate page.
Describe reason(s) why the Ordinance requirement(s) in question would result in peculiar and/or unusual
practical difficulties to or would impose exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the property if the
requested variance were not granted:
Provide Detailed Explanation on Separate Sheet
Has any previous petition or appeal involving this property been made to the Board?
Yes X No
If yes, list docket number(s): However, this is accompanying a Special Exception request for a
I commercial ry ithatrI have,cto the betower
t of my knowledge, variance
the information required for the
abovereferenced appeal.
OFFice: 92o A-tOtat5 -MCE, Ste 1O4-
AAM1�: 30 CHATHAµ RD, UrJiTbpy
Pio11 ra $4ORr HILLS NJ OaO}8
Signature of Appella Address of Appellant
This appeal form is to be used to assist the customer in gathering the information necessary to
submit an application. However, the application shall be processed In person.
nevneo January 29.2015
Ex. 2
STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION
EVALUATING REQUIRED CODE
STANDARDS
Statement of Justification- Special Exception Application
For Communication Tower
I. Introduction
Diamond Communications, LLC (dba as "Diamond") with support of the property owner
Potomac Edison (a First Energy company) and anchor tenant AT&T Wireless proposes to erect a
195' monopole with a lightning rod tip height of 199'. The facility will be located at the existing
Potomac Edison substation property, 11676 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, MD in the HI zone.
The monopole and the related equipment will be housed at the substation within an unmanned
50' by 50' screened, fenced, locked and secure ground compound. The facility is designed with
capacity to hold antennas, associated ancillary equipment and cables of at least four (4)
communications providers, including the equipment of anchor tenant AT&T at the top and space
for Washington County Government too.
This application submission is the result of forged partnerships between First Energy,
Diamond and AT&T wireless, along with AT&T's nationwide partnership to help the Federal
government build out the FirstNet communications network. FirstNet is first shared
interoperable public safety radio system from coast to coast. While building out FirstNet around
the United States, AT&T is also looking to help with FirstNet public safety coverage in the
greater Hagerstown area, including in the area of the existing Potomac Edison substation on
Hopewell Road. The site will also provide enhanced connectivity to AT&T's direct customer
base. As is well known and established, Maryland, Washington County and the greater
Hagerstown area often faces severe natural disaster/weather situations as well as general health
and safety emergencies
Based on the simple but crucial premise of providing essential public safety needs AT&T
is committed as the anchor tenant at the site. As noted above, the site will also serve all of
AT&T's customers who live, work and travel in this area of Washington County. This stellar
industrial/substation location will fill an existing AT&T coverage gap by providing enhanced
wireless connectivity to the area for essential, non -essential and emergency communications.
II. Application
Exhibits:
1. Completed and Signed Applications (Special Exception and Variance)
2. Statement of Justification evaluating required code standards
3. Application fees ($500 for Special Exception and $300 for Variances)
4. Radio Frequency (RF) Propagation Coverage Maps, Co -Location Rule Out report and
Stotler Neighboring AT&T Sites document
5. Notarized affidavit from property owner authorizing application
6. Affidavit reserving 10 foot space on tower for County use and other co -location
7. Name and mailing addresses of owners of land adjoining the subject property.
8. Civil engineering letter certifying structural integrity design of the tower/pole
9. Visuals- Photo Simulations and Aerial Maps of property/area
10. FAA Consultant's Report
11. A scaled plot plan (concept plan)- 9 copies
III. Statement of Applicant
The applicant's application, supporting materials, and projected testimony to be shared at
the County's Special Exception and Variance hearing will demonstrate that the request is
reasonable, appropriate, meets all Zoning code and other requirements. Not only will the
application meet all applicable laws, but also the communications tower will provide a positive
impact in the County via enhanced wireless communications. This positive impact will include
filing multiple needs in this area of Hagerstown, including AT&T's and First Net's wireless
coverage gap, as well as reserving a future spot on the tower for Washington County's
communications needs. By filling this wireless communications coverage gap the residents,
visitors, and businesses will have enhanced wireless connectivity for essential, non -essential and
emergency communications. It will also assist by continuing to shrink the digital divide that
exists in many areas of our Country and State by providing state of the art wireless broadband
services to the area. Additionally, it will provide essential FirstNet wireless services to the first
responder agencies that support the businesses, visitors and residents in this area of the County.
Applicable Code Sections for Review
Section 19.3. Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization after Public
Hearing)
(t) Commercial Communications Towers, subject to the requirements of
Section 4.22.
Reply: The proposed Commercial Communications Tower is permitted by Special Exception
per above sections.
Section 25.6 Limitations, Guides and Standards193
Where in these regulations certain powers are conferred upon the Board or the
approval of the Board is required before a permit may be issued, or the Board is called
upon to decide certain issues, the Board shall study the specific property involved, as
well as the neighborhood, and consider all testimony and data submitted and shall hear
any person desiring to speak for or against the issuance of the permit. However, the
application for a permit shall not be approved where the Board finds the proposed
building, addition, extension of building or use, sign, use or change of use would
adversely affect the public health, safety, security, morals or general welfare, or would
result in dangerous traffic conditions, or would jeopardize the lives or property ofpeople
living in the neighborhood. In deciding such matters, the Board shall consider any other
information germane to the case and shall give consideration to the following, as
applicable:
(a) The number ofpeople residing or working in the immediate area concerned
(b) The orderly growth of a community.
(c) Traffic conditions and facilities.
(d) The effect of such use upon the peaceful enjoyment ofpeople in their
homes.
(e) The conservation ofproperty values.
(f9 The effect of odors, dust, gas, smoke, fumes, vibrations, glare and noise
upon the use of surrounding property values.
(g) The most appropriate use of land and structure.
(h) Decision of the courts.
(i) The purpose ofthese regulations as setforth herein.
0) Type and kind ofstructures in the vicinity where public gatherings maybe
held such as schools, churches and the like.
Reply: As provided in this Statement and supporting materials attached, as well as
expected testimony to come at the public hearing, this application would not adversely affect the
public health, safety, security, morals or general welfare, or result in dangerous traffic
conditions, or would jeopardize the lives or property of people living in the neighborhood.
The application and use (Communication Tower) will be in harmony with the general
character of the neighborhood, considering population density, design, scale and bulk of any
proposed new structures, intensity and character of activity, traffic and parking conditions. The
subject property is a long established power substation (Potomac Edison, A First Energy
Company) that is located in a HI (Highway, Interchange) zone. A communication tower is quite
common and often located upon substation and other power company/utility properties. The
subject property and surrounding area have the existing utility right of way with long standing
power company towers/poles and high tension lines that provide power to the local businesses
and residences. As a result, the proposed commercial communications tower (monopole in this
case, like the current Potomac Edison infrastructure in the area) will blend in nicely with the
existing vertical Potomac Edison infrastructure in the vicinity as well as tall lights in this heavily
industriallconmiercial, due to its location, size and color. Please see the attached photo
simulation and aerial photos as reference (Ex. # 9).
