|
RESOLUTION A
RESOLUTION TO DENY SPECIAL EXCEPTION #SE03-CR-29 william and nelson martin, owners, at&t wireless, Applicant WHEREAS,
at&t Wireless has filed
a request for special exception, pursuant to Articles 5 and 11 of the
Fauquier County Zoning Ordinance, seeking to locate a telecommunications
tower on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, on
WHEREAS, written and oral comments regarding the location of the
proposed telecommunications tower were submitted to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the Board of
Supervisors that SE03-CR-29 be denied for the reasons set forth herein and
contained in the record; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors this 21st day
of July 2003, That Special Exception SE03-CR-29, at&t
wireless, Applicant, be, and is hereby, denied for the following
reasons: 1.
The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for a special
exception are not met in this application, the Commission finding that the
proposed facility will negatively impact the public health, safety and
welfare of residents of 2.
The proposed use will hinder and discourage the
appropriate development and use of adjacent land and impair the value of
adjacent land in violation of Sections 5-006, 11-101 and 11-102 of the
Zoning Ordinance. 3.
The proposed use will be incompatible with existing
or planned development in the general area and the Comprehensive Plan. 4.
The proposed use fails to comply with, and is not in
conformity with, the applicable standards of Article 5 and Article 11 of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. 5.
The property that is the subject of this special
exception request has available to it other existing reasonable permitted,
special exception and special permit uses. 6.
Other existing and potential locations are suitable
to serve the proposed use. 7.
The proposed use would negatively impact the scenic,
historical and cultural resources of the surrounding property and the
general area. 8.
That the proposed site, at the elevation proposed,
is not necessary in order to afford cellular service in the affected area. 9.
That suitable alternatives to afford cellular
coverage in the affected area exist or are feasible. |