Board of Supervisors delays decision on Parklawn cell tower
 |
| AT&T representative Ed Donohue testifies before the Board of Supervisors. |
Following a Fairfax County Board of Supervisors hearing on the
Parklawn cell tower Sept. 10 in which 34 people testified, the board approved a
motion by Mason Supervisor Penny Gross to postpone a decision until Sept. 24.
Parklawn cell tower Sept. 10 in which 34 people testified, the board approved a
motion by Mason Supervisor Penny Gross to postpone a decision until Sept. 24.
Gross noted the “unusual situation” with regard to the cell tower proposed for a site owned by the Parklawn Recreation Association (PRA): The Fairfax County Planning
Commission had endorsed the cell tower, determining it fits in with the county’s
Comprehensive Plan, while the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) had rejected a special
permit exception to allow it on PRA property because it’s not harmonious with
the character of the neighborhood.
Commission had endorsed the cell tower, determining it fits in with the county’s
Comprehensive Plan, while the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) had rejected a special
permit exception to allow it on PRA property because it’s not harmonious with
the character of the neighborhood.
If the Board of Supervisors rejects the cell tower at its
next meeting, a cell tower for this particular location is dead. If the board approves it, the applicant, which
represents AT&T has indicated it will appeal the BZA decision to the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. AT&T can also resubmit the proposal to the BZA.
Board members had few questions at the Sept. 10 hearing. Gross
asked the AT&T representative, Ed Donohue, whether he considered other
locations, such as Peace Lutheran Church or Queen of Apostles Church. Donohue
said those locations were considered but won’t work.
asked the AT&T representative, Ed Donohue, whether he considered other
locations, such as Peace Lutheran Church or Queen of Apostles Church. Donohue
said those locations were considered but won’t work.
Gerald Hyland (Mount Vernon) asked whether AT&T had
considered other locations on PRA property where the tower would be less visually
intrusive. Donohue said other sites were rejected because too
many trees would have to be removed and much of the property is a flood plain
or resource protection area.
considered other locations on PRA property where the tower would be less visually
intrusive. Donohue said other sites were rejected because too
many trees would have to be removed and much of the property is a flood plain
or resource protection area.
Among the people who testified, 22 urged the board to approve
the cell tower, while 12 opposed it.
the cell tower, while 12 opposed it.
Many of those who spoke raised the same issues they
presented at previous meetings. Most of those in favor of the cell tower live
in the Heywood Glen neighborhood. They spoke about poor cell coverage, the
safety risks of being unable to access emergency services, and the value of
keeping the Parklawn pool as a community asset. The income generated by a cell
tower would allow the pool to be financially stable.
presented at previous meetings. Most of those in favor of the cell tower live
in the Heywood Glen neighborhood. They spoke about poor cell coverage, the
safety risks of being unable to access emergency services, and the value of
keeping the Parklawn pool as a community asset. The income generated by a cell
tower would allow the pool to be financially stable.
Those opposed talked about the visual impact of the cell tower
and its harm to property values. The
tower “will destroy the character of the neighborhood,” said Linda Barrett, who
lives next door to the proposed site. She noted that many of the people
speaking in favor of the tower are members of the pool but don’t live in
Parklawn. “The pool is only open 90 days a year. I live here 365 days a year.”
and its harm to property values. The
tower “will destroy the character of the neighborhood,” said Linda Barrett, who
lives next door to the proposed site. She noted that many of the people
speaking in favor of the tower are members of the pool but don’t live in
Parklawn. “The pool is only open 90 days a year. I live here 365 days a year.”
Sybil Laird, who lives close to the proposed site, isn’t
bothered by aesthetics. “Utility poles and wires are even more intrusive and we
don’t give them a second thought,” she said.
bothered by aesthetics. “Utility poles and wires are even more intrusive and we
don’t give them a second thought,” she said.
Several people said the cell tower is needed because there’s
no cell coverage on Homes Run Trail and people can’t access emergency services
if there’s a crime or accident. But some of those opposed said they have phone
logs showing there is adequate coverage.
no cell coverage on Homes Run Trail and people can’t access emergency services
if there’s a crime or accident. But some of those opposed said they have phone
logs showing there is adequate coverage.
4 responses to “Board of Supervisors delays decision on Parklawn cell tower”
Leave a reply
I heard from a reliable source there is a study from England that says 90% of people will do harm to another person for money. They proved it with showing them the money.
This cell tower case shows who of you all are in that 90% , you may feel good about being in the majority.
the majority of people will hurt other people for money.
this cell tower is an example of that
yes the reliable source can be verified by God
money , money, money money money money…. I heard it this weekend and it connected with this , too bad no one else was at 1030 to hear it
dispicable… what people will do or say
lots of lies and mis testimonies I hear…. stuff about lack of cell phone connections from 10 years ago , but they didnt mention that in their testimony
I guess that is not a lie , right … if it happened 10 years ago then it it is a fact today that there was no connection for a cell phone call 10 yrs ago
people are at a new low these days