The Use will not produce any material odors, dust, gas, smoke, fumes, vibrations, glare or
noise. The facility, upon completion of construction, is quiet, unmanned and passive. It
generates nearly no additional traffic, as it typically requires general maintenance visits by each
wireless provider to the site about every two months. One to two workers in an SUV type vehicle
generally perform the service. Any emergency outages at the facility would also result in a
service visits in order to rectify the outage.
The property is surrounded by other similar industrial and/or commercial uses and is
quite a distance from the nearest residential dwelling units. (Please see attached Aerial Map and
Photo Simulations as reference- Ex. # 9) and has some good existing tree and vegetative
screening in most directions from the substation property. Thus, it will not have a negative
impact on the peaceful enjoyment of residents in their homes. Instead, this communication tower
will provide a positive impact by providing enhanced, stellar wireless connectivity onsite for the
power company's needs and the public who work, drive and live around the facility to conduct
essential, non -essential and emergency communications. Statistics show that over eighty percent
of 911' calls are made from wireless devices versus landline telephones. Thus, the Use will
provide enhanced wireless communications to this area of Hagerstown.
Section 4.22 Commercial Communication Towers
The purpose oft/us section is to regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of commercial communications towers as defined in Article 28A (hereinafter
"towers') and commercial communications equipment as defined in Article 28A
(hereinafter "equipment'). It is the intent of these regulations to minimize the visual
impact of towers and equipment, to minimize the number of towers through shared use
' See the 9-1-I Association webpage at https://www.nenao,-2/paQe/91 I Statistics
and co -location, to encourage utilization oftechnological designs that will either
eliminate
or reduce the need for new towers to support equipment and to ensure that all towers
and equipment are compatible with surrounding land uses while assuring wireless
communications service to the citizens of Washington County.
Equipment proposed to be located on an existing tower or antenna support
structure as defined in Article 28A shall be allowed in any district provided that the
height from grade of the equipment shall not exceed the height from grade of the antenna
support structure by more than twenty (2 0) feet.
No permit to construct a tower may be issued unless the applicant demonstrates
to the Planning Commission, or where applicable, to the Board ofZoning Appeals, need
for the tower and that the applicant has exhausted all alternatives to constructing a
tower. Applicants are required to prove need by:
a. demonstrating via statement or other evidence that, in terms of location and
construction, there are no existing towers, buildings, elevated tanks or other
structures able to provide the antenna platform required
b. providing evidence, including coverage diagrams and technical reports,
demonstrating that co -location on existing sites is not technically possible in
order to serve the desired need
REPLY: The Applicant is locating at the long established Potomac Edison power
substation in Hagerstown on Hopewell Road. Applicant via its wireless anchor tenant AT&T has
shared radio frequency propagation maps, a Co -Location Rule Out report and Stotler
Neighboring AT&T Sites document (See Ex. #4) that the proposed location will fill a current
coverage gap in its system for its customers and that it was unable to fill this coverage gap by
locating upon existing infrastructure in the vicinity. In fact as the propagation map shows, the
proposed location at the Potomac Edison substation is essentially in the middle of AT&T's four
nearest existing and to be link up sites to the northwest (Huyett, 12062 Smithfield Farm Lane,
1.8 miles away), northeast (McSwain, 118 Hump Road, 1.45 miles away), south (Wilcox Dr.,
16907 Virginia Avenue, 1.43 miles and southeast (Hagerstown South, 18112 West Oak Ridge
Drive, 2.7 miles). Thus, the proposed location is like a donut hole in the middle of the existing
sites. The donut hole will be filled by this site filling the coverage gap and providing enhanced
wireless connectivity to the area. It will also fill a coverage gap for FirstNet public safety
customers. The current location was reached after significant time, discussions, efforts and
collaboration among many in order to produce this application, which will provide important and
needed enhanced wireless connectivity for the power company, businesses, residents and visitors
of the area.
A. Design requirements
In addition to the applicable requirements for a site plan as specified in Section
4.11, the applicant shall provide the following information as part of the site plan
submittal. These provisions shall apply to towers in all districts where permitted as a
principal permitted or special exception use::
1. Subject to a minimum setback of a distance equaling the total height of the
tower and equipment. The setback shall be measured from the base of the
tower to the boundary line of the property owned leased or controlled by
easement by the applicant.
REPLY: The Applicant meets this to the southeast (368 plus feet) and southwest (219
plus feet). Applicant is in need of a Variance to the northwest as it is 121'9 inches (thus needs a
variance of 73' 1 ft.) from property line and to the northeast as it is 57'9 inches from edge of
property (thus needs a variance of 137' 1 feet). Please see rationale supporting the variance
requests later in this document under the Variance section.
2. Subject to a minimum distance requirement of a distance equaling the height
of the tower and equipment plus 200 feet from the RT, RS, RU, RMand RV
districts or the nearest part of any existing dwelling, school, church, or
institution for human care, in any other district.
REPLY: The tower is greater than 399 feet from the nearest RT, RS, RU, RM and RV
districts or the nearest part of any existing dwelling, school, church, or
institution for human care, in any other district.
3. Subject to a minimum setback from all overhead transmission lines of a
distance equaling two times the height of the tower and equipment.
REPLY: Applicant is in need of a Variance as the setback to the Potomac Edison
overhead transmission lines in their substation is 64' 1 feet versus code requirement of two times
the height of the tower equipment (398 feet). Thus, Applicant is in need of a variance of 339' I
feet. Please see rationale supporting the variance requests later in this document under the
Variance section.
4. Subject to a height not to exceed 200 feet. Measurement of tower height
shall include the tower structure itself, the base pad, and any other
equipment attached thereto which extends more than twenty (20) feet over
the top of the tower structure itself. The tower height shall be measured from
grade.
REPLY: Applicant meets this requirement, as the proposed tower is 195 feet and even
with the lightning rod is at 199 feet, which technically does not count towards this specific
subsection regarding the setback and height.
5. Proposed towers shall meet the following minimum separation requirements
from existing towers or towers which have been issued a permit but are not
yet constructed.
10
(a) Monopole towers shall be separated from all other towers, whether
monopole, self-supporting lattice, or guyed, by a minimum ofseven
hundred and fifty (750) feet.
