We are opposed to the construction of the proposed 199’ communication tower at 419 Trinity Point Rd. We live at 4442 Morris Mill Rd. and our property is approximately ½ mile north of the location of the proposed tower. Our opposition to the tower is based on the following three concerns.

We selected our property and we positioned our house to enjoy the beautiful vista looking south and west toward the Allegheny Mountains as well as the Blue Ridge. If the cell tower is built in the proposed location it will be in the center of this amazing panorama and it will spoil the natural beauty of the scene.

Secondly, we oppose the tower because it will negatively impact the resale value of our home. Potential buyers looking for a property with a beautiful mountain view will prefer one that does not have a cell tower obstructing the view.

Finally, we use Verizon Wireless for our cell service and we have had no problems with coverage at our home. Based on this first hand experience, we feel it is questionable that an additional tower at this location is needed.

We hope that the Board of Zoning Appeals will consider our concerns in this matter.

Charles and Teresa Heaps

-We have reviewed the information for this agenda. The wording on each site map is blurred. It doesn't look like any show the proposed three mile coverage. How many families will this affect? We have been in other locations more than 3 miles south of us in which there is no cell service at all.
- I live on Trinity Point Road within a half mile of the proposed tower. When we purchased the property, we researched the accessibility of cell service. Our cell service and internet are both good. Verizon is our carrier.
- We live within a half mile of the proposed tower. It will be in full view as well. We purchased the property so that we could be enveloped in the beauty of the Shenandoah Valley and the hometown friendliness. We were able to see a tower in the distance. One at a distance is bearable. Two towers are not.
- Please reconsider a new location.
We are opposed.
Brett and Cheryl Haswell

The current site plan is not legible and magnification does nothing to improve the quality of the submitted document. Without the ability to review important details contained in the site plan I cannot supply a position other than "oppose" at this point. At present my property is located within 1/2 mile from the proposed cell tower property. My cell service is adequate for my needs, including telework via current cellular connection, so I'm not sure why the additional tower is needed in this location. The details of the plan are also silent to some information that would be valuable to include the need for service from public utilities (i.e., power, water, etc.) and the location of any easements. It also does not specify, if required, whether any such utilities will be above ground or subsurface. These details would be good to know and help in deciding if the project will add to the visual detraction due to additional visible infrastructure.

Per 25-68.3. I request County employ telecommunications consultant to determine: right of necessity for cellular communications in an area already serviced for 4G by ATT and Verizon. I sstrongly object that the proposed tower (approximately 2100 feet from my residence) will adversely impact to pastoral view for which we bought in 2005 and dimishing of my property value. Further per Part C 1-24: does County telecommunications consultant certify the no existing facility or alternative structure can be utilized to reasonably achieve the applicant's radio frequency objectives. Provide a detailed topographic map of existing cellular propagation coverage, alternative tower locations and missing coverage areas, with written discussion and documentation and why rejected, all within 3 mile radius of proposed tower site; propagation prediction and coverage objective from a committed carrier including hand-off; identify first communication service provider; written statement that tower and support structures will not be lighted; color photo renditions of how proposed structure would appear from closest residence (NOT Brown owned property) and the viewshed from Trinity Point Road; compliance with NEPA including posting of bond to remove abandoned structure. As an immediate adjoining property owner, I have not received First Class mail notification from Zoning Administrator of this tower application. I further object until full compliance with County ordinances. William C. Woodland Jr

My wife and I live at 300 Trinity Point Rd in Swoope. It's come to our attention that a 199' telecommunications tower is being considered for installation on the Brown farm which adjoins our property. Our house will only be 1/4 mile or less from the installation site.
We have several concerns that we would like to address -
1) Health Standpoint - We have a handicapped daughter who has a pacemaker. When researching the affects of a cell tower on a pacemaker, there does seem to be a chance it could adversely affect her pacemaker. When our daughter's health is possibly at stake we do not want to take a chance.
2) Property Value - We built our home here primarily because of the unobstructed view of the mountains. This tower will be directly in front of our house destroying our view of Elliot's Knob and the Alleghany Mountains. We contacted our real estate agent, Rhonda Ritchie, and she said a cell tower would definitely bring down our resale value. It has been her experience that cell towers and power lines make properties harder to sell.
3) Why this Location? - Fiber optic cable (Lingo Services) has been installed throughout the Swoope and Churchville area. We have 2 other cell towers within sight between West View and Staunton. We are Verizon customers and have good cell reception and a good internet connection.
In conclusion, we are strongly opposed to this tower installation and hope that our concerns are considered.
Thank you,
Thomas G. and Ginger G. Mace