(b) Self-supporting lattice or guyed towers shall be separated from all other
self-supporting or guyed towers by a minimum offfteen hundred (1,500)
feet.
(c) Self-supporting lattice or guyed towers shall be separated from all
monopole towers by a minimum ofseven hundred and ffy (750) feet.
REPLY: Applicant is in compliance as the proposed monopole is over 750 feet from the
nearest tower, whether monopole, self-supporting lattice, or guyed
6. All towers shall be designed for co -location, which shall mean the ability of
the structure to allow for the placement of comparable equipment for other
carriers. An application for a tower shall be accompanied by an affidavit from
the applicant stating that one ten (10) foot space on the proposed tower will
be specifically reserved for use by the County, and that other spaces will be
made available to other future users, when possible.
REPLY: Applicant agrees to this requirement and has included an Affidavit noting such
a commitment.
7. Fencing shall be provided around the base of the tower and any associated
11
equipment buildings.
REPLY: Applicant agrees to this requirement. Please also see attached drawing plans,
page C-2 (Ex. # 11).
8. All sites shall be identified by means ofa sign no larger than two square feet
affixed to the fence identifying the entity using the site and shall provide the
telephone number ofa contact person in the event ofan emergency.
REPLY: Applicant agrees to this requirement.
9. Towers not requiring FAA painting or marking shall have an exterior finish
which enhances compatibility with adjacent land uses, as approved by the
Planning Commission or Board ofZoning Appeals. Towers shall not be
lighted unless specifically required by the FAA.
REPLY: Applicant agrees to this requirement. Per Applicant's FAA Consultant's report
(attached herein as Ex. # 10) FAA painting, marking or lighting is not required.
10. In order to protect the natural skyline, towers should be sited within areas of
mature vegetation and should be located down slope from ridge lines, and
toward the interior of the parcel whenever possible. Placement should only
be considered elsewhere on the property when valid technical data supplied
12
by the applicant indicates that there is no other suitable location.
REPLY: Applicant believes that this site meets the spirit and wording of this requirement
as much as possible as this is a very large and heavily developed industrial/commercial area with
a HI zoning classification. The subject property is a long established power company substation.
The location of the communications facility on the property is driven by the existing Dominion
Power use of the property as a substation and the corresponding substation infrastructure as well
as the overhead power lines and poles within the right of way as shown on our attached drawing
plans (Ex. # 11).
11. Towers proposed to be located within the Appalachian Trail corridor special
planning area as identified in the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the
County, any "AO" Antietam Overlay zoning district or "HP" Historic
Preservation zoning district shall utilize stealth technology as defined in
Article 28A to minimize visual impact.
REPLY: Not applicable. The location is not within the Appalachian Trail corridor special
planning area as identified in the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the County, any "AO"
Antietam Overlay zoning district or "HP" Historic Preservation zoning district. The site
is located in a HI zone in a long established Potomac Edison substation within a large and
developed industrial/commercial area.
12. (a) A Commercial Communication Tower that is out ofservicefor a
13
continuous six (6) month period will be deemed to have been
abandoned The Zoning Administrator may issue a Notice of
Abandonment to the Owner of the Tower that is deemed to be
abandoned. The Owner shall have the right to respond in writing to the
Notice ofAbandonment setting forth the reasons for operation difficulty
and providing a reasonable timeframe for correction action, within thirty
(30) days from the date of the Notice. The Administrator shall withdraw
the Notice ofAbandonment and notes the Owner that the Notice has
been withdrawn if the Owner provides information that demonstrates the
Tower has not been abandoned
(b) If the Tower is determined to be abandoned, the Owner of the Tower
shall remove the Tower and all related equipment at the Owner's sole
expensed within three (3) months of the Date ofNotice ofAbandonment.
If the Owner fails to remove the Tower and related equipment, the
Administrator may pursue legal action to have the Tower removed at the
Owner's expense.
REPLY: Applicant agrees to this requirement.
B. Additional Provisions for Towers Permitted by Special Exception
In addition to the limitations, guides and standards enumerated in Section 25.6,
the Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider the following provisions when considering a
14
request for a special exception for a commercial communications tower.
I. In those cases where a proposed tower is part ofa grid or network, the
applicant shall provide a map indicating the location of any existing or
proposed towers in the grid or network within Washington County and within
one (I) mile of the County boundary.
REPLY: Applicant, Diamond Communications, does not have any existing or proposed
towers in its grid or network in Washington County and within one (1) mile of the County
boundary.
2. The tower shall be compatible with and shall not adversely impact the
character and integrity of surrounding properties. Consideration shall be
given to the view shed associated with scenic and historic areas and to the
use ofstealth technology to minimize the visibility of the proposed tower.
REPLY: The tower is compatible with and will not adversely impact the character and
integrity of surrounding properties. Applicant is confident that this is the ideal type of siting
location and is encouraged by the County when new structures are needed and technically
feasible as it is in a large and heavily developed industrial/commercial area. Additionally, it is set
away a large distance from residential dwellings and located inside of a long-standing, existing
power company substation and similar in design to the existing power company poles and light
poles on subject property and property in the area.
15
3. The applicant shall submit a visual analysis which may include, photo
simulation, field mock-up, elevations or other visual or graphic illustrations to
determine visual impact. Consideration shall be given to views from public
areas as well as from private residences. The analysis shall assess the
cumulative impacts ofthe proposed facility and other existing and
foreseeable towers in the area, and shall identjfj and include all feasible
mitigation measures.
REPLY: Please see the attached photo simulations that the Applicant has commissioned
from around the area from multiple locations. The simulations provide a reasonable projection
of what the facility will look like upon construction from around the vicinity. In fact, the photos
provide additional support that the location is ideal and the new tower/pole will blend in very
nicely and appropriately, with the existing area that primarily consists of industrial properties
with many tall parking and security light poles, existing power lines with poles and the subject
property power company substation. The planned tower is a monopole structure similar in color
and height (albeit a bit taller in order to support the needs of AT&T and FirstNet's coverage gap
and future co -location of the County and other wireless providers) to the existing power poles.
4. The Board may include conditions on the site where the tower is to be
located fsuch conditions are necessary to preserve the character and
integrity of the area affected by the proposed tower and mitigate any
adverse impacts which arise in connection with approval of the special
16
exception.
REPLY: Applicant and its anchor tenant have worked diligently to find an appropriate
location and design and believes it has provided an ideal solution at this location in order to
provide enhanced wireless connectivity to this area of Washington County.
Section 25.56 Variances
A variance may be granted by the Board upon a showing of criteria ofpractical
difficulty or undue hardship described below respectively:
A. Practical Difficulty
1. Strict compliance would unreasonably prevent the use of the property
for a permitted purpose or render conformance unnecessarily burdensome;
REPLY: Applicant does contend that were it not to be permitted the requested variances
here that it would suffer a practical difficulty as strict compliance would unreasonably prevent
the use of the property for a permitted purpose or render conformance unnecessarily
burdensome. The HI zone does permit commercial communications towers. In fact, we believe
it is one of the most preferred County zones for such a structure. In addition, the subject property
is a long established Potomac Edison substation as the property was purchased back in 1974 per
Deed 00582/00511. Power company substations often hold industrial infrastructure including
17
towers and overhead lines with poles running through rights of way (as this location does). This
location is also in a very large and developed industrialcommercial area. Please see attached
aerial maps of the vicinity and photo simulations (Ex. # 9). The property's long established
power company substation infrastructure utilizes the majority of the property and has right of
way (ROW) running through the property with power lines running above ground along with a
long standing wooded area on the eastern edge of the property that all affect the property in a
most unique way. The power company property also has a bit of an odd shape, particularly
towards the southeast comer. Lastly, its uniqueness extends to the fact that it is in a heavily
established industrial area with significant distance to residential homes. The setback variances
being requested are the minimum needed in order to provide AT+T for its private customers and
for its partner, FirstNet to fill the existing wireless coverage gap in the area for its customers.
The setbacks being request includes one to the existing "overhead transmission lines" per section
4.22 A.3., that requires that a tower be set back two times the height of the tower. Well, that
certainly could not be met in this case since, as one would suspect the substation does have
power lines running through the location and the surrounding right of way. We believe the intent
of this code section is to protect power company's transmission lines when such a proposal
involves an offsite property encroaching upon its power company infrastructure and not when
the power company desires to put up a pole on its own property and follow all necessary and
required industry safety standard and practices. In this case, Potomac Edison is certainly
supportive of the variance request and will ensure all engineering and safety protocols are taken.
The other two setbacks are related to section 4.22 A. 1. that requires a minimum setback
equaling total height of the tower. While the Applicant meets the setbacks to the southeast and
southwest, it needs a variance for the distance to the northwest for 73'l" feet as it is 121'9" feet
18
from the property line and one for 137'1" feet to the northeast as it is 57'9" from that property
line direction. Again, for the above reasons we believe that, the variance is appropriate and strict
compliance would unreasonably prevent the use of the property for a permitted purpose or render
conformance unnecessarily burdensome. Additionally, the Applicant has provided a civil
engineering structural integrity letter certifying that the design of the tower/pole is such that in
the unlikely event of a failure, that is designed to crumple upon itself (as all telecom monopoles
are designed) and thus would remain on the Dominion Power property and thus have no material
impact to the offsite properties. See Ex. # 8.
2. Denying the variances would do substantial injustice to the applicant
and a lesser relaxation than that applied for would not give substantial
relief and
Yes, denial of the variances would do substantial injustice to the applicant and a lesser
relaxation than that applied for would not give substantial relief. The substantial injustice is that
Potomac Edison partner and applicant herein, Diamond Communications on behalf of its anchor
tenant, AT&T Wireless, would not be able to fill a coverage gap for its customers, nor be able to
provide enhanced wireless connectivity for the first national public safety system (FirstNet), that
provides interoperable wireless communications to first responders. It would also deprive
Washington County of a future communications location, as they have a location reserved along
with other future wireless co -locators who desire to provide enhanced connectivity to this area of
the County. The requested tower height is the minimum needed by AT&T and FirstNet to meet
19
the coverage needs of its customers and fill the current coverage gaps as shown on the attached
radio frequency propagation maps, which can be expounded upon via live testimony at the public
hearing.
3. Granting the variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and
secure public safety and welfare.
ReDly: Yes, granting the variance would absolutely observe the spirit of the Ordinance
and secure public safety and welfare. That is exactly what this application is focused on,
assisting the public safety and welfare by providing enhanced state of the art broadband wireless
communications to businesses, residences, first responders and visitors to this area of
Hagerstown. Additionally, not only will this application meet all applicable laws, but also the
communications tower/pole will provide a positive impact in the County. This positive impact
will include filing multiple needs in this area of Hagerstown, including AT&T's and First Net's
wireless coverage gap, as well as reserving a future spot on the tower for Washington County's
communications needs. By filling this wireless communications coverage gap the residents,
visitors, and businesses will have enhanced wireless connectivity for essential, non -essential and
emergency communications. It will also assist in helping shrink the digital divide that exists in
many areas of our Country and State by providing state of the art wireless broadband services.
Additionally, it will provide essential FirstNet wireless services to the first responder agencies
that support the businesses, visitors and residents in this area of the County. Finally, it is an ideal
location and design. The HI zone does permit commercial communications towers. In fact, we
believe it is one of the most preferred zones in the County for such a structure. The subject
N11
property is a long established Potomac Edison substation. Power company substations often hold
industrial infrastructure including towers and overhead lines and poles running through rights of
way (as this location does). This location is also in a very large and developed
industrial/commercial area that is a significant distance from residential dwellings.
SUMMARY
The applicant contends that per the attached application, supporting materials and
projected testimony to be shared at the County's Special Exception and Variance public review
process prove that the application is appropriate, reasonable and meets all of the County's
Zoning code criteria (including Special Exception general and specific standards for Commercial
Communication Towers and Variance code section regarding setback waivers requested). We
are confident that not only does this application meet the spirit and law for a Washington County
Special Exception and Variance request, as well as applicable State and Federal laws, that the
facility will provide a positive impact on the County by filing wireless coverage gaps in this area
of Hagerstown for AT&T FirstNet public safety customers and non-public safety customers.
Additionally, it is a site for future Washington County government communication needs and
other potential future wireless providers on the pole (below AT&T's antennas) and location. The
needs include filling AT&T's coverage gap by providing enhanced state of the art wireless
communications to its residents, visitors, government agencies and businesses for essential, non-
essential and emergency communications. Additionally, it will provide essential FirstNet
wireless services to all first responders in the area who can or will use FirstNet public safety
radio services.
21
If you have any questions or need anything further regarding this application, please
contact me at:
Miller, Miller & Canby
200-B Monroe Street
Rockville, MD 20850
301-762-5212
sphu es(a),mmcanbv.com
Thank you,
Sean P. Hughes
22
−1−
B EFORE THE B OARD OF A PPEALS
FOR W ASHINGTON C OUNTY , M ARYLAND
*
D IAMOND C OMMUNICATIONS , LLC * A ppeal No.: AP2020 -029
Appellant *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
O PINION
Diamond Communications, LLC (hereinafter “Appellant”) requests a special
exception to construct a 199 foot monopole commercial communication tower with
equipment shelter, a variance to reduce the minimum setback from 199 feet to 57 feet, 9
inches from the northeast property line, 121 feet, 9 inches from the northwest property
line, and a variance to reduce the setback from overhead transmission lines from 398 feet
to 64 feet, 1 inch at the subject property. The subject property is located at 11676 Hopewell
Road, Hagerstown, Maryland; is owned by Potomac Edison Co.; and is zoned Highway
Interchange, HI.
The Board held a public hearing on the matter on October 14, 2020.1 Appellant was
represented by Sean P. Hughes, Esq., Law Offices of Miller, Miller & Canby. All
witnesses provided testimony, under oath and on the record.
1 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person access and contact for public hearings has been limited, especially in
County buildings. The members of the Board of Appeals, counsel, staff, and the Appellant were the only persons
physically in attendance for the hearing. All other witnesses and the public at large were permitted to participate
by telephone/video. All notices for the hearing provided the information necessary to call in and/or participate
remotely and those who wished to participate were encouraged to make written submissions as well.
−2−
Findings of Fact
Based upon the testimony given, all information and evidence presented, and
upon a study of the specific property involved and the neighborhood in which it is
located, the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. Potomac Edison Co. owns the subject property located at 11676 Hopewell
Road, Hagerstown, Maryland. The property is zoned Highway Interchange, HI.
2. Appellant is the anticipated lessee of the subject property.
3. The subject property consists of a Potomac Edison Co. substation and
overhead transmission lines for electrical power.
4. Appellant proposes to construct a 195-foot monopole tower, with a 4-foot
lightning rod, for a total of 199 feet. The site would contain an equipment shelter and 50-
foot by 50-foot fenced area to secure access.
5. The proposed communications tower will provide coverage for service
gaps and for FirstNet to operate emergency communication services. The anchor tenant
will be AT&T, but capacity will be reserved for other communications providers and for
Washington County Emergency Response. It will be designed to deliver 5G service.
6. The site would be serviced approximately one (1) time every other month,
or about six (6) times per year.
7. Appellant has elected not to utilize the existing overhead transmission
poles because they are only 120 feet tall. Communications service requires more height
to be effective.
8. There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Rationale
Special Exception
−3−
The Board has authority to grant a special exception pursuant to Section 25.2(b) of
the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, Maryland. A special exception is defined
as “a grant of a specific use that would not be appropriate generally or without restriction;
and shall be based upon a finding that the use conforms to the plan and is compatible
with the existing neighborhood.” Article 28A. In the instant case, the subject property is
ideal for the proposed project. It is located in an industrial area, isolated and already
outfitted for the type of use proposed. There will be no gas, odor or light emissions, and
no dust, noise, or significant traffic to and from the property. The Board finds that the
proposed use at the subject property will have no greater “adverse effects above and
beyond those inherently associated with such a special exception use irrespective of its
location within the zone.” Schultz v. Pritts, 291 Md. 1, 15 (1981). For all these reasons, we
conclude that this appeal meets the criteria for a special exception and secures public
safety and welfare and upholds the spirit of the Ordinance.
Accordingly, the request for a special exception to establish a 199-foot monopole
commercial communication tower with equipment shelter at the subject property is
hereby GRANTED, by a vote of 5–0.
Variances
The Board has authority to grant a variance upon a showing of practical difficulty
or undue hardship. §§ 25.2(c) and 25.56.2 “Practical Difficulty” may be found by the Board
when: (1) strict compliance would unreasonably prevent the use of the property for a
permitted purpose or render conformance unnecessarily burdensome; and (2) denying
2 “When the terms unnecessary hardship (or one of its synonyms) and practical difficulties are framed
in the disjunctive (“or”), Maryland courts generally have applied the more restrictive hardship standard to
use variances, while applying the less restrictive practical difficulties standard to area variances because
use variances are viewed as more drastic departures from zoning requirements.” Belvoir Farms Homeowners
Ass'n, Inc. v. North, 355 Md. 259, 276 n.10 (1999) (citations omitted).
−4−
the variance would do substantial injustice to the applicant and a lesser relaxation than
that applied for would not give substantial relief; and (3) granting the variance would
observe the spirit of the Ordinance and secure public safety and welfare. § 25.56(A).
Practical difficulty and undue hardship are the result of a property being unique.
“’Uniqueness’ of a property for zoning purposes requires that the subject property have
an inherent characteristic not shared by other properties in the area, i.e., its sha pe,
topography, subsurface condition, environmental factors, historical significance, access
or non-access to navigable waters, practical restrictions imposed by abutting properties
(such as obstructions) or other similar restrictions.” North v. St. Mary's Cnty., 99 Md. App.
502, 514 (1994).)
Appellant explained that the setback requirements for overhead transmission lines
were likely intended to ensure that if a structure fell, it would clear said lines. In the
instant case, Appellant testified that the monopole is designed to crumple rather than fall
over. While there have been some instances of this happening in very extreme weather,
the tower will be constructed at the subject property to withstand the typical elements
encountered locally. There is little concern for the tower falling on the overhead
transmission lines adjacent to the site. Moreover, the entity which should be most
concerned with such a request is Potomac Edison Co., and they are in support of the
requests made herein. Consequently, the imposition of the setback unreasonably
prevents an otherwise reasonable used of the property and should be reduced.
Pursuant to the Ordinance requirements, the proposed tower must have a setback
equal to its height, in this case, 199 feet. This is specifically intended to give clearance
from nearby improvements should the structure fall. As has been stated, the risk of this
is very minimal based both on construction and design of the monopole tower. Imposing
this setback requirement without some relaxation would unreasonably prevent this
−5−
reasonable use of the property.
Appellant further testified, and the Board recognizes that the world of cellular
phone and wireless data usage is growing exponentially. Appellant provided statistics
that about sixty percent (60%) of all 911 emergency calls originate from a cellular phone.
To meet the needs of this growing market and to ensure consistent coverage and capacity
for users, Appellant is establishing towers like the one proposed in identified gap areas.
The proposed project meets a need of the community and enhances communication
services for the public; thus it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
Accordingly, the request for a variances to reduce the minimum setback from 199
feet to 57 feet, 9 inches from the northeast property line, 121 feet, 9 inches from the
northwest property line, and a variance to reduce the setback from overhead transmission
lines from 398 feet to 64 feet, 1 inch at the subject property are hereby GRANTED, by a
vote of 5-0. The application is granted upon the condition that the proposed use be
consistent with the testimony and evidence presented herein.
B OARD OF A PPEALS
By: Paul Fulk, Chair
Date Issued: November 12, 2020
Notice of Appeal Rights
Any party aggrieved by a final order of the Authority in a contested case, whether such decision
is affirmative or negative in form, is entitled to file a petition for judicial review of that order to
the Circuit Court for Washington County within thirty (30) days of the date of the order.
Ex. 3
APPLICATION FEES ($500 FOR
SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND $300
FOR VARIANCES)
Ex. 4
RADIO FREQUENCY (RF)
PROPAGATION COVERAGE
MAPS, CO -LOCATION RULE OUT
REPORT AND STOTLER
NEIGHBORING AT&T SITES
DOCUMENT
RF Justification
Site Name: STOTLER
Address: 11676 Hopewell Rd, Hagerstown MD 21740
(Washington County)
The main objective of this site is to add and enhance AT&T coverage near
Valley Mall along Hopewell Rd, Halfway Blvd, I-81 and the surrounding areas
between I-70 and SR 144.
The addition of this site will improve coverage including in -building coverage
in the commercial and residential areas along above routes and Valley Mall.
Currently, this area has weak AT&T coverage.
The Proposed site will also ensure overlap coverage, handoffs and off-load
traffic among existing AT&T Sites Wilcox DR, MCSWAIN and HUYETT,
Commuters and residents will experience better quality of voice and data
services from AT&T with the addition of the STOTLER site.
AT&T is proposing for 190' Rad Center for this site to meet its coverage and
capacity needs.
Prepared by:
Gaurav Behl
RF Engineer
Approved by:
Sandeep Gupta
RF Design Manager
AT&T Mobility
7150 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD
Tel: 410-712-7817
Fax: 410-712-7784
L. -
CU
co
teal
C')
4—
C
C1
D]
0)
CD
C -
DJ
0
C�
Ll
i
=y
e
0
r
r
1
.S
o I
0I'
C
X
AT&T Site Stotler Possible Co -Location Rule Outs
Below are locations that were identified as viable co -location options for AT&T
new site build search ring Stotler. Each of the below listed locations turned out to
not be a viable options because each of the landlords had no interested in a lease
agreement allowing AT&T to co -locate a cell tower at their rooftop site or on their
existing tower.
1 11411 Hopewell Rd, Hagerstown, MD 21740
Kent Nutrition Group
Hagerstown Plant
301-582-0400
The decision went to the parent company - Purina - that had no interest in
a lease for AT&T to co -locate on the property.
gerst wn,-----
T Ru-Out Letterfar Possible Collocations * AT&T Stotler • MDO51 Halfway Substation• 11676 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, MO
Pace, w�
YMrrn: N'" �
1 �
3. Eliot Parkway, Hagerstown, MD 21740
Washington County, Maryland
240-313-2072
330' Communications Tower ASR #1258441
Per a conversation with Mark May with Washington County that tower was
not open for cellular carriers to lease tower space. It's their main
emergency communications tower.
AT&T Rule -Out Letter for Possible Collocations • AT&T Stotler • MD051 Halfway Substation • 11616 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, MD
_!«_^
-
§E
CD
-
)�{�r
\
®
»:/2
]{(\e
c G
\\
e
J
if
`
\ `
e
§
<
.
°�
e
o
`
_
'
!.
*°
e .
/
Ft.
Ex. 5
NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FROM
PROPERTY OWNER
AUTHORIZING APPLICATION
Washington County'
DIVISION OF
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
PLAN REVIEW PERMITTING I ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
Washington County Building Code Board of Appeals
Owner's Representative Affidavit
This is to certify that DIAMOND COMMUNICAth 014 is authorized to file an appeal with the
Washington County Building Code Board of Appeals for A SPEQAL, t(CEpTTOa on property
located 114,14. tfODEuatM. RD µMfee Mb MAP 0046 URIO ODS
The said work is authorized by pO'1DSAi1C. FDIU,a a PARCEL- 0736 t•1el4140ORr1e0D
MM the property owner in fee.
Property Owner's Signature
Sworn and subscribed before me this day of \` 1k\ t, _ 20
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
Sara A. Batko
Notary Public
In and For the State of Ohio
MI'=aBBNssion Exfls
23 SWAmber 2023
Sworn and subscribed before me this 2 (day
My Commission Expires:
Revised:
80 WestDaltlmore Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 2
REAL ESTATE
Notary Public
• n' MICHELLE ZAKAUK
za aw. NOTARY PUBLIC dFFsEW JERSEY
a r, WooMM55K1NE7RNF5dt2/2023
e
W W W.WASHCO-MD.NET
Ex. 6
AFFIDAVIT RESERVING 10 FOOT
SPACE ON TOWER FOR COUNTY
USE AND OTHER CO -LOCATION
9/18/2020
Re: Diamond Communications Special Exception and
Variance Applications for Commercial
Communications Tower
Location: Diamond Comm. Site: Halfway Substation
11676 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, MD 21740
Potomac Edison Substation
This is to certify pursuant to City of Washington Zoning Code section 4.22A.6. that
Diamond Communication's proposed commercial communications tower facility will reserve a
ten (10) foot space on the proposed tower for use by the County (see drawing plan page C-3) and
that the other spaces will be made available to other future users, when possible.
If you need any additional information, please contact me at the number listed below.
Diamond Communications is committed to compliance with all government regulations and
standards.
Sincerely,
Scott Von D1gita"y51gnedby
Scott Von Rein
Rein Date:2020.09.18
Scott Von Rein - Dir of Site Dev 1129:11-0400 973-544-6834
Name & Title Signature Tele Number
Ex. 7
NAME AND MAILING ADDRESSES
OF OWNERS OF LAND
ADJOINING THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY
d
a
y
m
T
Z
Ia
V y
2
-
TI
N
a
a
o
N
N
❑
❑
OV
N
m
I-
C
C
3
3
W
L
O
u
uo
0C
w
w
≥
bO
a
i
o
O
N.-
n
n
N
a
OC
a
e
¢
N
0
m
m
O m
O
O
m w
a
ago
w
F
'¢
z
O
3
3
`
-
6
6
-J
.h
z
<
O
0
m
m
o.
LI,
m
l7
a
a
Z
�
N
0
v
o
v
m
E
p
.
o
0
O
t
Q
m
m
r
T
T
y
3
n
o
o. t
I
C c
o j
O
a
v t
a
No a
N a
a 0-
N.
en
VI
o
O•
m
in
o
O
O
25
a
e
N
N
N
ti
N
CO
S
N
o
Ex. 8
CIVIL ENGINEERING LETTER
CERTIFYING STRUCTURAL
INTEGRITY DESIGN OF THE
TOWER/POLE
Sa— rE IndustriEs
INNOVATION DELIVERED
September 21, 2020
Scott Von Rein
Director of Site Development
Diamond Communications
820 Morris Turnpike
Suite 104
Short Hills, NJ 07078
RE: Proposed 195' Monopole for Halfway Substation, MD
Dear Mr. Von Rein,
Upon receipt of order, we propose to design and supply the above referenced tower for a
Basic Wind Speed of 111 mph with no ice and 40 mph + 1" ice, Structure Class II, Exposure
Category C, and Topographic Category 1, in accordance with the Telecommunications
Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA-222-G, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting
Structures and Antennas".
When designed according to this standard, the wind pressures and steel strength capacities
include several safety factors, resulting in an overall minimum safety factor of 25%. Therefore,
it is highly unlikely that the monopole will fail structurally in a wind event where the design wind
speed is exceeded within the range of the built-in safety factors.
Should the wind speed increase beyond the capacity of the built-in safety factors, to the point
of failure of one or more structural elements, the most likely location of the failure would be
within the monopole shaft, above the base plate. Assuming that the wind pressure profile is
similar to that used to design the monopole, the monopole will buckle at the location of the
highest combined stress ratio within the monopole shaft. This is likely to result in the portion of
the monopole above leaning over and remaining in a permanently deformed condition. Please
note that this letter only applies to the above referenced monopole designed and manufactured
by Sabre Towers & Poles. This would effectively result in fall radius of 55' at ground level.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Beacom, P.E., S.E.
Engineering Supervisor
Ex. 9
VISUALS - PHOTO SIMULATIONS
AND AERIAL MAPS OF
PROPERTY/AREA
0
a
0
O
0 �y+
0
r
r
N.
0
0 >
U' r
zct
d "
0
CC
0
r
nl
O
O
a
a
a
a
a
o
A
0
b
ox
0
ro
M
O
O
LA
0
C
d
ZCID
0
r
N
O
O
LA
O
0
o x
+n
0
r
0
N
0
0
v
0
C
r
0
0
r
eli
m
z
m
70
O
CD
v
S.
ii
z
O
m
x
O
CD
m�
0)
Ex. 10
FAA CONSULTANT'S REPORT
rrrrswwrr********s**sssssrrrrrww*rr***r***sssrrrsrwr
Federal Airways & Airspace *
Summary Report: New Construction
Antenna Structure *
e**************r**ww*w**rrrr*w*********r***wrww
Airspace User: Sarah Schaaf
File: HALFWAY_SUB
Location: Hagers, MD
Latitude: 39°-38'-10.7" Longitude: 77°-46'-49.27"
SITE ELEVATION AMSL......497 ft.
STRUCTURE HEIGHT.........200 ft.
OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL......697 ft.
NOTICE CRITERIA
FAR 77.9(a): NNR (DNE 200 ft AGL)
FAR 77.9(b): NNR (DNE Notice Slope)
FAR 77.9(c): NNR (Not a Traverse Way)
FAR 77.9: NNR FAR 77.9 IFR Straight -In Notice Criteria for HGR
FAR 77.9: NNR (No Expected TERPS® impact MRB)
FAR 77.9(d): NNR (Off Airport Construction)
NR = Notice Required
NNR = Notice Not Required
PNR = Possible Notice Required (depends upon actual IFR procedure)
For new construction review Air Navigation Facilities at bottom
of this report.
Notice to the FAA is not required at the analyzed location and height for
slope, height or Straight -In procedures. Please review the 'Air Navigation'
section for notice requirements for offset IFR procedures and EML
OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS
FAR 77.17(a)(1):
DNE 499 ft AGL
FAR 77.17(a)(2):
DNE - Airport Surface
FAR 77.19(a):
DNE - Horizontal Surface
FAR 77.19(b):
DNE - Conical Surface
FAR 77.19(c):
DNE - Primary Surface
FAR 77.19(d):
DNE - Approach Surface
FAR 77.19(e):
DNE - Approach Transitional Surface
FAR 77.19(e):
DNE - Abeam Transitional Surface
VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: HGR: HAGERSTOWN RGNL-RICHARD A HE
Type: A RD: 28009.13 RE: 658.9
FAR 77.17(axl): DNE
FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Height No Greater Than 200 feet AGL.
VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE
VFR Conical Surface: DNE
Airspace Study-revised-MD051.txt[9/17/2020 11:39:34 AM]
VFR Primary Surface: DNE
VFR Approach Surface: DNE
VFR Transitional Surface: DNE
The structure is within VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area.
Structures exceeding the greater of 350' AAE, 77.17(a)(2), or VFR horizontal
and conical surfaces will receive a hazard determination from the FAA.
Maximum AMSL of Climb/Descent Area is 1053 feet.
VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: MRB: EASTERN WV RGNL/SHEPHERD FLD
Type: A RD: 99753.06 RE: 547
FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE
FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater Than 5.99 NM.
VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE
VFR Conical Surface: DNE
VFR Primary Surface: DNE
VFR Approach Surface: DNE
VFR Transitional Surface: DNE
TERPS DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (FAA Order 8260.3, Volume 4)
FAR 77.17(a)(3) Departure Surface Criteria (40:1)
DNE Departure Surface
MINIMUM OBSTACLE CLEARANCE ALTITUDE (MOCA)
FAR 77.17(a)(4) MOCA Altitude Enmute Criteria
The Maximum Height Permitted is 1800 ft AMSL
PRIVATE LANDING FACILITIES
FACIL BEARING RANGE DELTA ARP FAA
WENT TYP NAME To FACIL IN NM ELEVATION IFR
---- -- -------------------- ---- ---- -------- -
MD30 HEL CRAIG COMPANY 77.24 1.46 +69
No Impact to Private Landing Facility
Structure is beyond notice limit by 3871 feet.
7MD4 HEL VINAYAKA MISSIONS AMERICA UN 161.08 2.35 +119
No Impact to Private Landing Facility
Structure is beyond notice limit by 9279 feet.
5MD3 HEL MERITUS HOSPITAL 100.33 4.44 +119
No Impact to Private Landing Facility
Structure is beyond notice limit by 21978 feet.
AIR NAVIGATION ELECTRONIC FACILITIES
FAC ST DIST DELTA GRND APCH
IDNT TYPE AT FREQ VECTOR (ft) ELEVA ST LOCATION ANGLE BEAR
---- ---------- -- -- ---- --- ----- ------------ ------ --
HGR LOCALIZER 1 111.9 22.94 27767 +41 MD RWY 27 HAGERSTOWN .08 272
HGR ATCT I A/G 27.64 30237 -82 MD HAGERSTOWN REGION -.16
HGR CO Y A/G 316.44 30813 +135 MD HAGERSTOWN .25
HGR VOR R 109.8 316.55 30828 +134 MD HAGERSTOWN .25
MRB VORTAC R 112.1 191.84 93327 +97 W V MARTINSBURG .06
MRB RADAR 1 2735.214.49 106606 +60 WV EASTERN WV REGION .03
No Impact. This structure does not require Notice based upon EMI.
Airspace Study-revised-MD051.ea[9/17/2020 11:39:34 AM]
The studied location is within 20 NM of a Radar facility.
The calculated Radar Line -Of -Sight (LOS) distance is: 63 NM.
This location and height is within the Radar Line -Of -Sight.
THS VORTAC 1 115.0 336.15 118306 -1641 PA ST THOMAS -.79
FDK VOR R 109.0 125.65 140468 +394 MD FREDERICK .16
CFR Title 47, § 1.30000-§ 1.30004
AM STUDY NOT REQUIRED: Structure is not near a FCC licensed AM station.
Movement Method Proof as specified in §73.151(c) is not required.
Please review AM Station Report' for details.
Nearest AM Station: WHAG @ 4210 meters
Airspace® Summary Version 20.7.580
AIRSPACE® and TERN® are registered® trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace®
Copyright ® 1989-2020
09-17-2020
10:37:26
Airspace Study-revised-MD051.en[9/17/2020 11:39:34 AM)
Per the National Park Service, the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) must monitor and evaluate Certified
Local Government (CLG) performance. This Annual Report -- a requirement for participation in the
CLG program -- provides useful data to help develop training and support for CLGs, while charting the
success of the program. In addition to the Annual Report, MHT will conduct in-depth evaluations of
each CLG every four years.
For this Annual Report, please report only on activities for the 2020 federal fiscal year (October 1, 2019
through September 30, 2020). The FFY 2020 Annual Report is due on February 28, 2021.
Questions? Contact Nell Ziehl, Chief of MHT’s Office of Planning, Education and Outreach at
nell.ziehl@maryland.gov.
Introduction
Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report
* 1. Certified Local Government Name:
* 2. Contact First Name:
* 3. Contact Last Name:
* 4. Contact Telephone:
* 5. Contact Email:
1
Part 1: Program Changes
Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report
* 6. Has the Commission changed its designation criteria or adopted new criteria for designation?
Yes
No
7. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the change(s) here. You may cut and paste
language directly from the ordinance.
* 8. Has the Commission limited or expanded its ability to review archeological sites, cultural landscapes or
other non-architectural features?
Yes
No
9. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the change(s) here. You may cut and paste
language directly from the ordinance.
* 10. Has the Commission adopted or made substantial revisions to its design guidelines?
Yes
No
11. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the change(s) here and include a link to
your design guidelines.
2
* 12. Has the Commission created or made substantial changes to its local tax credit program?
Yes
No
13. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the tax credit program change(s) here
and include a link to your program information.
* 14. Has the Commission changed its member make-up or qualifications?
Yes
No
15. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the change(s) to the commission
requirements here.
16. Has the Commission made any other changes to its ordinance, program or procedures? Please describe.
3
Part 2: Summary of Activities/Design and Development Review
Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report
17. How many staff does your Commission have?
Alteration
Demolition
New Construction
18. Please enter the number of cases approved by your Commission. (Please do not include approvals given
due to expiration of time.)
Alteration
Demolition
New Construction
19. Please enter the number of cases denied by your Commission.
Alteration
Demolition
New Construction
20. Please enter the number of Commission decisions appealed.
Approved
Phase 1 Required
Phase 2 Required
21. If you conduct reviews for archaeological resources, please list the number of cases completed.
22. How many alterations, demolitions or new construction projects were approved at the staff level?
4
23. How many cases were automatically approved through expiration of time limit for review?
5
Part 2: Summary of Activities/Survey and Designation
Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report
24. How many National Register nominations did your Commission review?
25. How many new or revised Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) forms did your Commission
submit to MHT?
26. Were all the MIHP forms submitted by your Commission approved by MHT?
Yes
No
N/A
27. How many new or revised Maryland Archaeological Site Survey (MASS) forms did your Commission
submit to MHT?
28. Were all the MASS forms submitted by your Commission approved by MHT?
Yes
No
N/A
29. Please list any new local designations made during this fiscal year. In your answer, please include the
name of each designated site, property or district; the relevant MIHP or MASS number; and the number of
resources included in each designation.
6
30. Have you conducted survey or inventory work that did not result in MIHP or MASS forms? If so, please
describe.
31. What are your top three priorities for survey and/or designation in the coming year?
7
Part 2: Summary of Activities/Special Programs
Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report
* 32. How many historic properties were assisted through the local tax credit program? (If you do not have a
local tax credit, write “N/A.”)
* 33. How many projects involving historic properties were reviewed as a result of local government
undertakings (i.e., a “local Section 106” review)? (If you are not required to review local government
undertakings, write “N/A.”)
* 34. How many historic properties were assisted through local grant or loan programs? (If you do not have
local grant or loan programs, write “N/A.”)
* 35. How many historic properties were acquired, in whole or in part, by the local government?
8
Part 3: Commission Qualifications and Procedures
Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report
* 36. Please describe your Commission by listing each member (Last Name, First Name) and documented
area of interest.
If applicable, please also indicate if a member meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications
Standards by noting, for example, "SOI-Historic Architecture" or "SOI-Architectural History."
37. If you have vacancies, please list the type of vacancy (qualified or not) and the duration.
* 38. Please list the trainings and/or educational sessions attended by each member (Last Name, First Name)
in this fiscal year.
* 39. Number of meetings held:
* 40. How are regular meetings advertised?
* 41. How are special meetings advertised?
9
* 42. How are meeting minutes made available to the public?
* 43. How are the Commission's rules and procedures made available to the public?
10
Part 4: General Feedback
Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report
44. Please describe any great projects you completed or successes you achieved during this federal fiscal
year.
45. Please describe any major new projects or plans anticipated for the coming year.
46. Do you have any training or educational needs that are not met by existing offerings from the Maryland
Association of Historic District Commissions or the Maryland Historical Trust?
47. Please share any concerns, issues or additional comments you may have about the Certified Local
Government program or preservation in your jurisdiction.
11
Thank you for completing your Annual Report!
Please do not forget to email nell.ziehl@maryland.gov with:
• Maps showing newly designated properties
• Resumes of new Commission members
• Any other material you wish to share!
Thank You!
Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report
12